Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-1997 Planning PacketPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 19,1997,7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Richard Flint ATTENDANCE Applicants presenting proposals before the Commission are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced by the Chairman. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS 1. 7:00 p.m. <5^165 City of Orono - Preliminary Subdivision North of Tonkaview Lane PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ZONING AMENDMENTS 2.Telecommunications Ordinance - Establishing regulations for antenna towers and locations. 3.Home Occupations - Amending definition and performance standards for home occupations. ACTION ITEMS - Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 4.#2182 Herbert Terry Olson, 3640 Bayside Road - Variance and Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing 5.#2221 Sven A. Wasberg and Arlene De Candia, 3115 North Shore Drive - Variances/CondUional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing 6.#2230 Georgina Hackney, 2184 Shadywood Road - Variance - Public Hearing 7.#2231 Evan Anderson, 1260 Spruce Place - Variances - Public Hearing 8.#2232 Woodsmith, Ltd., 1520 Fox Street - Variances - Public Hearing 9.#2233 Walter Holzer, 1130 North Shore Drive West - Variances - Public Hearing 10.#2234 Douglas E. Waldoch, 4215 North Shore Drive - Variance - Public Hearing 11.#2235 Martin B. Schneider, 2180 North Shore Drive - Conditional Use Permit Amendment -Public Hearing PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MONDAY, MAY 19,1997 - 7:00 P.M. 12. #2236 William H. Bockmann, 1090 Loma Linda Avenue - Variance - Public Hearing 13. #2237 Jim and Roxanne Stasik, 1270 Wildhurst Trail - Variance - Public Hearing 14. #2238 Chic Dwight and Fred Guttormson, 1220 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Public Hearing 15. #2241 Kyle Hunt and Partners, Inc., 1185 Femdale Road West - Variance - Public Hearing SKETCH PLANS 16. #2239 Jim Waters, LGA Investment Group, Inc., Wildhurst Trail - Subdivision/Sketch Plan Review 17. #2240 Jim Waters, LGA Investment Group, Inc., Wildhurst Trail - Subdivision/Sketch Plan Review PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 18. Report by Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings of April 28, 1997 and May 12,1997. 19. Other issues for discussion. 20. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the April 21,1997 meeting. 21 . Planning Commission to select representatives to attend the Council meetings of May 26, 1997 and June 9,1997. ADJOURNMENT »> Public Attendance Meeting D ate /^, /9 ^^ □□ C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other Please fill our the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. iV NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER \ 2.____ "7^/v JV- -AW. f(dh^ yiii v> \‘^v ^daAa T</^-(aiv> QfcA •T 4bro 7. l/\Q>gce[U(^^o 8.1676 Lof/4 f=^/^ ft O,. csU. 4i^/ fcvug.<^ ^/<34 ________ 10. ^ (L^\^LL iT^'jC) I lLl! /iLu'l^'^\L<X 5>2-3 o 7 11. _ 12. _ 13. _ 14. _ 15. _ •9U9S.4 To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:May 16, 1997 Subject:#2165 City of Orono, "4730" Tonkaview Lane - Metes & Bounds Class I Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 Acre, Sewered Application: Subdivision to separate a half-acre tax parcel from the 9.2 acre tax forfeit Saga Hill Park parcel. The half-acre parcel is intended for future acquisition by adjacent property owners, as previously indicated by the City Council. The City Council has requested that this subdivision be completed so that the City can release the half-acre parcel to the County separately from the remaining park parcel. Lut of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Area Site Map, Including Park Properties F - Council Minutes 11/28/94 G - Moorse Letter 12/28/94 and Resolution #3511 Discussion The City is in the process of acquiring a 9.2 acre tax forfeit parcel formerly owned by Mr. and Mrs. Valek of 4720 Tonkaview Lane. When this parcel went tax forfeit, due to a number of circumstances surrounding the nature of the forfeiture and the historic use by the Valeks for yard and drainage purposes of a small portion of the total parcel. City Council agreed in principle to allow for the eventual re-acquisition of a one-half acre tract by the Valeks. The current subdivision would separate for tax purposes such a half-acre parcel, which would for the time being remain under City control but which could be released to the County for sale to adjacent owners at the time the City chooses to do so. Such transfer would likely occur in conjunction with a future lot line rearrangement suggested by the Valeks involving their homestead parcel and properties to the immediate west along Tonkaview Lane. Such subdivision would ultimately result in one additional building site on Tonkaview Lane. The currently proposed metes and bounds division does not affect access to the Saga Hill Park area, and appears to follow the intent of the City Council as noted in Exhibits F and G.. B rjT- L Zoning File #2165 May 16, 1997 Page 2 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed metes and bounds subdivision to separate a half- acre parcel for potential future acquisition by adjacent property owners. Options for Action i 1. 2. 3. 4. Approve per staff recommendation. Table for further information. Recommend denial (state reasons). Other. •s r • I- • • 1* V *^ir ----------- w O i Application # /C- .L O <iJ Date Received z&, ML Amount Paid AIM A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION „ Siteaddress AMhB Property Identification Number (PID) 3-3 OOP I Please check one - Property V abstract or____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Nam e C^xrV C/tZot^iO A'TTtJ . ______ Address P. O. ^ C^-_______________________Phone (home) ~ Citv /^AJ Zip5S323Phone(work) V'7^-'7^r P OWNER (if ^ffprent than applicant) Nam Ad City It than applicant) . \ 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 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units vX 4ie-/B Other (specify) MACJ^T" PROPOSAL A_________Division for Tax Purposes , _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) _________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites ^ Existing Units O New Units C> Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres —- Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land _____Residential ^ _Other (specify) C^\rY MINIMUM MAI ERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. Completed application form. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. v^. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you must obtain this list fiom Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). v^. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official’s Signature________________________________________ Date_____________________________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official’s Signature________________________________________ Date____________________ 1. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator tc check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $250.00 * Subdivision of a Lot Line RearrangementJiiO^O ^ Subdivision Application (Class I & II)^3So!^^^ ______ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) ______ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 ______ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Class III, Preliminaiy Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) Totals B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineaI ft.; _ lin. ft. X .50 = $_ lin. ft. X .50 = $ ____ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 ______ _____ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub ______ _____ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub ______ ______ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 ______ _____ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x_____new lots ______ C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) ______ _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 ______ _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit _______ The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information require^r requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council nectary to proce^fus application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. ^ z-;* ^ W \ *7 Lp Applicant’s Signature Owner's Signature _ Dat^ 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. r wuc la; fMk 1 . I t;» i« ClAP *1? 1's1 1ll ir iRA9SCH IM) M f 917. «• NM*0«’i4« fi 09)iSllTOfsKA'' ..,/ « I Tti.u 4Wfarn't ».o*X.0? 7MT cr Kan u« w4:4•l^ •«;» u: * (2A) ■ •aaaaavaaaaaavaatfV*** ^«*«9t*««aaa*«aa* ■ > Base a*»"a*B*»*a"a*a***»^a*a*«*«*-*a*B^a"B*»"B^*a"a *»^a"**a*«%*^ •*#*•*#*•*%* a *a*«*ir^*a'V<*#* *a*a* * *a* *•*»*•* *a*»^a* *«*» aaaaaaMBBaaaaaaa • ■ a ■ ^ ^ a • aa*«r«aaaaaaaB^ac«BB'atf aaaaaaa aa • a *^a aaaaaaatfaa •aaaaaamaaiaaa aBaaaaaaaaaaa«B«aa««aa J (2)E (V I (O g (5)R J;:** aatf«a€aaaai«aaaaaBvaca aaaaaBvacaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaVaatf^aaaaBflaaaaavaa «••«aa«aaBVa8aaa«aaaBB«a aaaaaaaa* aaaa«aaaa a a a a V *B*a*'a%*a*a*a*a*a*a*a* • ' a*a* a* a"**a*B*a:*a^« aa^BBvaaaaa* »aaaaaa*raa aaaa«aaa*a*aaaaaaaaaaa a*a«aaaaa* •a*aa«a.aaaa« mm^^m ^ (2i; lt4 X ¥W*r/(»»a :!» 1 «L^ S *a***a'a***a* •** * **a** * • * '*«*a*a%*a*a ~ *«*•* * * *a*a* * *** *a* *<^a"«*a*a%" Mi^aaaaaaaaaa «aaaaaBsaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaa# a_« a a a aaaatfaaaaaaaaaar««Baaa laaaaaaaaaaaa^aaaBBaaaa aaaaaBaaaaaaa*aaaa*#aai :xxs<;v;: a*I*I*a*!\“I*I*a*I*a*.*.*a*I*!\^S"«\^a*i —'I S| S'* j* 8l4 ' 03) a a a a a a a 'X »r*ie- 'a«aaaa«aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaai [•aaaa#aaa*aaaavaaaaaaa• aaat a aaa«* •aaa*««aaaai •a«**a>aaaaaaaaaa laaaa iV4 aaaa' araaaaaaiaaaaaaa^• aama.. •aaaaaa«aaaaaaaa<o • a a^t «*aaaaaaaaaa#aaaa^ ... / (ID / _?r4? ^m^ofOFr (ID I (3) y c* « (25) k" T!D5?KAV25i! «AC OOC « T/i*€Vi • <at.» f?7) " \\ \ \r^i.sj I SARIDESSS *oa.j7 mmMh - 07-/0-23-32. (^4) j4/_5 / ■••;* ."• I-, »aa t tttfttt 'na«r ’tti - ■ . •• •• a*f fW ♦ ••» • — - •. RUN SATE 07/24/H BATCH 507PROP AODR (MCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR ; r;. PROP AODR (»tCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AODR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AODR OMCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY atlERS UST REPORT NO. PIA3540I PAGE IS58 07-117-25 22 0007 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO BARBARA SOLLNER-NEBB BARBARA SOUNER-NEBB 17200 HELBOURNE DR UUREL HD 20707 58 07-117-25 22 0017 0A755 NEST BRANCH RO B A V VAN SLOUN BRUCE P A VIRVE L VAN SLOUN 12809 FOREST HEAOOH OR HZNNETONKA HM 55505 50 07-117-25 25 0005 01070 NORTH SHORE DR H THOHAS G KIENER ETAL THOHAS 6 HIENER 1070 NORTH SHORE DRIVE H HOUND MN 55564 58 07-117-25 25 0006 01150 NORTH SHORE DR H HALTER HOLZER ET AL HALTER HOLZER 1150 NORTH SHORE OR N HOUND rtl 55564 38 07-117-25 25 0011 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HAROLD 6 CANT RALPH HINTON PAUCR 4750 TOMCAVIEN LA HOUND HN 55564 raOP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 58 07-117-25 25 0019 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED BARBARA SOLLNER-NEBB BARBARA SOLLNER-NEBB 17200 HELBOURNE OR LAUREL HD 20707 58 07-117-23 22 000800058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO BARBARA SOLLNER-NEBB BARBARA SOLLNER-NEBB 17200 HELBOURNE OR • laurel HD 20707 58 07-117-23 22 0013 00950 NORTH SHORE DR N KATHLEEN POLLOCK KATHLEEN POLLOCK 950 NORTH SHORE DR H HOUND HN 55364 ’ « • ■ 't ' '■ ■ ^ 1 58 07-117-23 23 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HErtSPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CaTVEVANCE PEWING CITY RESOLUTION fSSll-ALSO: HENN CONSERVATION EASEHENT 38 07-117-23 23 0002 01068 NORTH SHORE OR N D A K VON BANK DUANE A KATHLEEN VON DANK 1060 NORTH SHORE DR H HOUND It4 55564 38 07-117-23 23 0004 01100 NORTH SHORE DR H BRIAN E PETERSON BRIAN E PETERSON 1100 NORTH SHORE DR N HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-25 25 0005 01120 NORTH SHORE DR N J A LEZER A J C LEZER JAY A LEZER 1120 NORTH SHORE OR NEST HOUND HN 55364 ■'1 38 07-117-23 25 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO FAIRVIEH COVENANT CH FAIRVIEH COVENANT CHURCH 1175 COUNTY RO 19 HOUND FM 55364 38 07-117-23 23 0010 0003B ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STEVEN F VALEK STEVEN VALEK BOX 386 SPRING PARK HN 55384 38 07-117-23 23 0012 04750 TOMUVIEH LA HAROLD 6 CANT RALPH HINTON PALHER 4750 TONKAVIEH HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 23 0013 04760 T0N(AV1EH LA FAIRVIEH COVENANT CHURCH FAIRVIEH COVENANT CHURCH 1175 CO RO 19 HOUND rtl 55364 38 07-117-23 23 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO O LARRY LEE ATTN^AC^ PAYABLE (Ichkfi. QUnO MIOHAYxNATlONAL BANK Q U 1578/UN^ERSITY AVE 55104ST/WUL MN 38 07-117-23 23 0021 00038 ADDRESS UU^IGNEO 0 LARRY L ATTN PAYABLE HIOHAY NATIONAL BANK 1578 UNIVERSITY AVE ST PAUL rtl 55104 0 f • RUN HATE 07/S4/H HEtMEPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY QMNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PAGE 19BATCH 507 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 3B 07-117-23 23 0022 00030 ADDRESS UNASSXGNED attn^S k^payadle (}lX^ ^ MZDNAY n^ONAL BANK f] 1578 IMXyERSITY AVE ^ ST m 5510^ 38 D7-117-23 23 0023 00038t\ ADWESS UNASSXGNED 0 LARRY ATTN ACCW PAYABLE ^ MXDNAY NffoONAL BANK U /] 1578 DNmRSITY AVE ST PAUL/KN 5510^ QjJtbrs^ 38 07-117-23 23 0024 00960 NORTH SHORE OR N PAUL t ALMA NARNER PAUL A ALMA NARNER 980 N SHORE DR N HOUND HN 55364 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 23 0025 01181 NXLDHURST TR ARNOLD M SOSKXN ARNOLD M SOSKXN 802 EDGEMOOR DR HOPKINS NN 55305 38 07-117-23 23 0026 04720 TONKAVIEN LA STEVEN F VALEK STEVEN F VALEK BOX 386 SPRING PARK MN 55384 38 07-117-23 23 0027 04765 TONKAVIEN U D A A P E AFFELOT DNI6HT A PATRICIA AFFELOT 4765 TONKAVIEN LA MOUND MN 55364 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 32 0003 04725 TONKAVIEN LA EAT CHRISTIAr^ON EARL A TERRY CHRISTIANSON 4641 TONKA VIEN LANE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0004 04735 TONKAVIEN LA 0 H A J K STANLEY DAVID M A JULIE M STANLEY 4735 TONKAVIEN LA ORONO MN* 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0029 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DENNIS A MEYER DENNIS A MEYER 4680 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 32 0045 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED J D DOLEZAL A J A ROSTAD J D DOLEZAL A J A ROSTAD 4650 TONKA VIEN LA HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0047 04690 TONKAVIEN LA HAS BULL NILLIAM A BULL 4690 TONKAVIEN LA MOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0057 04755 TONKAVIEN LA LELANO S MARTINEAU ET AL LELANO A PATRICIA MARTINEAU 4755 TONKAVIEN LANE MOUND NN 55364 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 507 00030 t . fci fiaintfiiaari M. — I ■ n> I rr> i m ■ ~ m rwi n«i i • i COUtZS^ ^ m id fjei^ " y V. '1^« • Tio RTe? n 1^ ■ ■ J|=£• V Itfrlffh •S!sL», t*r7^ • jV- • l\ ». • • ^ \ MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 28,1994 ROLL The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Edward Callahan, Jr., Council Members JoEllen Hum, Gabriel Jabbour, and Charles Kelle>'. J. Diann Goetten was absent. Representing Stall were City Administrator, Ron Moorse; Public Worl'a Director, John Gwhardson; City Attorn^, Tom Barnett; Building and Zoning Administrator, Jeanne Mabusth; Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator, Michael Ga&on; City Engineer, Glen Cook, and Recorder, Sherry Frost. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.ra. OATH OF OFFICE - PART-TIME POLICE OFFICERS Pan-Time Police Officer Neil Melton was sworn in as a police officer for the City of Orono by City Administrator, Ron Moorse. Melton was introduced to the Mayor and Council Members. (*#1) CONSENT AGENDA Items #5, 7, 12, and 13 were added to the Consent Agenda. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes 4, Navs 0. INFORiMATION DISCUSSION - SAGA HILL TAX IORFEIT PROPERTY Callahan reported that the City has an opportunity to acquire the Saga Hill ta,x forfeit property from the County. A resolution to that fact was passed at the last Council meeting. Mayor Callahan indicated the Council, at its November 14 meeting, directed Staff to move ahead to acquire the property' at no cost to the City’. The meeting \vzs to allow the three parties interested in this property to voice their interest in the property'. They are (1) Mr. and Mrs. Valek, (2) Bridgewood Corporation, the developer ot a proposed subdivision, and (3) the Saga Hill Preservation Society', a neighborhood group. h- I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 28. 1994 (Saga Hill Tax Forfeit Property - Continued) Steven Valek reported that he was the original owner of the tax forfeit parcel and when he sold the land to a developer, a lot-line rearrangement was to have been done to allow them to expand their rear yard. The developer lost the land and the rearrangeinent along with h. It was never thdr intent to sell all of the land. Valek said he was denied the ricbt to reclaim the property as a result of the tax forfeiture. Valek asked the Countv to self to them approximately a half-acre to relieve some hardship due to flooding. Without use of the property and the ability to maintain the drainage system, his property will flood. The County has recently agreed to approve his request and Valek is now asl^g for City- approval. Valek said this acquisition will not interfere with the rest of the land. Moorse said the County is looking at expanding the area which is no-,v a pond. Even if the Valek’s acquire the requested property, an easement would be granted to the County. Callahan indicated he understood the acquisition of the tax forfeit parcel was an all-or- nothing proposition. Moorse said that although this was true, the County' will allow the Valek’s to buy a portion of the property. This was worked out over the past two weeks. The Bridgewood Corporation is in the planning process of developing a 2S-lot subdivision over a 30 acre area, which is proposed to include the 9 acre tax forfeit parcel. Mr. Kryzaniak of Bridgewood said their company is sensitive to the environmental issues and the need for parkland. Bridgewood's proposal is to trade two acres of w-etland and seven acres east of the tax forfeit parcel, the Soskin property- for the tax forfeit parcel. Kryzaniak said the topography of the parcel is flatter and more suited to a residential development. Another representative of Bridgewood reported on the layout of the development plan. He commented that the Soskin property is hilly , with a wetland area, trees, and a ravine, and would be good park land. It would be their intent to enlarge the wetland for runoff and construct swales to maintain proper drainage. He also noted an access if the Soskin property were to become a park, it would have very good access from Wlldhurst. Also, the existing planed right-of-way is now located next to a swale, and Bridgewood considered this not to be a good location for a road. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\* COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 28. 1994 (Saga H3I Tax Forfeit Property - Continued) iabbour was concerned with the property being for public use, and yet, by a trade, the City would, in his opimon, become an agent for the developer. The Bridgewood representative said they would not develop if the City keeps the tax forfeh parcel as there are too many environmental issues in developing the Soskin property. Council members said thty could not be concerned with the end result of the developer but only the good of the public where this land is corKemed. Hurr noted that this acquisition was resoK’ed in January of 1994. and no negotiations have been done with the Council by Bridgewood on this property. The Saga Hill Preservation Society was represented by Patricia Afieldt and Irene Silber. Their purpose was to see that the City acquire the 9.5 acre parcel for public use, remind the Council of the City's own development policies, arui ask the City to assign the Park Commission to study Saga Hill. The Committee related the history of the area and noted an access available to the parcel through a church property. The Orono Park Survey was brought to the Council’s attention. The survey showed the public’s concern with preserving more natural land and passive park areas. 62% of those surveyed said they would support higher taxes for nature preserves even though the nuqority of those polled noted the amount of their real estate ta.xes was their biggest concern, The Preserv ’ation Society said they were not opposed to development but were opposed to development of environmentally sensitive areas which they deem Saga Hill to be. The Orono Management Plan was quoted as saying the preservation of Lake Minnetonka was the guiding principle of the City. The Preservation Society feels any development of Saga Hill would affect the lake. They also noted that the Orono Planning Policies indicate that rural development should be screened for environmental sensitivity. It was commented by the Preservation Society that they approve of the Valek's obtaining the one-half acre of additional land for their property. Access to the property was discussed. A 15' alley easement from the south of the property which could be used as a walking path. This path goes through the Valek’s property. Hurr asked the Valek's if they would be willing to move the easement to the side of their property, and the Valek’s said they would consider this proposal. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER. 28. 1994 (Saga H31 Tax Forfeit Property - Continued) Moorsc reported that the potential development talks between the City and Bridgewood occurred at the same time as the tax fbrfint parcel was under conaderadoo for acquisition. Staffs thinking during discussions whh Bridgewood was that if there was to be residential development in the area, it is wise to see where the best location would be for a park. It made sense to keep all options open in terms of parkland vs. residential development. Moorse said some kind of land swap might be a viable ahemative if the CouncU feels the area should have some t>pe of residential development. Kelley said he is a supporter of parkland and feels it is best to preserve land where we can. Hurr also voiced her support of parkland. Hurt also supported the Valek’s in their effort to add the additional one-half acre to their property and would like to see the easement access moved to the side of the Valek property. Mayor Callahan asked whether any additional action needed to be taken by the Council. Moorse said a new resolution would need to be adopted. Callahan commented that all concerned feel the Valek’s should acquire the specified land. He noted the need to be sensitive to properr>* owners with land to be developed in that area. It was his opinion that the Park and Planning Commissions be involved in the study of a plan for the area. The other Council members did not feel a study \vas necessary at this time, only the acquisition of the parcel. During discussion, several neighbors in the Saga Hill area repressed their views on favoring the land as parkland. Callahan moved, Hurr seconded, to reaffirm the acquisition of 9.5 acres by the City, working with the County and the Valek's on the appropriate land amount to be adjoined to the Valek property, and obtaining an easement fi'om the Valek's to have access to the parcel. Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF AnNTJTES (*#2) MEETING OF CANVASSING BOARD NOVEMBER 9, 1994 labour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Canvassing Board Meeting held on November 9, 1994. Ayes 4, Nays 0. (»#3) REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1994 Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of November 14, 1994. Ayes 4, Nays 0. ^”^5•0 1 o r\ l<. o^. Vi\«.vsj Lcxv^e. O\rori0| IfVA NJ NOV 2 2 1994 ((c»5i) t^M3^ Kjc M «iTiTe <" I m*- Ro m O C.iV>^ Ov-or^o Ot*onjc , M S^^^'S’Cc D on I r\ci P +hp\ C.CI * c. ^\r\A ervc.lose.ol +Ke_ cte s.e=.t~\p+i o n o p^pce-^ ^Ko V.NJ' e. c.Kar\0es ^ boijkiTNctt' ^ Kowvje. V“e«|joe <2- d 'Cr' o >nr\ \"4enAc.p\v^ doutO "^vj QlTV d d’Ke. o P' O'^O'^c. A: ■Vk v\i 4-k C. I Kctvj «a- c -Vno . r-\ d' Sc. u. toyg- <alo o ol 4-k uo i 4-k C_ O V-i O K o .s agreed lu.4 ' o r\ •^‘o rrv C-o n ^-.1. P W p U.S I rN C5 r rrv e Ji r «^^c» rd \ r\^ 4K\S rv\ c^4t«s. r*. A o c e , CC:Cy^Or\e? C.\4'^ dovArse\\ O^'orso 34a P- iHfVemVjers Ov*or\o tV\o.'k\l n r\ e p ( n d ocxo 1 It I c. CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkwr/ Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-C365 December 28, 1994 M. J Berry Tax Processing Section Supervisor Department of Property Tax and Public Records A-607 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0067 Dear Mr. Berry: Enclosed is a resolution adopted by the Orono City Council and an application requesting acquisition of a tax forfeit parcel (P.I.D. No. 07-117-23 23 0001) at no cost to tbe ct^ for oublic use It is the city’s understanding that the County is in agreement that a one-half acre portion of this property may be divided off to be acquired by the Valeks. This property is adjacent to the tax forfeit parcel. It is also the citv’s understanding that the details of this transaction are yet to be worked out and that the city 'wUl play a role in finalizing these detaUs. The city is supportive of addressing the Valeks’ problem, as long as the city’s ownership of the remamder of the parcel is not affected. If you have any questions regarding the resolution or the application, please call me. Sincerely, Ronald J. Moorse City Administrator Enclosures Telephone (612) 473«7357 • FAX 473-0510 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 5 11_____ REQUESTING CONVEYANCE OF TAX FORFEIT LANDS FOR PUBLIC USE BY THE CITY OF ORONO \^T^EREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Stamte 282, the City has received from Hennepin County a list of lands within the City which have become the property of the State of Minnesota for non-payment of real estate taxes: and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said lands for compliance with local zoning ordinances, for the amount of outstanding special assessment remaining unpaid to the City, and/or for possible public use by the City as authorized by the statutes. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 282.01, Subdivision 1, hereby applies to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and to the Commissioner of Revenue for conveyance of the following tax forfeited land to the City for public use by the City of Orono. District 38 PARCEL RETAINED FOR USE BY THE CITY pj.D, Public Purpose 07-117-23 23 0001 Open Space Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December 12______1994, by a vote of 3 ayes and q nays. NniMei»«»r i).1 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commissioneis Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 15, 1997 SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendments re: Telecommunications Background:i This issue was on the April 21,1997, Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to May 19,1997, to allow for the City Attorney to advise the Planning Commission on this matter. His memo is included in the attachments with this report. Representatives from the industry have raised concerns about the proposed ordinance and ha%e indicated that they would participate in a work session with the Planning Commission and City Council, if desired. Staff Recommendation: To amend or approve the attached resolution. * a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORONO’S ZONING CODE BY ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND PLACEMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS The City Council =he City of Orono ordains; Section 1. That Section 10.02 "Definitions" of the Orono City Code is hereby amended by adding subsections (5A) "Antenna", (5B) "Antenna Support Structure", (5C) "Antenna Tower", and (S6B) "Secondary Use" and amending (54) "Public Services" to read as follows: (5A) Antenna. Any of the below described uses requiring an antenna shall be subject to the regulations of this Code: (i)Antenna. Personal Wireless Service. A device consisting of a metal, carbon fiber, or other electromagnetically conducive rods of elements, usually arranged in a circular array on a single supporting pole or other structure, and used for the transmission and reception of wireless communication radio waves including cellular, personal communication service (PCS), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging and similar services and including the support structure thereof. Antenna. Radio and Television Receiving. A wire, set of wires, metal or carbon fiber element(s), other than satellite dish aiitennas, used to receive radio, television, or electromagnetic waves, and including the supporting structure thereof (iii)Antenna. Satellite Dish . A device incorporating a reflective surface that is solid, open mesh or bar configured and is in the shape of a shallow dish, cone, horn, or cornucopia. Such device is used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and/or orbitally based uses. This definition shall include, but not be limited to, what are commonly referred to as satellite earth stations, TVROs (television, receive only) and satellite microwave antennas and support structure thereof (iv)Antenna. Short-Wave Radio Transmitting and Receiving. A wire, set of wires or a device, consisting of a metal, carbon fiber, or other electromagnetically conductive element used for the transmission and reception of radio waves used for short-wave radio communications, and including the supporting structure thereof 1 (SB) Antenna Support Structure. Any building or other structure other than a tower which can be used for location of antennas. (5C) Antenna Tower. A self-supporting lattice, guyed or monopole structure constructed from grade which supports personal wireless sti-vice antennas. (54)Public Services. Underground or overhead gas, electrical, steam or water transmission or distribution systems, collection, communication, supply or disposal systems including poles, wires, mains, drains, sewers, pipes, conduits, cables, fire alarm boxes, traffic signals, hydrants or other similar equipment and accessories in conjunction therewith; but not including buildings or major structures located above ground level. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. (S6B) Secondary Use. A use of land or of a building or a portion thereof which is subordinate to and does not constitute the primary use of the land or building. Section 2. That Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 17, Essential Services, of the above-entitled ordinance be amended to read as follows: Subd. 17. This Zoning Chapter shall require a permit for all structures including utility poles and right-of-w'ays which are an integral part of a system for public transportation as for transmitting powder, water, heat, communications, gj’s or sewage by any public utility. The Council shall grant a conditional use permit only after a showing that the public safety, health and welfare will not be harmed by the essential services. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered essential services. Section 3. That Section 10.20, R-IA, One Family Residential District, Subd. 3 (D), of the above-entitled ordinance be amended to read as follows: D.Public Service Structures. Public service structures, including but not limited to, electric transmission lines, buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure regulating stations, wells, and plumbing stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power substations, provided no building shall be located within 50' from any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of service structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located and thus will promote the general welfare. Public service structures as defined above that have been approved by the City at required public hearings for public improvements projects shall not require a conditional use permit but such structures shall be subject to all other appropriate standards : set forth in this section; amendments to approved plans involving design and/or placement of these structures will require written notice by the City to all affected property owners 14 days prior to the adoption of the amended plans by the Council. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. Section 4. That Section 10.20, R-1 A, One Family Residential District, Subd. 3 of the above- entitled ordinance be amended by deleting (K) and (M) as follows: fe------Antenna Structures. One independent antenna stnieturc with antenna or combinati on of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to and aetvi eing the principal use o r stnieturc o n the same let and custo marily incidental thereto that is net attached to anther structure provid ed the height of the antenna structure dees net ex ceed 6 5 feet and the antenna structure is set back fro m any-let-line a distance at least 'equal-to -the-total height of the antenna structure. M:-----Antenna Structures. One independent antenna structure with antenna o r combinati o n of antenna attached thereto, subor dinate to and servicing the prineiptd use o r structure on the same lo t and customarily incidental thereto that is no t attached to anther structure pro %‘ided the height o f the antenna structure docs net exceed 6 ^ feet and the antenna structure is se Section 5. That Section 10.20, R-1 A, One Family Residential District, Subd. 4 of the above- entitled ordinance be amended by deleting (H) to read as follows: H:------Antenna: - Any antenna o r combinati on of antenna rigidly attached to the principal o r acccssoiy structure provided that no ne of the foregoing exceeds the total height allo wed in Section 10.75; Section 6. That Section 10.20, R-1 A, One Family Residential District, Subd. 4, (H), of the above-entitled ordinance be amended by adding a new subsection (H) to read as follows: H. Communication Reception/Transmission Devices of the Orono City Code is hereby added to read as follows: (1) Accessory Antennas. Accessory Antennas shall be limited to radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVROs, and amateur short-wave radio transmitting and receiving antennas. Accessory Antennas that are accessory to the principal use of property are permitted accessory uses in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: ■TJT.lfTrT- •. ^ h. (a) Height. A ground mounted accessory antenna shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height from ground level. (b) Yards. Accessory antennas shall not be located within the required front yard setback, comer side yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street. Roofs. If vegetation or obstructions interfere with satellite signals at a location in any allowable placement area, the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any authorized structure on the premises. Accessory antennas shall not be located within a required yard or setback area or within drainage or utility easements. Antenna towers shall be set back from adjacent property lines a horizontal distance no less than the maximum height of the antenna. Building Permits. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any accessory antenna requiring a conditional use permit. Building permit applications shall be accompanied by a site plan and structural component data for the accessory antenna, including details of anchoring. The Building Official must approve the plans before installation. Lightning Protection. Each accessory antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Orono. Electrical Code. Accessory antenna electrical equipment and connections shall be designed and installed in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Orono. (h) Color/Content. Accessory antennas shall be of a neutral color and shall not be used as signage. Amateur Short-Wave Radio Antennas and Towers which do not meet the conditions for accessory antennas, may be allowed vith a conditional use permit in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: (a) Height. When an amateur short-wave radio antenna is mounted on an antenna tower, the total height of the antenna and tower shall not exceed 55 feet. (b) Yards. Amateur short-wave radio antennas and towers shall not be located within a front, comer side or side yard. Setbacks. Amateur short-wave radio antennas and tow'ers shall not be located within any required setback area and shall be located no less than the height of the antenna and tower from the property line. Section 7. That Section 10.28, RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District, Subd. 2, Permitted Uses, of the above-entitled ordinance be amended by adding a new subsection (B) to read as follows: B. Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to establish predictable, balanced regulations for the siting and screening of wireless communication equipment in order to accommodate the growth of wireless communication systems within the City of Orono while protecting the public against any adverse impacts on the City's aesthetic resources and the public welfare. Personal Wireless Service Antennas. Personal wireless service antennas erected on a municipal structure may be allowed as a secondary use by administrative permit, provided they comply with the city policy regarding the use of city-owned property for wireless telecommunication antennas and provided they meet the following conditions: (a) The antenna shall be in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. Structural design, mounting and installation of the antenna shall be in compliance with manufacturer's specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. (c) No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna. (i) (d) Antennas shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to protect the public's health and safety. (e) When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna shall be accompanied by any required federal, state, or local agency licenses. Transmitting, receiving, and switching equipment shall be housed within the existing structure. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, it shall be situated in the rear yard of the principal use and shall be screened from view by landscaping. All obsolete and unused antennas shall be removed within twelve (12) months of cessation of operation at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the City Administrator or designate. The removal shall be the responsibility of the communication provider. Antennas shall utilize camouflaging techniques or shall be side mounted to an antenna support structure in order that such facilities are compatible with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis prepared by a registered professional engineer that the location of the antennas as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency spacing needs of the personal wireless service system and to provide adequate portable personal wireless service coverage and capacity to the area. Section 8. That Section 10.40, B-1, Retail Sales Business District, Subd. 3 of the above entitled ordinance be amended to read as follows: F.Public Services. Public service structures, including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines and buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Personal wireless service and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. L • rr----rn Hr ir ■AntenHO. Any aatenna of combination of antenna rigidly attached to the prmcipfll or ttcccssoiy stHictufc provided thot none of the foregoing exceeds' the total height allowed in Section 10.75. Antcrum Stmetufe. Owe independent owtcftHa stnicturc, with BHtcHim of eembination of antenna attached thereto, subordinate te and aervie ing the principal me or otnietufe on the same lot and ctwtemarily incidental thereto that ia not attached to another stweture provided the height of the antenna atnictufc dees not exceed 65 feet and the antenna stnicturc ia act back from any lot line a distance at least equal to the total height ef the antenna atmetufe. H. Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to establish predictable, balanced regulations for the siting and screening of wireless communication equipment in order to accommodate the growth of wireless communication systems within the City of Orono while protecting the public against any adverse impacts on the City’s aesthetic resources and the public welfare. Personal Wireless Service Antennas. Personal wireless service antennas erected on a mimicipal structure may be allowed as a secondary use by administrative permit, provided they comply with the city policy regarding the use of city-owned property for wireless telecommunication antennas and provided they meet the following conditions; (a) The antenna shall be in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. Structural design, mounting and installation of the antenna shall be in compliance with manufacturer’s specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. (c) No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna. (d) Antennas shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to protect the public’s health and safety. I t ‘f When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna shall be accompanied by any required federal, state, or local agency licenses. Transmitting, receiving, and switching equipment shall be housed within the existing structure. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, it shall be situated in the rear yard of the principal use and shall be screened from view by landscaping. All obsolete and unused antennas shall be removed within twelve (12) months of cessation of operation at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the City Administrator or designate. The removal shall be the responsibility of the communication provider. Antennas shall utilize camouflaging techniques or shall be side mounted to an antenna support structure in order that such facilities are compatible with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. (i)The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a CON erage/interference analysis and capacity analysis prepared by a registered professional engineer that the location of the antennas as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency spacing needs of the personal Nvireless service system and to provide adequate portable personal wireless service coverage and capacity to the area. Section 9. That Section 10.43, B-4, Office and Professional Business District, Subd. 4 (J), Public Services, of the above-entitled ordinance to be amended to read as follows: J.Public Services. Public service structures, including, but not limited to, electrical transmission lines and buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered essential services. Section 10. That Section 10.44, B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District, Subd. 4 (C), Public Service Structures, of the above-entitled ordinance to be amended to read as follows: 8 1 c.Public Service Structures. Public service structures, including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines in buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered essential ser\aces. Section 11. That Section 10.50, I, Industrial District, Subd. 3, of the above-entitled ordinance to be amended by deleting subsection (B) to read as follows: B:------Antenna Structure. One independent antenna structure with ant enna or combination of antenna a tta ched thereto, subordinat e to and servicing the ■incipal use or structure on the same let and customarily incidental thereto that is net atta ched to another structure provided the height of the antenna structufc docs not exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure is set back from any let line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure. Section 12. That Section 10.75, Height of Structures, Subd. 1, of the above-entitled ordinance be amended and realphabetized to read as follows: Subd. 1. Special Provisions. The height limitations imposed by other provisions of this Chapter may be increased by conditional use permit by 50 percent when applied to the following structures: A:------Antenna or antenna structures. BrA. CrB. BC. £tD. FrE. GtF. ihG. FH. FI. fcj. FtK. MtL. NM. Church spires. Belfries. Cupolas and domes which do not contain useable space. Monuments. Water towers. Fire and hose towers. Observation towers. Flag poles. Chimneys. Smokestacks. Parapet walls extending not more than three feet above height of the building. Cooling towers. Elevator penthouses. r RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Zoning District:Personal Wireless Antenna (PCS) Radio and Television Receiving Antenna Satellite Dish Antenna Short-Wave Radio Transmitting and Receiving Antenna R-IA Not Allowed Permitted if accessory to the principal structure Permitted if accessory to the principal structure Permitted if accessory to the permitted structure; C.U.P. otherwise R-IB II If I* LR-IA t|l|••fl LR-IB M If li LR-IC t«f<n LR-lC-1 •1 •I RR-IA II h •i •• RR-IB Secondary' Use on Municipal Structuie by Administrative Permit II ** RR-lB-1 !•n n RS Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTPJAL DISTRICTS Zoning District:Personal Wireless Antenna (PCS) Radio and Television Receiving Antenna Satellite Dish Antenna Short-Wave Radio Transmitting and Receiving Antenna B-1 Secondary Use on Municipal Structure by Administrative Permit Permitted if accessory to the principal structure Permitted if accessor)’ to the principal structure Permitted if accessory to the permitted structure; C.U.P. otherwise B-2 ti tl t«h B-3 ti •H 9» B-4 H f»P B-5 li f«It ft B-6 »•*ft I 1*H p . i i « •fv\muk6 -fro r> H- q-? ^urv\mA««Y T&Ucomm. Aef 4fo^« So<Mi)9l< Land CISC' • i CoaKfiOn So /f.t / •« ?3- V « .■ m t*' •flr.-T -A’’- ..»' ‘*^1•’n-C' .*•* 4.-^^ •>. *• . X • W • .'■* • V. *: >-v V' , .1. • .‘*V... A •• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 21,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, William Stoddard, and Lili McMillan. The following represented the City Staff: Assistant Zoning and Planning Administrator Michael Gafih’on, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jab^ur and Council Member Goetten were present. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#1) 7:00 PJVl TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE - 7:00-7:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Van Zomeren reported that the proposed telecommunications ordinance was amended from discussions held at the Mat ch Planning Commission Meeting. Antennas structures were deleted fi-om the ordinance. The policy was codified to allow PCS on municipal water towers. This would limit the use to the two existing water towers, one near the City offices and the other in Navarre. Van Zomeren said she understood that the maximum distance antennas may be located is 4 miles which is the distance between these two water towers. She also noted that antennas can be co-located on the same tower. A maximum of three providers can co-locate on one tower with antennas placed at different heights. Van Zomeren indicated if problems occur due to these locations in the future, the issue can be revisited at that time. Antennas are further defined within the amendment specifying PCS, radio receivers, and ham radio antennas. The public service antenna description did not include PCS. Van Zomeren brought attention to the conditions noted on pages 3 and 4 of the memo regarding setbacks and color compatibility. She indicated the language of the ordinance was reviewed with a consultant. Van Zomeren said drafts of the ordinance were faxed to interested parties. During public conunents, Tom Alexander, attorney for Larkin, Hoffinan, and representing APT (American Portable Telecommumcations), reported having attended the prior meeting and reiterated what he saw to be the issues. He is of the belief the ordinance would restrict instead of expand the Telecommunications Act. He said the removal of the conditional use prohibits towers from being built by placement of antennas only on the two existing water towers. Alexander believes the restriction is illegal under the Telecommunications Act. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HEL D ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#1 - Telecommunications Ordinance - Continued) Alexander said the City could expect a challenge to their ordinance if the towers prove area inadequate due to structure capability, height, overcrowding, and coverage. This would result in the need for additional antenna sites to provide service. Alexander said he would provide the specific proviaons in a follow-up comment letter. Lindquist later asked that this comment letter be sent in a timely manner. Alexander indicated another method couid be to create incentives for the telecommunication companies to use the water towers. He suggested the antennas be a permitted use with administrative permission or subject to conditional use in different districts (industrial, commercial, etc.) and performance standards instead of prohibhing them altogether. He noted the minimum height required is 75'. It costs $150,000 to $250,000 to construct a tower which the compames will avoid if locations for antennas can be found on existing structures. Alexander informed Lindquist that co-location can occur if the newest provider conducts an interference analysis. He indicated the horizontal separation between antennas must be 20-25'. He indicated his company prefers co-location whenever possible subject to a lease. He asked who the consultant was that assisted with the ordinance review. Van Zomeren reported the consultant was John Dubois. Van Zomeren reported that City Attorney Radio has indicated the ordinance is reasonable and provides for the Chy to be covered. He had noted that it is not clear what the FCC allows or disallows. Alexander argued that if the water towers are not suitable to the needs of the PCS, it would render the ordinance as prohibitive. Smith asked if the need for additional antenna locations from that allowed by the proposed ordinance currently exists or if the concern regards possible future needs. Alexander felt It affects the current condition and future. He noted the company is unaware of what sites will be used, but the restriction on the tower could possible place the service in jeopardy. Alexander said APT is currently in Phase I of implementation, and Orono is in Phase 2. He indicated the criteria that must be met includes 1) radio frequency, 2) coverage, 3) linkage with sites, i.e. leaseability, space availability, structural adequacy, and 4) land being buildable for antennas and towers. Lindquist noted that the law is ever-chan^g regarding this new technology. Alexander responded that the 1996 Telecommunications Act provides for the needs. Cities are told to act quickly, moratoriums are allowed, but must be timely, and the service cannot be prohibited. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21,1997 (#1 - Telecommunications Ordinance - Continued) Dave Hagen and Ron Gunderson were present representing Sprint PCS. Hagen asked that his agreement with Alexander's comments be on the record r^arding the City's violation of the Telecommunications Act. He said the ordinance would have the effect of prohibiting antennas. Hagen indicated his company has an interest in locating on the City's water tower on Kelley Parkway. He is concerned with the present zoning of RR-IB. The water tower is not currently in the B-1 zoning as required by the ordinance. Without the proper zoiung, Hagen said they could not locate th^ antenna on this water. Approval also requires administrative approval. Hagen said he feels the City will be challenged regarding their ordinance. Alexander also noted that if two antennas were on one tower and heavily used, two towers would be inadequate, and addition^ ates may be needed. He offered his assistance with drafting an ordinance and providing copies of other drafts. Lindquist indicated the City's needs are different from that of the PCS complies. Lindquist said he would like to see a response regarding the ordinance in writing from City Attorney Radio. Hawn questioned whether the 4-mile separation is adequate to provide the service, Hagen and Alexander indicated the possibility and noted the requirements necess^^'y. Smith noted there are other water towers located in nearby communities that may service Oronoaswell. Hagen agreed. Alexander stud they not yet made that determination. Hagen said he believes the residents of Orono wom service. Schroeder noted the City is attempting to accommodate the need for service. He indicated flexibility was important. Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to table the ordinance to allow the City consultant to respond to the questions raised regarding provision of reasonable service and receipt of written review by the City Attorney. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. ACTION ITEMS (#2) #2201 GEORGE ADAMS, JAMES FIEGER, S.T. ROBB, JR., 570,580,590 AND 600 BIG ISLAND - VACATION OR USE OF UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF- WAY - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:30-7:47 P.M. The Applicants were present. I ........» SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES April 30. 1997 JAMES J. THOMSON KENNEDY & GRAVEN 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneanolis MN 55402 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 The foIIo\\ing outline presents issues and applications of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The following areas are covered: 1) Overv iew of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 2) Moratorium issues; 3) Reported cases since the enactment of the 1996 Act. I.Overview of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 A) Introduction The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104-104, S.652, 104th Cong., 2nd Sess., Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 56 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.T ("Act") amends and repeals portions of the 1934 Act. The purpose of the 1996 Act is: to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. The Act addresses seven main areas: Title I Telecommunication Services Title II Broadcast Services Title III Cable Services Title IV Regulatory Reform Title V Obscenity and Violence Title VI Effect on Other Laws Title VII Miscellaneous Provisions Two sections of the 1996 Act are particularly relevant to land use issues: 1)Title I, § 253 of the Act (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 253), which deals with removal of barriers to entry and management of public rights of way. and Title VII, § 704 of the Act (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 332), which deals with facilities siting and the preservation of local zoning authority. These two sections have been at the heart of the tension between municipal authority to regulate wireless communications and the right of wireless communications providers to conduct business under the Act. Salient portions of each Title of the Act are identified in the following outline. X Title I - Telecommunication Services Part II of Title I addresses Development of Competitive Markets. Sections of particular interest address Interconnectivity (§§ 251, 256), Removal of Barriers to Entry and proceedings thereunder (§§ 253, 257), Universal Ser\ice (§ 254), and Infrastructure Sharing (§ 259). Title II - Broadcast Scr\ ices This section is less relevant to the land use aspects and applications of the Act. It addresses areas such as ownership § 202) and licensing (§§ 203, 204) of frequencies on the broadcast spectrum, direct broadcast satellite (§ 205), as well as broadcast spectrum fle.xibility (§§ 201, 336). Title III - Cable Services Title III addresses Cable Act refonn (§ 301), cable services that are provided by telephone companies (§ 302), and video programming services provided by telephone companies (Part V of this title). Title IV - Regulatory Reform Regulatory reform under this title includes regulatory forbearance (§ 401), competition in provision of telecommunications services (§ 10), regulatory review and relief (§ 402) and reform (§ 11) as well as elimination of unnecessary regulations (§ 403). Title V - Obscenity and Violence This section addresses m Subtitle A, obscene, harassing, and wrongful utilization of telecommunications facilities. Title VI - Effect on Other Laws This section addresses applicability of consent decrees and other laws (§601) and issues relating to preemption of local taxation with respect to direct-to-home services (§ 602). Title VII - Miscellaneous Provbions Pole attachments (§ 703) and Facilities Siting (§ 704) are among the topics covered by this Title. Section 704 is the portion of the Act that impacts the ability of local units of government to regulate wireless communication services. Section 704(A) states that "except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in the Act shall 6L1 vc;.»x- limit or affect the authority of a State or local government ... over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modifications of personal wireless service facilities." The restrictions that Section 704 places on local units of goverrunent are: 1.Local regulations may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. Local regulations may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 3.Local units of government must act within a reasonable period of time on any request by a provider to place, construct, or modify a personal wireless service facility. 4.A decision by a local unit of government to deny a request must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence. b.A local regulation may not regulate the placement, construction, or modification of a facility based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with FCC regulations. II. Moratorium Issues Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, Subdivision 4 authorizes local units of go\ emment to adopt moratoriums for up to one year, with the capability of an 18 month extension. Sprint Spectrum v. City of Medina . 924 F.Supp. 1036 (W.D. Wash. 1996) 1.The court held that a six-month moratorium on the issuance of new special use permits for wireless communications facilities did not violate the 1996 provisions of the Act nor did it violate the Act's 1993 provisions. In particular, the moratorium did not violate Section 704(a) because the moratorium was merely a "short-term suspension" giving the City an opportunity to "act carefully in a field with rapidly evolving technology." 2.The moratorium also did not violate Section 704 ’s requirement that a city act on an application within a reasonable time. The court held that no rigid timetable was imp)osed on the City "where the circumstances call for study, deliberation, and decision-making among competing applicants." Generally accepted time frames used for zoning decisions were held to be sufficient so as to not afford preferential treatment to telecommunications applicants. J.The moratorium also did not violate Section 704's requirement forbidding discrimination among telecommunications providers. New applicants are not discriminated against merely because existing telecommunications facilities are in place. With the dramatic changes in the law and the market, the City could not place the new applicants in the same position as the existing companies; the City had to simply treat each new applicant without discrimination. 4. Finally, the moratorium did not violate the 1993 provisions of the Act, which prohibit regulating the entry of any commercial mobile provider. Given the preservation of local zoning authority, the moratorium did not completely deny entry, which is consistent with the Act. III. Reported Cases Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 A) BellSouth Mobility, Inc, v. Gwinnett Countv. 944 F.Supp. 923 (N.D.Ga. 1996) The court granted Bellsouth ’s request for a wTit of mandamus compelling the County to grant its application to construct a 197-foot cellular telephone communications monopole. The County ’s denial of Bellsouth ’s application for a "tall structure permit" was not supported by substantial evidence in a written record as required by Section 704. On the contrary, the evidence substantially supported issuing the permit. The "substantial evidence contained in a written record" requirement of the Act is the traditional standard used for judicial review of agency actions. Evidence supporting the issuance of the permit included: 1.showing that the monopole posed no hazard to navigable airspace, including no objections from the local airport authority and transportation authoritv; 2. 3. recommendations from the county planning and development department that the permit be approved subject to three conditions that BellSouth agreed to follow (BellSouth further offered to follow additional, self- imposed restrictions); evidence that property values had not decreased in the past in similar situations; and 4. radio frequency emissions would be well within federal regulations. Contrary evidence deemed insufficient included u -iu ‘P‘iied testimony by an owner of neighboring property expressing concerr ac*ov>: ;) the potential safety threat to children who might try to climb on the pole or facility; 2) the potential that parts of the structure could become dislodged in strong winds and damage property; 3) exposure to microwave emissions on a regular basis; 4) the aesthetically unpleasing nature of the facility; 5) property value diminution; and 6) potential for more companies using the site. B) Wcstel Milwaukee Co. v. Walworth Countv. 556 N.W.2d 107 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996) In reviewing Walworth County's denial of W'estel’s application to build a 200-foot telecommunications tower, the court ruled that the 1996 Act applied and remanded to the district court for a determination pursuant to the Act. Relying on Soring Spectrum v. City of Medina , the court held that, aside from the five requirements of Section 704, the Act did not interfere with the process used in local zoning decisions. C) Sprint Spectrum v. Town of West Seneca. 1997 N.Y'. Misc. LEXIS 43 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 1997) The town adopted a 90-day moratorium, but apparently did not adopt any permanent regulations. The town also failed to act on numerous applications that were pending when the moratorium was adopted. The court held that the town's failure to act on the applications was a violation of Section 704 ’s requirements to act in a reasonable time period. B) Western PCS II Corp. v. Extraterritorial Zoning Authority. WL 85741 (D.N.M.) The court concluded that the Commission's decision to deny an application to place an antenna on a county water tower violated Section 704. A preliminary review committee had granted the request with conditions relating to height limitations, graffiti removal, and construction of a retention pond. The Commission was concerned that the County’s property interest in the site only consisted of an easement "for utility purposes and fire protection." The Conunission denied the request for that reason and because no residents testified that they wanted the services that the tower was to provide. The court concluded that the Commission ’s decision violated Section 704 because: (1) The Commission did not make a written decision, and the preparation of a transcript after the appeal was not sufficient to meet this requirement; (2) The lack of public support for the facility was not substantial evidence to support a denial; The denial umeasonably discriminated among providers of functionally equivalent services, because two other analog cellular providers already serv'ed the same freeway corridor that the applicant wanted to serve; and The denial had the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. f. < 11^1 rxsiM IV. Useful Reading Implement ing the New Telecommunications Law: A County and l ocal OfficiaU guide to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. American Planning Association, National Association of Counties. American Public Works Association. The Telecommunications Act of 1996: What It Means to Local Government.*;. National League of Cities Eact_Sheet #1. National Wireless Facilities Siting Policies. April 23, 1996, Federal Cornmunications Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Fact Sheet #2, National Wireless Facilities Siting Policies. September 17, 1996, Federal Communications Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Preparing Zoning Regulations for Personal Wireless Services Commimirarinn^ Facility, Barbara A. Adams, 1997 Mid-Year Seminar, Institute of Municipal Law Officers Advising__Local Zoning Authorities About Siting Personal Wireles.s Telecommunication Facilities After the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Julia M.C. Friedlander, 1997 Mid-Year Seminar, Institute of Municipal Law Officers April 1997 *f AH+iCich rvTewiy Corif espond'€r)tc. wi-H> 0^ ^+terK\<o • • » V-; , _ -.X / ■ \ •if *• *•-.r *..•C V . • ^ FT' ■ i.- GITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailinf Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Torn Radio Popham Haik 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 Ninth Street South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Dear Tom: I have enclosed a copy of the city's proposed telecommunications ordinance along with a cover memo that provides background regarding the ordinance, and a policy regarding the use of city facilities for telecommunications antermas. The city's general position regarding personal communications service (PCS) antennas is that they will only be allowed on city structures (water towers) and that they will be p'^ohibited from all other locations. The PCS vendors have indicated the two water towers will not oe adequate to meet the need for antennas, particularly if four or six or eight vendors get into the business, each wanting a set of antennas. The city's water towers can accommodate two to three sets of PCS antennas. The Planning Commission continued action on the ordinance in order to enable the City Attorney to review the ordinance and provide an opinion on several issues related to the ordinance. These issues are as follows: 1.Can the city prohibit privately constructed telecommunications towers in the city by requiring all antennas to be placed on city owned structures. 2.Is the city required to accommodate the antenna needs of an unlimited number of vendors (six to eight versus two to three different vendors). As indicated above, the city's water towers can accommodate two to three sets of PCS antennas. If we need to accommodate more vendors we will need to provide additional towers in the city. 3.Can the city prohibit antennas and towers from its rural residential area even if this would require the vendors to go outside of Orono to provide coverage to a small area of Orono. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 FROM FOPHAM HAIK ET AL (TKU) 5. 15'97 9:S0 2T. 9:29 NO. 376';0S6999 F' i . POPHAM HAIK • cMMovMrcH * Kaufman , DC*iws«. c<>ce«Ado MIAMI. rcdAlO* TCI. tOf S30.00a ^ Fi»«« JA0VAAV TewSH. SUITB aSOO 222 SOUTH N inth Strckt MINNEAPOLIS. Minnesota 55402-S3aa tel ei2-a33-4S0v • f/Ky. 0l2*994*900a tHTimSMUOHAi, T%v 01 itSi »i»fa«i Thomas j. Radio , Eio. DINECY Dial (612) 334-26S3 iNTEAMcr E-Mail : Raoio TJRopmam .com . May 15, 1997 Ron Moorse. City Administrator Municipal Offices P.O. Box 66 Crystal. MN 55323-0066 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Rc; Proposed Telecommunications Ordinance Our File No.: 3643-001 Dear Ron; You have c d me to respond to questions raised by the Planning Commission in Uicir consideration oi the City ’s proposed telecommunications ordinance. This letter will set out r?i.' preliminary an.swers to those questions. Question 1: Can the city prohibit privately constructed telccornmunications towers iu the city by requiring all antennas to be placed on city owned shuctures? Answer:Yes, but only if the city, by such an action, does not restrict provision of telecommunication services. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that a city may not prohibit provision of telecommunication services. However, it does not prohibit all reasonable regulation by the city. II reasonable service can be provided by requiring all antennas be placed on city owned structures, then the city may prohibit privately constructed telecommunication towers. . 057/14135450 5/15;V7 FROM POPHAM RAIK ET AL (THU) 5.15 ’97 9:S0-ST. 9:29/NO. S7600S6999 P Ron Moorse, City Administrator May 15. 1997 Page 2 Answer; Answer: Answer; 057/14135450 5/15/97 The legislation protects from federal intrusion any local zoning decision concerning wireless facilities, so long as municipal zoning decisions do not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functic .ally equivalent services or preclude cellular service from a community. All challenges to municipal zoning decisions, except for those dealing with the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, would have to be app^ed to the courts, rather than the FCC. As a result, the FCC is prohibited from preempting local decisions regarding zoning. Question 2: Is the cil>' required to accommodate the antenna needs of an unlimited number of vendors (six to eight versus two to three different vendors)? Probably. The Telecommunications Act does not allow’ the city to limit the number of providers within the city and it must reasonably accommodate all requests. However, it is likely that market forces will limited the number of providers that seek transmission sites. Question 3: Can the city prohibit antennas and towers from its rural residential area even if this would require the vendors to go outside of Orono to provide coverage to a small area of Orono? Probably. Again, the city may reasonably rc.strict tower structure.*; a.*; long as it does not prohibit the provision of services. Since the construction of these systems involves a great deal of planning, it is likely that the providers can anticipate and adapt to this type of regulation by the city. Question 4: In general, docs the proposed ordinance appear to be defensible and within federal requirements? Yes. There arc no reported decisions dealing with this new law and there is no clear direction on these difficult decisions. The slated guideline is reasonableness, which the courts w'ill have to define more specifically. The proposed ordinance on its face appears to be reasonable. - 1 i mV. FOPHAM HAIK ET AL (THU) 5. 15’97 9:30'ST. 9:29. NO. S7600S6999 P 4 Ron MoofSe, City Administralor May 15, 1097 Page 3 I will continue to monitor developments in thi:. area and will advise the City of any problems that arise with enforcing the new ordinance. If you. the Planning Commission, or the City Council have any other questions or concerns, plea.se let me know and 1 will addres.s them. Very truly yours. Ly Thomas J. Radio TJR/jbm 057/141354.t0 5/15/S7 , ' *f 'A ■» r ' V-; ** j 1 •iir ✓ Atw chi'o^vi+s Cits/ Pouof P0S^lous MEMOS lo- ts 2-u-n 4-n-^i •.. c ir f ■ .N; :c ! * * **■ ■ I i « «’’<• ;i.' .tV: '.•i •'. I CITY OF ORONO POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNAS AND TOMTERS This policy is established as a guid'' to City staff in preparing zoning and other regulatory ordinances concerning \\ireless telecommunication antermas and towers, and in responding to requests for the location of such antermas and towers within the City of Orono. The majority of the City of Orono is developed or plarmed for development as rural residential. This type of land use allow's ma.ximum distance between telecommunication antermas for the provision of wireless telecommunication services. The two exceptions to this are the Navarre and Highway 12 commercial areas. Orono also suTOunds the City of Long Lake which currently provides a tower for wireless telecommunications antennas adjacent to the Highway 12 commercial area. Orono is also adjacent to several cities who plan to allow PCS antennas in close proximity to Orono and, in particular, the Navarre commercial area. These cities include Spring Park, Wayzata and Tonka Bay. Orono’s rural residential development, and proximity to cities providing antennas for wireless telecommunications services, appears to enable the provision of wireless telecommunication service throughout Orono without the need for telecommunication antermas in Orono. Therefore, Orono's wireless telecommunications tower and antenna policy is that no towers or antennas will be allowed unless it can be shown that, even with the antennas in adjacent cities, Orono would be prohibiting the provision of telecommunication services to a portion of the City in the absence of an antenna in Or'^no. This must be shown through a technical analysis which indicates specific parameters within which an antenna is needed, so that the City can determine the best location for the antenna within the identified parameters. % Article I: Regulation Under City Police Power. City actions taken with regard to telecommunication activities must comply wi h a number of Federal parameters established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. For example, local actions must foster rather than discourage comp>etition, thus the City will not discriminate against one or a group of providers in favor of another group of providers or potential providers. Under the same act, local actions which result in a prohibition on provision of telecommunication services are invalid. Thus staff is directed to address the provision of lawful wireless telecommunication services with the follow'ing local objectives in mind: A. B. Minimize the number of wireless telecommunication antennas and towers based on the availability of antennas and towers in adjacent jurisdictions which enable the provision of telecommunication services both in those jurisdictions and throughout Orono. If telecommunications antennas are required, minimize the number of towers through co-location requirements. 1 r • C. If a tower is required, ensure the new tower will be safe and blend into its environment. D. If a tower is required, ensure the tower and antennas are placed in suitable locations. E.Ensure that zoning ordinances and other municipal police powder regulations are defensible in light of Federal and State laws with special attention paid to the new Federal requirements. Article II: Policy Regarding Use of City-Owned Land for Wireless Telecommunication Antennas and Towers. 1.Introduction. In the event Orono is required to provide for telecommunication antennas in the City, the first priority is to locate the antennas on an e.xisting tower on City-owned property. Because this may result in requests from wireless telecommunication providers to place wireless telecommunication antennas on City-ovmed property, the Orono City Council has determined that a uniform policy for reviewing these requests is desirable. 2. Priorit}' of Users Priority for the use of City-owned property for wireless telecommunication antennas will be given to the following entities in descending order: A. City of Orono; B.Public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire, and ambulance seVvices, which are not part of the City of Orono and private entities with a public safety agreement with the City of Orono; C. D. Other governmental agencies, for uses which are not related to public safety; and Entities providing licensed commercial wireless telecommumcation services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging, and similar services that are marketed to the general public. 3. Minimum Requirements The placement of wi»-eless telecommunication antennas on City-owned property must comply with the following requirements. A.The antennas will not interfere with the purpose for which the City-owned property is intended; IT, -ml "irr’jt^TTrrv•! B. C. The antennas uill have no adverse impact on surrounding private property; The applicant is willing to obtain adequate liability insurance and commit to a lease agreement which includes equitable compensation for the use of public property and other necessaiy pro\ isions and safeguards. The fees shall be established by the City Council after considering comparable rates in other cities, potential expenses, risks to the City, and other appropriate factors; D.The applicant will submit a letter of credit, performance bond, or other security acceptable to the City to cover the costs of antenna ’■emoval; E.The antennas will not interfere with other users who have a higher priority as discussed in Section 2; F.Upon reasonable notice, the antennas may be required to be removed at the user's expense. G.The applicant must reimburse the City for any costs which it incurs because of the pre jonce of the applicant’s antennas. H. I. The user must obtain all necessary land use approvals. The applicant will cooperate with the City’s objective to promote co-locations and thus limit the number of separate antenna sites requested. 4. Special Requirements The use of certain City-owned property, such as w ater tow er sites, for wireless telecommunication antennas brings w ith it special concerns due to the unique nature of these sites. The placement of wireless telecommunication antennas on these special City-owned sites will be allowed only when the following additional requirements are met. A.Water Tower Sites - The City’s water towers represent a large public investment in w ater pressure stabilization and peak capacity reserves. Protection of the equality of the City’s water supply is of prime importance to the City. As access to the City's water storage systems increases, so too increased the potential for contamination of the public water supply. For these reasons, the placement of wireless telecommunication antennas on water tower sites will be allowed only when the City is fully satisfied that the following required are met. 1.The applicant’s access to the facility will not increase the risks of contamination to the City’s water supply; 1 - X.--------- 2.There is sufficient room on the structure and/or on the grounds to accommodate the applicant's facility; 3.The presence of the facility will not increase the water tower maintenance cost to the City; and 4.The presence of the facility will not be harmful to the health of workers maintaining the water tower. 5. Application Process All applicants who wish to locate a wireless telecommunication antenna on City-owned property must submit to the City Administrator a completed application and detailed plan that complies with the submittal requirements of the Zoning Ordinance along with other pertinent information requested by the City. 6.Termination The City Council may terminate any lease if it determines that any one of the following conditions exist: A.A potential user w ith a higher priority cannot find another adequate location and the potential use would be incompatible with the existing use; B.A user’s frequency broadcast unreasonably interferes with other users of higher priority, regardless of w hether or not this interference w as adequately predicted in the technical analysis; or. C.A user violates any of the standards in this policy or the conditions attached to the City's permission. Before taking action, the City will provide notice to the user of the intended termination and the reasons for it, and provide an opportunity for the user to address the City Council regarding the proposed action. This procedure nceu not be followed in emergency situations. 7. Rescn ation of Right Notwithstanding the above, the City' Council reserves the right to deny, for any reasons, the use of any or all City-owned property by any one or all applicants. 1 8.Effective Date This policy shall be effective from and after its adoption by the City Council. Adopted by Resolution Number: At the Orono City Council Meeting of: -i-iT II in I a^aaaaiaaMB TO: FROM; DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 28, 1996 SUBJECT: Telecommunications Tower and Antenna Policy and Ordinance Background on Personal Communications Services (PCS) and the Need for a Municipal Telecommunications Policy and Ordinance The Federal Communications Commission has awarded two licenses for wireless digital personal communications services (PCS) for the north central region of the US including Minnesota. PCS digital communications services are expected to enhance and compete with current cellular analog phone services. PCS will enable individuals and businesses to use secure, accurate over the air paging, voice, FAX, video and data transmission with the advantage of a single phone number available at any location to which the transmission is sent. Receiving and transmitting the PCS signals will require an extensive infrastructure with many more sites required for PCS antennas, towers, and smaller repeaters to provide the flexibility and universality of service necessary for PCS to be fully operational in this area. Many more sites will be required for PCS equipment than the type and number of towers required for cellular communications. Because of this, cities need to be prepared to consider local land use, zoning, lease agreements and other site related considerations to enable them to respond to requests for PCS tower and antenna sites. Extent of Municipal Control The Federal Telecommunications Act originally included language that would have ovirridden municipal control over telecommunications towers. This language was removed shortly before passage of the Act. However, the Act does place three important limitations on local governments. 1.Cities may not "unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services." 2. Cities may not "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services." 3.Cities may not regulate personal wireless services "on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions." The key limitation in terms of limiting the city ’s control over telecommunications towers and antennas is the requirement that cities may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the 1 Telecommunications Tower and P. itenna Policy and Ordinance Continued provision of personal wireless services. From a practical standpoint, what this limitation addresses is the city’s ability to limit the ability of PCS providers to install antennas needed to provide the infrastructure (or network of antennas) required for PCS to operate throughout the city. Because of Orono ’s large land area, it does not appear possible to totally prohibit PCS antennas from the city. However, it may be possible to accommodate the PCS antenna needs without the necessity of allowing the construction of additional towers. This would involve requiring PCS providers to use existing structures as locations for their antennas. The two most obvious existing structures that could be used as locations for antennas are the two city water towers. In less densely populated areas, the distance between PCS antennas can be 2 to 4 miles. The distance between the city’s two water towers is 4 miles. It appears that these two locations could be adequate to meet the city’s PCS antenna needs/requirements. Current City Ordinance The current city ordinance allows telecommunications towers or antenna structures in two zoning districts-the industrial zone and the B-1 zone. The city’s industrial zone is located on the south side of Highway 12 between Old Cr>stal Bay Road and the Long Lake border. The Industrial Zone ordinance requires that a telecommunications tower/antenna can only be allowed if it is accessory to a principal use. It also limits the height to a maximum of 65 feet. The B-1 zoning district allows an antenna structure as a conditional use. The city’s B-1 zoned property is located in the Navarre area. Under the city’s current ordinance it would be possible for new telecommunications towers to be constructed in both the Highway 12 area and the Navarre area. % Use of City Water Towers vs. Additional Comir .. lications Tower Sites In considering potential changes to the city’s zoning code, the city needs to determine whether there are any acceptable locations in the city for additional telecommunications towers. As an alternative, it may be possible for the city to prohibit new towers from all locations in the city if existing antenna locations would be sufficient to provide the PCS network required. The most likely way for this to w’ork is if the city made its two water towers available for PCS antennas. Another key to limiting the number of towers in the city is to require co-location on the towers that are allowed to be used. This means that the towers must accommodate the antennas of multiple vendors. This eliminates the need to provide a separate tower for each separate vendor. The advantages of limiting antenna locations to the city’s two water towers are that it could enable the city to prohibit all other towers from being located in the city, and it would provide a substantial revenue source to the city from lease arrangements for the antennas. The disadvantage is that locating the antennas on the towers would change the appearance of the towers. • • REQUEST FOR COUNXTL ACTION "'ir ■■ DATE; Nl^ber 7, *{'§§6 ITEM NO; /O •v‘-> Department Approval; Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Item Description; Administrator Reviewed; ............................................. Agenda Section; Administrator’s Report if Telecommunications Tower and Antenna Regulation In response to requirements placed on cities by the Federal Telecommunications Act regarding telecommunications towers and antennas, the city placed a moratorium on the construction and installation of new telecommunications towers and antennas in the city. The moratorium, which expires on December 24, 1996, is to provide the city with an opportunity to determine how best to respond to proposals regarding telecommunication towers and antemias within the requirements set out by the Telecommunications Act; and to make any changes needed to the city’s current ordinances relating to telecommunications towers and antennas. The key requirement of the telecommunications act is that cities may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. From a practical standpoint, what this means is that cities can not prohibit towers and antennas from being constructed within their city boundaries if this prohibition would make it impossible for telecommunications vendors to provide wireless service to customers within the cities. The provision of wireless services depends on the installation of a network of antennaa'to create a continuous coverage area. These antennas need to be located as close together as one-quarter mile if they are located on lower towers (80 feet in height) and in densely populated areas. They can be separated by as much as 4 miles »f located on higher towers (120 feet in height) and in low density areas. Although Orono has a krge land area, it would be possible for wireless service providers to complete a network of antennas serving the majority of the Orono area without the necessity of locating antennas in the city of Orono. If antennas were placed in surrounding cities that are more densely populated and have substantial commercial u. s, Orono could be almost completely covered by the network. The only area that appears to be outside of the coverage area would be the west central part of the city. rnrrp.nt Citv Regulations The current city regulations allow telecommunications towers or antenna structures in two zomng districts-the industrial zone and B-1 zone. The city’s industrial zone is located on the south side of Highway 12 betw'een Old Crystal Bay Road and the Long Lake border. The industrial zone ordinance requires that a telecommunications tower/antenna can only be allowed if it is accessory to a principle use. It also limits the height to a maximum of 65 feet. The B-1 zoning district allows an antenna structure as a conditional use. The city’s B-1 zoned property is located in the Navarre area. Request for Council Action Continued Page 2 of 3 November 7, 1996 Telecommunications Tower and Antenna Regulation Use of City Water Towers as Antenna Sites In considering locations and impacts of ntw antennas the use of the city’s water towers as antenna sites would have the least new visual impact since the towers are already in exis:ence. Alternatives There are number of potential alternatives for the city’s regulation of telecommunications towers and antennas. Four of these are as follows:• • 1. Prohibit all telecommunications towers and antennas from the city. 2. Prohibit all telecommunications towers and antennas except those allowed in the industrial and B-1 zones. 3. 4. Prohibit all telecommunications towers and antennas from all locations except on one or both of the city’s water towers. Prohibit all telecommunications tow'ers and antennas from all locations except as currently allowed in the industrial and B-1 zones and on one or both of the city’s water lowers. v'. Discussion of Alternatives It is not fully clear whether the city could legally prohibit all telecommunication towers and antennas for personal communications service in Orono. Although there are concerns regarding the appearance of antennas located on the city’s water towers, there are significant financial benefits available to the city through the leasing of space on the water towers. The minimum lease amount for a set of three antennas is $12,000 per year. Each tower could accommodate at least three sets of antennas serving three different vendors. The purpose of the city’s current ordinances allowing towers and antennas in the B-1 and industrial zones was to meet the needs of specific businesses operating in those zones versus to meet the desires of telecommunications vendors. If the Council determines that the businesses in the industrial and B-1 zones should continue to have the ability to install telecommunications towers and antennas, the city should ensure it has the right to continue to define those tower and antenna uses very narrowly so that it does not include towers and antennas for use by telecommunications vendors. Request for Council Action Continued page 3 November 7, 1996 Telecommunications Tower and Ante ua Regulation The city may want to prohibit towers and antennas for some initial period to enable the various vendors to sort themselves out in the market place, and to provide time for technology to solve the tower and antenna problem by increasing the range of antennas and reducing the size and improving the appearance of antennas. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to provide direction regarding the city ’s regulation of telecommunications towers and antennas so thtit staff can draft new regulations. TO: FROM: DATE: Plainning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator February 12,1997 SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment Related to Telecommunications Towers and Antennas Background on Personal Communications Ser\^ices and the Need to Consider Zoning Chang es The Federal Communications Commission has awarded two licenses for wireless digital personal communications ser\'ices (PCS) for the north-cenual region of the U.S ., including Minnesota. PCS digital communications services are expected to enhance and compete with current cellular analog phone services. PCS will enable individuals and businesses to use secure accurate over-the-air paging, voice, FAX, video and data transmission with the advantage of a single phone number available at any location to which the transmission is sent. Receiving and transmitting the PCS signals will require an extensive infrastructure with many more sites required for PCS antennas, towers, and smaller repeaters to provide the flexibility and universality of service necessary for PCS to be fully operational in the metro area. Many more sites will be required for PCS equipment than the type and number of towers required for cellular communications. Because of this, cities need to be prepared to consider local land use and zoning regulations to prepare them to respond to requests for PCS tower and antenna sites. Preventing Proliferation of Towers and Antennas Although in the more densely populated areas PCS antennas may be required every 1/4 mile, in less densely populated areas, the distance betw’een PCS antennas can be 2 to 4 miles. This enables the city of Orono to substantially limit the proliferation of PCS antennas while enabling PCS service to be provided throughout the city. It may be possible for PCS service to be provided throughout the city’ w'ithout any additional antennas located within Orono. If this is not possible, it may be possible for the city to prohibit any new towers if the city were to make one or both of its water towers available for PCS antennas. If this plan is followed it is not necessary for towers or antennas to be located in the city's industrial or business zones. Current City Zoning Regulations The current regulations allow telecommunications towers or antenna structures in three zoning districtS"the industrial zone and the Bland B 3 zones. The city's industrial zone is located on the south side of Highway 12 between Old Crystal Road and the Long Lake border. The city's B1 and B 3 zoned property is located in the Navarre area. Under the city's current ordinance it w’ould be possible for new telecommunications towers to be constructed in both the Highway 12 area and the Navarre area. Because additional PCS towers are not needed in either the Highway 12 area or the Navarre area, the city's regulations concerning the industrial, B1 and B3 zones are proposed to be amended to prohibit telecommunications towers and antenna structures. This will prevent the proliferation of towers and antenna structures in those two areas. ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 10.40 AND 10.50 OF THE ORONO ZONING CODE BY DELETING ’’ANTENNA STRUCTURE” AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE B-1 RETAIL SALES BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THE I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.40, Subdivision 4 (I) is hereby amended by deleting the following use to the list of conditional uses in the B-1 Retail Sales Business District: " I. Antenna Structure. One independent antenna structure, with antenna or combination of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto that is not attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna structure does not exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure is set back from any lot line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure." Section. 2. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.50, Subdivision 3 (B) is hereby amended by deleting the following use to the list of conditional uses in the I Industrial District: "B. Antenna Structure. One independent antenna structure, with antenna or combination of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto that is not attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna structure does not exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure is set back from any lot line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 24th day of February, 1997 by a vote of___ayes and____nays. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk J. Diann Goetten, Acting Mayor TO; FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator April 17, 1997 SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending the Orono Zoning Code by Establishing Regulations for the Construction and Placement of Telecommunications Towers and Antermas Attachments: A. Proposed Ordinance B. Policy regarding use of city-owned property for wireless telecommunication antennas New telecommunications technology, particularly personal communications services (PCS) require substantially more antennas to prov ide coverage to sen ice areas. PCS vendors are requesting additional antenna and tower sites in cities. In order to protect the city's interests while responding adequately and within federal requirement to these requests, it is necessar>' to revise the current city zoning regulations related to telecommunications towers and antennas. The first step in this process was to develop an overall policy regarding telecommunications towers and antennas in the city as a guide to amending the ordinance. The overall policy adopted by the city council is that Orono will limit the proliferation of telecommunication towers and antennas by allowing PCS antennas to locate only on the two city water towers. The city will prohibit the construction of anv new PCS towers in the citv. The greatest need for PCS antennas is in areas of denser concentrations of population and along busy highway corridors. The two areas in Orono that meet these criteria are the Highway 12 area and the Navarre area. These are also the locations of the city’s two water tow ers. The remainder of the city is low density residential. The city's policy is that no PCS towers or antennas be allowed in residential areas other than on the two city water towers. After developing the overall city policy regarding telecommunications antennas and towers, the next step was to translate the policy into specific regulations through an ordinance amendment. Staff developed an initial ordinance amendment, which was reviewed by the Planning Commission, to eliminate telecommunications towers and antennas from the city's business and industrial zones. The city council reviewed the ordinance and directed staff to redraft the ordinance to provide more specific definitions of the various types of antennas, to allow PCS antennas only on the city's water towers, and to prohibit antennas and towers from the business and industrial zones. The attached ordinance has been drafted to reflect council's direction. The proposed ordinance amendment was designed to update the city's current regulations regarding antennas; and to accommodate the growih of wireless communications sys»cms within the city of 1 Orono while protecting the public against adverse impacts of unnecessary proliferation of wireless communication towers and antennas. The key elements of the ordinance are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Added definitions of various t>pes of antennas which enables specific regulations for specific types of antennas. Added the term "secondary use" to define the way in which the PCS antennas relate to the city's water towers. Added language to the code section regarding public service structures to indicate that PCS tow^ers and antennas are not to be considered public service structures. This language is needed because public service structures are allowed as conditional uses in the city's residential zones. Added a section on communication reception/transmission devices which provides regulations for residential types of accessoiy antennas such as satellite dishes. This section also includes regulations specific to amateur short-wave radio antennas and towers. Added a section on personal wireless service antennas and towers indicating personal wireless service antennas may be allowed as a secondary use on a municipal structure (water tower) subject to a set of conditions that are listed in the ordinance. Added a section which eliminates antenna structures from the B-1 retail sales district. Added a section which eliminates antenna structures as a conditional use in the industrial district. Deleted all current references to antenna structures in residential zones (to be replaced by the proposed new' language in the ordinance amendment.) Policy Regarding Use of Citv-Owned Property for Wireless Telecommunication Antennas. 1.Introduction. In the event Orono is required to provide for telecommunication antennas in the City, the first priority is to locate the antennas on an existing tower on City-owned property. Because this may result in requests from wireless telecommunication providers to place wireless telecommunication antennas on City-owned property, the Orono City' Council has determined that a uniform policy for reviewing these requests is desirable. 2. Priority of Users Priority for the use of City-owned cropeny for w'ireless telecommunication antennas will be given to the follow'ing entities in descending order: A. City of Orono; B.Public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire, and ambulance services, w'hich are not part of the City of Orono and private entities wdth a public safety agreement with the City of Orono; C. D. Other governmental agencies, for uses which are not related to public safety; and Entities providing licensed commercial wireless telecommunication services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging, and similar services that are marketed to the general public. 3. Minimum Requirements The placement of wireless telecommunication antennas on City-owned property must comply with the following requirements. A. The antennas vrill not interfere with the purpose for which the City-owned property is intended; B. C. The antennas will have no adverse impact on surrounding private property; The applicant is willing to obtain adequate liability' insurance and commit to a lease agreement which includes equitable compensation for the use of public property and other necessary provisions and safeguards. The fees shall be established by the City Council after considering comparable rates in other cities, potential expenses, risks to the City, and other appropriate factors; D.The applicant will submit a letter of credit, performance bond, or other security acceptable to the City to cover the costs of anteima removal; Policy Regarding Use of Citv-Owned Property for Wireless Telecommunication Antennas. Continued E. F. G. I. The antennas will not interfere with other users who have a higher priority as discussed in Section 2; Upon reasonable notice, the antermas may be required to be removed at the user’s expense. The applicant must reimburse the City for any costs which it incurs because of the presence of the applicant's antennas. The user must obtain all necessary land use approvals. The applicant will cooperate with the City’s objective to promote co-locations and thus limit the number of separate anteruia sites requested. 4. Special Requirements The use of certain City-owned property, such as water tower sites, for wireless telecommunication antennas brings with it special concerns due to the unique nature of these sites. The placement of wireless telecommunication antennas on these special City-owned sites will be allowed only when the following additional requirements are met. A. Water Tower Sites - The City’s water towers represent a large public investment in water pressure stabilization and peak capacity reserves. Protection of the equality of the City’s water supply is of prime importance to the City. As access to the City’s water storage systems increases, so too increased the potential for contamination of the public water supply. For these reasons, the placement of wireless telecommunication antennas on water tower sites will be allowed only when the City is fully satisfied that the following required are met. 1. 2. 3. The applicant’s access to the facility will not increase the risks of contamination to the City’s water supply; There is sufficient room on the structure and/or on the grounds to accommodate the applicant’s facility; The presence of the facility will not increase the water tower maintenance cost to the City; and 4. The presence of the facility wall not be harmful to the health of workers maintaining the water tower. ISi Policy Regarding Use of City-Owned Property for Wireless Telecommunication Antennas.Continued5. Application ProcessAll applicants who wish to locate a wireless telecommunication antenna on City-owned property must submit to the City Administrator a completed application and detailed plan that complies with the submittal requirements of the Zoning Ordinance along with other pertinent information requested by the City. 6.Termination The City Council may terminate any lease if it determines that any one of the following conditions exist: A. A potential user with a higher priority cannot find another adequate location and the potential use would be incompatible with the existing use; B. A user's frequency broadcast unreasonably interferes with other users of higher priority, regardless of whether or not this interference was adequately predicted in the technical analysis; or, C. A user violates any of the standards in this policy or the conditions attached to the City's permission. Before taking action, the City will provide notice to the user of the intended termination and the reasons for it, and provide an opportunity for the user to address the City Council regarding the proposed action. This procedure need not be followed in emergency situations. 7. Reservation of Right Notwithstanding the above, the City Council reserves the right to deny, for any reasons, the use of any or all City-owned property by any one or all applicants. 8. Effective Date This policy shall be effective from and after its adoption by the City Council. Adopted at the Orono City Council Meeting of: s ennas.operty ;s with [uested ditions ind the higher din the i to the and the ing the kn"HtJichrv\€i^ 1 AdU 2rh>wj COKVMrv\<i/Vi-, 3. «• <n AP17 IbiK • 3 IH Q0 - loyf> . • WPr/ "Tot^ ; use of ; • FROM LftRKIM HOFFMPM 17TH FL 1^ ^ OCRAlDir ►RHUUi^gyctc CMiCMJON r^tAUD^ 0IIKOII.oC ncmrMAiri imvcT cuAAirii iloncuigncn i pittit.N iiK»4K niH0«1»tOMAtr •lOilMAIJ MICIMIC MC^UVI^1 •MCiurw!u'i IliOUAt I aY»f4 J^Qf* fMtl uXiOf rncoM^M KC>'JOV4 0 iUHtlOUlSf lAVLt MXAN* joi*iA coffin*KAftBf.rA ln>iiwrnrn f Ain n fiut4Ki.nKATitCl N M rtCOTli »C‘^AV4Miami<jin:oct9fc umiiMo OMVA VAMCiCVf * UAr«|l| IK»M.r9 / UkW^fUi iMOlirr i HlMt MAhy AM9«|C*4 noiACfi Miomw Id ICY lONMt KPCrt il$AA OMY ONtf A ACfPA'tit Mmch 10.1997 0 4 . : 4 . > 9 •? 7 0 ?« I V■ vv 1/V l\ |> i'v I 4^ IatVorney§ at law1S00 NJORWEST FINANCIAL CCNTCR7R0p XERXES AVENUE SOUTH DLOOMlfiOTON. MINNESOTA S543MU4 TELEPHONE (0^2) 835 3SOO FAX (d12) 8084333 oimomOOUOAAIrtfiij coAt UAI yD UAlr»lMHt • »WIMMVOM MVAO AUMN Mictm j iMim vnui iNnc ANtArwr HUM AHHW MfVtA d<)|««0rfCID AENECl JAOKtO^ D«t|fOriCIIK UUKJI UKACVII fAOIf OOOOIA9M ANACI• lCf«irNj AAMMtMiiouAtr mthanociCW«LC V KAAVCva>«.oain KAAiNM NClMN C tRiKHIMArt iVHMewCltl.UM90ili e iRrNi RoiiiMt MitTiHt yycato^ * JOLfI • Eflf OCRtCAION tr coA«Hi Monrot^Y 0 «|»a «IThuk 09IIN A41ANI ugui^ ^vliHOCUR Af<UCMQN JOAlrHI CliTlI • #<»Q ApMtmo IN ^mao ommn HAND DELIVERED Gallons Towers and Anlcnnas Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and Members of the City Council City of Orono ‘ | P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323-006() | j lie: Proposed Zoning Code Amclidmcnls;Related to Telccominiin j f ! I Dear Mayor Jabbour and Council Members: | I I write on behalf of Antcriean Portable 3 c)eeom (“APT”), one of two recent licensees of the Federal Communications Commj.ssion (‘Tdc”) authorized to develop personal communication .services within Minnesota. AP'P is currently establishing wireless tclccomnumicitions towers and antennas sites at strategic locations in Minnesota. tl is likely that at some point in towers or antennas in the, City of Orbno (the “City”). Because of thi on the proposed zoning code chang(is. *relccQmnumicatiops ,Ac( of 1996 Ij * 'I’ll? United States Clongrcss has declared the national wireless telcco nmunications siting policy to be that local governments may 'use llicir ;^ning aijlhorily to regulate wireless telecommunications towers and personal communication'scrviccs w|ih certain limitations. There arc icvcral limitations: I ' t . .,1 . A city may n6l disaimiijate among service providers. 2. A city’s regulation canii6l prevent the provision ofpcisonhl wireless .service the future APT will seek to install interest, APT presents its comments 3. A city must act promptly on a services. ■ request for permission to develop wireless communicnlion mtiiTtfra HBPMiMTOnilltra WIMIW tmtiiiMbTi [JviTimYti OBU MlWf t]iVi FROM LPPKIN HOFFrMN 17TH FL 04.24.1997 Lai^; H opi -n Ian , D aly & Lindou Iln ai |torncvs at VAW MOOLIIIl. or^tiM ^ntocii •M41IC M'CMOri fCMMio/ oojKOa Qt.»CN fVttrM iOiKD rujJMflA ffUMU. IMWIt ClWIUlt MOCiCU dwffiw imDAiiiivcM nOMAi^ UICH^IC iUiNC otr\ JCM9 tioMMj rin#4 MMiir VOQPI f%tll*A»4 OtriAlDl «tC« X«it<9 lUNDMH D^nOMOlAM^ jOi««a corrm* KAT%r«A torilMiACn >At\i Kvi*€n 4AMI. MlIXAfV AAlHJfNM nCOTTCNTAUAN M>C»Wl t llOAMM OfHOOifvt ROftliAO OMIT A VAHClIVt* c#/«CLi »o^rt VAAOrm^ llMOn«Yj AlAHS AlANM A|<ltll»0»« 06NKAL AOAACM MC*4AAi W ACHC«« KMr« TM^lNCr ■ •itnOA l«AA OnAt OAAVA A€»A«r< March 14,1997 O?: I 4 ID. P. 4 IStiO NOR\VkST FINANCIAL CCNTCB 7*(|o XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMljlOTON. MINNESOTA S843i-tt»4 TELEPHONE (S12) STS-SSOO FAX(*ia) ■•a-3137 Mr. Ron Moor.sc, City A(lmini5tratoV City of Orono ‘ P.O.Box 66 , ' Crystal Bay, Minnesota i5323-006(> Rc: Proposed Zoning Code Amchdmcnls'Rclatcd lo TelccommOn Dear Mr. Moorse: As you know, we rcpj*cscnt American Portable Telecom (“At^T rcfci cnccd amendments at the City Council nieeting of March 10,19^ This letter is a follow-up lo that me i-cvisc the proposed zoni|ig code an the two (2) water towers a “pc :ling. It,is my understanding t;ha endmenjs lo include certain defi mitted” use, and requiring a j NRMiiTtHi OK^IOOM vvucij DoumAA VMLilAMC O^im, m. H1MJ OOAl iMIW Q. H^YIH JAHit tAClMtA trt^rttAiAOiN VOM HMH j tMitii vtutl »09 A8#4M MItffI JOlAlteM AtHil L JAOA9QM MiSTOn^R UUMf MMAOVliMMtT mfm9^ YtlOMAir. A1CR4MXA OAMILT MAIO MMKMN MfMwy NiiMA C niMNilAlt C IMCNlAOMAtt t TMAATOAAO * NUMA4&KI0H OreOLMCl jATfi i. QM.V 0 AfNNimUMOOW AU/MI MUUtftAM WtMXllA AMMAAOM joterHomi ‘ «llOAOMin90t41MKCNtf4 VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL cations Towers and Antennas ’), and commented on the abovc- 7. the City Council requested that you lilions, os well as making the use of conditional use permit to locate telecommunications lowers and antennas in Other zoning districts. enclosed for your reference is a dopy of APl”s Model Ordinance. 1 believe this Model Ordinance contains a form of mnnv of the provisions'that ilie Ciiy Council Nuanicd inscilcd into Orono’s zoning ordinance. I hope it will be of assisiance to you. If you have niiy qucslion|^, or 1 con be of nnylnssislnncc, please call m Sincerely* r M. i Thonuis F. Alexander, Air LARKIN. I lOFFMAN, DALY & l1n DGR$N, Ltd. cc: Gregory B. Koislad 02M.UI4.OJ BOt (612) 896-3375. i . FROH LAFKIM HOFFMAN ITTH FL 04.24.I?'?? 01>»14 OltDlNANCE 97- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN S THE ACTIONS or CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE FOR THE REG'JLATION OF THE LOCATION, CONSTRUC COMMliNICAlfoNS TOWERS AND AMTENNA The of ihc C nON AND USE OF ) does hereby ordain as follows: Seciinn t. 'I'he following definitions aro added to Section XXK, iiuinbcrcd in alphabetical order: Antenna - /^ny struettue or <icvicc used for the purpose of collecting or IrnnsiTiitUng |cIcdromainciic w^ves, including but no| limited to directional antennas, such os panels, nSicrowave dishes, dnc\ satellite dishes, and oinni-dircclidnnl anlcnnhs, such is whip antennas. ^ Licensed commercialCoitiinci'ciRl Wireless Tclccotnmunicatlon Services wireless icle^ommunicejlion services including ccllultlr, |)ersonal communication services (PCS), specialized i^obilized radio (SMR)^ enhanced sjrecialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging, and similar services. Tower- Any grouitd or roof pioutUcd pole, spire, strueturc, or combination thereof toller ihon 15 feet, inclu'dlng supporting lincs^ wiblcs, wires, braces, and masts device sis, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting ai^ antenna, meteorological r ice, or siihilar oppardius abode grade. Section 2. Section XXX is amdndcd to add the following as a i>cimittcd use; t ■ f Antennae when mounted on a rooRop or along a building or other structure. Section 1 . Section XXX is amended to |idd the following as o co|tdilioiml use: Antenna and Towers, siibjccl to ihc standards at Section XXX. .Section 4 . A new S(^ction XXX is added to Chapter XXX as f*olI 5ws: SECTION XXX. UItGULATlONS FORI TJIE LOCATION, CONSTRUtfnON USlf OF COMMUNICATjlONS TOWERS AND antenna ’ 1. Purpo.se. In order to aceommodaic the commlin cation needs of residents and business wliilc protecting the public health, safely, and genera) welfare of the community, the finds (hat these regulations arc icccssary in order to: P. 5 FPOM LSEKIH HOFFHfiH 17TH FL 04.24.1??? 09«1? • • I (n) I Fncililatij ihc provision of wireless lelecopimunicntioil services to the i csicleiUs njia busincsics of the_______; I ' (b) Miniiniz^ odverso visual cn*ccts of to\>'cr» through careful design Hiicl siting standards; towers to accommodate(c) I Maximiz: the use of existing and approvec new wireless tcU commuiiicatlon antennas in ordc| to reduce the number of tONvers needed to serve the community. I 2. Conditional Use Permit Required. It shall be jmlnwful for any person, irect, coAsiruct in place, place or re-erect, or replace anyfirm, or corpbintion to tower withou'i first making application to the use permit titcrefor as Ii|crcinafle!r jrrovided. Routine hit inleitancc of towers and related structures shall ni3t requirf the issuance of a condi iojial use jjermit. d securing a conditional 3. CO’Clrcntion Roquircnidnts. A proposal for ft now commercial wireless tclccommuniCntion scrv cc tower shall not be approved unless it can reasonably be documented by the a))plicnnfthot the iclecommunlcations equipment planned for the proposed tower cbnnoi be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one-half mile search radius of the proposed tower due to one or more of ih^ following; reasons: (a) Tlic plajtncd equijiment would exceed the druclural capacity of the existing or approved towW or building, as dOcu ncnled by a competent radio frequency Engineer;- I » (b) I'lie plai)ned equipment would cau$e interference materially impacting the usability of other existing or plaiuie J equipment at the lower or building ns dobumented by a competent radio frequency engineer; (c) r.xistlng ^r approved towers and buildiqgs witliin tlie search radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment a function reasonably os documented by a qualified I (d) I In spile df best efforts, within 60 days, ll nogollale reason ible busjncss terms regarding t ic lease or purchase of a height necessary to jngincer; e applicant is unable to space'on an cxisljng lowcf; or (e) Other reasons affecting technical performance, system coverage, aiul system enpadity that |nakc it impractical to place or locate the planned iclccojiimuniculiiuis equipment upon an existing or approved tower. 4. Towei* Design licqulrcnjients. Proposed constriction or modification of towers sliall meet the following design requirements: ; I 2. P. 6 !i FPOM LfiOKIN HOFFMiSM J7TH FL 04.24.l?'97 05»15 Towers ‘shall be designed to blond envirbnmcnl tohhe ninxtimum extent possible l u’ough the use of color. except in insta|\ccs wljcrc the color is dicta auihoi iilcs such Us the FOdcrul Aviation Adniinist (b) Commertial wireless telecommunication i ervice towers shall be of a monopolc design unless determined by the w into the surrounding cd by federal or state ation. a u/ inv | iiin alteniaiivc desigii would be necessary to support future potential users. that an 5. lowir Setbacks. ToWers sholl conform witl minimum se(back requi emcnls:: each of the following iderlying zoning district(a) Towers ihall mck the setbacks of thei u with the cxccpiion of |industrial zoning districts, where towers may encroach into titb side or rear setback area, provided that the properly line abuts another noh-resideittially zoned properly. (h) Ihc lowir sltall not encroach upon any cdsements. The minimum diKtance to the i carest rosidential properly shj(ll )C equal to the height of the lower, riic nininuim distance to the nearest esidential structure shall 1 be iwto limes the height of the tower. (c) The selblack shall be measured bclwcei located nearest Ihc property line and the actual setback distance may be used if a qualified ejig that the collapse of the tbwer will occur withih a forcsbcnblc circilmstanccti. (d) I'owcrs jhall not be located between o ; >rincipal structure and a public street, with the following exceptions: the base of the tower property line. A lesser neer specifies in writing lesser distance under all (1) Ip industrial zoning districts, lotVers may be placed within a side yard Abutting an internal in^us On sites adjacent to public streets trial street. on all sides, lowers may bb placed kvithin a side yard abutting a local street. I(c) J A tower ’s setback may be reduced or its public street vajicd, at l ie sole discretion of Ihc integration of a] tower l(ilo an existing or prop location in relation to a _______, to allow the )scd structure such as a chinoh steeple, light stimdnrd. power line support device, or similar slruciurc. t 6. Tower Height. All projiOscd towers shall not ex( ecd 175 feel in height. 3, P. 7 t ] FROM IN HOFFMAN 17TH FL W 04.24.1997 0 ?» w i *7. Tower Lighting. Towers not be illuminate 1 by artificial means and shall not display slrob^lights ui^lcss such lighting is Sp< cifically required by the istralion’or other federal or state authority for a particularrcdcrnl Aviation Admir lower; or if Required b)the for sccur ly or safely reasons. This provision shull not preclude the placement of an antonna on an existing or proposed lighting standard. i 8. than warning ' » Signs niut AUvoVtising. 'The use of any portion of a lower for signs other jrning or equipincnl information signs is prohibited.lation signs is prohibltei 9. AcccSsoiy lilility Buildings. All utility bnldings and slruclurcs accessory to n tower Hmll be. architecturally designcl to bl?nd in with the suriounding cnviromncni and shall meet such setba ck reqiiircincnls os ore compatible \\ith llic actual placement of the tower. Ground mounted cquipniciU .shall be screened from view by suitable vegetation, cxecf t where a design of non- vcgclativc scl’cening belter refledls and complements the the surrounding neighborhood. Accessory buildings shal square feel iil size. architectural character of not be more than 2,000 Fowers. All abandoned shall be removed within I t lU. Abandoned or ^nused Tuwera or Portions t>f or unused to^vers and associated abovC'giound facilities 12 monihs of the ccssat on of operntions of on onlennft ft cility at the site unless a time cxlon.si6n is approved by the_______. In th^ event that a lower is not removed wiljiin 12 morlhs of the cessation of operation i at a site, the tower and associated fi^cilitics mav be rciiioved by the assessed against the proj)crly. a id the costs of removal lit Antctnms Moulitcd oh Roofs, Walls, and Lxisting Towers. The placement of wireless icleconintunication antennas on riofs, walls, and existing towers sluill be approved by issuance of a building perfni based on administrative review'. * t .12. Exlstjlng Light I Poles. The replacement of ai|i existing light pole or ligltling slandiird in ord^r to accommodate the placement of an antenna thereupon shall be oppioved by if;suance bf a building permit bssed upon administialivc review. I t 13. Intci'lTcrcncc liitli Tdlecommunicntions. Iclccommunicntions scri icc shall interfere with public.sa or privnlc (ciccomnuinications, iiicluding without limijal personal cunhiuinicalions, in acoordnnee with rules and icgulations of the Federal Communications Comnlission. * No new or existing ely telecommunications, on, radio, television, and 4. p. s FPOM LARKIN HOFFMAN 17TH FL 04.24.l?97 09:i6 P. 9 i 'w w 14. Addliional Sub|mit(nl Requirements. In add lion to the information required elsewhere in mis codc^ prior to the issuanoe of a building permit, an applicant for tower lantcnnn^ shall inckuic the bllowing supplemental information: (a) A report ifrom a q|uulificd engineer that <1) describes the tower and (intcnim height and design including n cross Bcotion and elevation; (2) documents the ^pproxin ale height above grqde for potential mounting positions for ^o*locatod antennas and the approximate minimum separation disia ices between antennas; and (SS describes the tower’s capacity general y, including the number and type of antennas that it can ticcommodotc. • j (b) . Tor all cjnmmercial wireless tclecommlin cation service towers, a letter of intent dommitliibg the lower owner ahd his or her successors to allow the shared^ use of tjic lower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet rcasonnhlo' terms npd conditions for shared use, including without limitaiiou, rcaso|iable ren'tnl rotes for such shored pse. 15. Construction |uqulrcjnciits. All antenpat constructed, or located j-’ithin Ih^_______, and all Wiii with the folldwing requirements: !; t (u) All upplitable provisions of this Code. and towers erected, ig therefor, shall comply (b) lower ddsigns shall be certified by a qdal fied engineer to conform to the latest suiictural ^nndnrds and wind It^aciiig requirements of the Uniform Duildiiig Code ind the Electronics Indus ry Association. lies, cable, equipment or(c) No part <^f any nnicnnn or low'er nor any I wires or braces in coniicdlion with either shall fet Any time extend across or over any part of the ri^ht-of-way, public slrce, highway, sidewalk, or property line. I i I I (d) 'l owers and antconns shall be designed l > conform with accepted electrical engineering niclhods and practices end to comply with the provisions of Ih^ National Electrical Code. (c) Every lolvcr affujed to the ground shall bb protected to discourage climbing of the lower by unauthorized persons by erection of a .security fence at least si}{ feel in tjeight. | 16. Kxls Ing Antcnlias ami Towers. Antennas apdiiowers In existence as of January 1,1 i)97, llial do not conform to or comply witli |his Section arc subject to the following provisions: 5. I % FROM LflFKIH HOFFMftH 17TH FL 04.24.1^97 09S16 P. 10 > (a) Towers may coi linue in use for the purj^se now used and os now existing but nu y not be replaced or materially ijltered without complying in al| respects 4'th this Section. • i * •(b) If such.towers pie hereafter damagod 5r dest''oycd due to wiy rc(is(^n or cause whntso(^vcr, the tower may r ^paired and restored to its fornter use, locjation, and physical dimensionis t pon obtaining 0 building .. . - .pcrnjtit therefor, but vvithout otherwise comp ying With this Section, provided, howcjv'cr, that the cost of repairing th e tower to the former use, physical dinien; lions, and location would exceed he cost of a new lower of like kind and iiuality, |hcn the tower may no. be repaired or restored except in full cnnpliancp with this Section. Violations. ^ Any perse n who sfliall violate any of the j)rovisions of this Section sholl be guilty of a niispemcano^. 1 j » j Section 5- liffcctivc Dale. Il liis ordinance shnll take effect* from and nAer its passage mid publication. I Passed and hdopted by the ____,1997. of the By: Its: this day of C. MMit^ LMHON WOIEKT l COFFMAN qeimlok rmcoGj. JAMES C EMCKSON EOWAAOJ. ORiSCOU GEMEN. EVIUER J0»#40 aullmer ERAMU HMIVEY CHARLES E MOOGJ. C>«tStOR»«RJ OCtZEN l»oah n»CR Thomas A stqltman MICHACLC JACKMAN JO»««E 0«EH. JONS S^EIUEV¥SK1 Thomas j JAA«SA OUtf#« AREEMAN GERALD t SECK JO»««S LUKXXAST OAVU NOLAN* JOHN A COTTER* •EATRtCSA ROTHMetlR RAU.S RLUIMETT ALM«L MLDOW AATHANM HCOTTENiWMM« MOMELS LttARON QREOORVE KORSTAO OART A VAN C lEVE * OMSELL •OVR£S TRiOTMVJ MCMANUS TRiOTHV 1 KEANE alanm amxrson OOAMAL RCSACK MCHAELW SCKXT ROMUt KRERS TERRENCE E B<8HOR USAA QRAV OARV A R&««Ek £ Larkin , Hoffman , Daly & Lindgren , Ltd ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 5543M194 TELEPHONE (612) 835-3600 FAX (612)896-3333 CITY OF ORONO .nJdEBOWtl APR 2 5 1997 CKiOS^OR^J IMRRGTIML Kl»Cfi.J 0»AROOOS IRUCfJ DOUGLAS RR.UAMC ORlEErm. JR JOM4R. HAL AETERJ COYLE LARRY O MARTIN JAACE tREMER JO»«tJ STEVTEMMOEN RHAIRO aloen MOMEL J SMTTH MCRSWF. AERRN OAMELW. VOSS VAiSR »CC AAMM. MEYER C>«tSTOP»CRO JO»«<SON RC^EL JACKSON ORlSTORtCRA LARUS MMtCYR FROST OOUQLA8M RAMLER STEPHEN J KAMlNlKi THQMASF 4AEXMCR MMSLT KAOJC IHARNAA WAUAGROI •UMM iclssn JO^F KLOS C ERIKHAMCS LYNNE MK>CLLE MOORE C SRENTROSStNS KRtSTiN S WEtTQARO * JOL< 8 FRCOER iCKSON OFCOLAOEL JACKF OAly 0 KEhNCTH UMX3REN Allans muuiqan \MENOCLL R. AM9CRSON X»€PHOlTlS * M.SOADMrrTtDMVMSCONSM April 24, 1997 Members of the Planning Commission VIA FACSIMILE City of Orono AND U.S. MAIL Attn: Elizabeth Van Zomeren City Planner P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 Re: Proposed Zoning Code Amendments Related to Telecommunications Towers and Antennas Dear Planning Commission Members: As you are aware, we represent American Portable Telecom (“APT”), APT is currently establishing wireless telecommunications tov^er and antenna sites at strategic locations in Minnesota. I attended the Planning Commission meeting on April 21, 1997, and, after making several general comments, promised to provide you with additional comments regarding specific provisions of the above-referenced ordinance amendments (the “Proposed Ordinance”). This letter contains the promised comments, and is meant to supplement the comments 1 made at the Planning Commission meeting. All capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined herein have the meaning attributed to them in the Proposed Ordinance. The following comments address substantive issues only. 1.GENERALLY. The Proposed Ordinance prohibits the placement of (i) any personal wireless service tower within the City of Orono (the “City”), and (ii) personal wireless service antennas anywhere in the City, except on the two (2) water towers. As stated at the Planning Commission meeting, we believe that such restrictions are illegal and unenforceable. We further believe that establishing a hierarchy of zoning districts will achieve the two main goals expressed by the Planning Commission (i.e. use of the City-owned water towers and avoiding the proliferation of unnecessary towers/antennas in the City). Therefore, we request that: (i) antennas be permitted on the water towers pursuant to an administrative permit; (ii) antennas be allowed in all districts; (iii) towers be allowed in Industrial, Business, and Office districts; and (iv) towers be allowed in Larkin , Hoffman , D aly & Lindgren , Ltd . Members of the Planning Commission April 24,1997 Page 2 2. Residential districts, only if located on municipal, school or institutional property, or if integrated into an existing structure (i.e. church steeples, light standards, etc.). SECHQN 7 (B-1. RETAIL SALFS BUSINESS niSTRICTV Snhpart H tPersonal Wirele«;«; Service Antennas and TowersV a.Ilein2. This provision requires personal wireless service antennas mounted on a municipal structure to comply with certain conditions. (1)Paragraph (f) -- This provision require all transmitting, receiving, and switching equipment to be housed within the existing structure, or, if necessary, in a new structure located in the rear yard of the principal use. APT’s ground-equipment is designed for outdoor use. This design, together with the screening and fencing requirements of the Proposed Ordinance, eliminates the need to require such equipment to be housed in a building. Therefore, we request that this provision be revised to specifically allow for placement of ground-equipment without the same being housed in a building. Paragraph (j) -- This provision requires an applicant to demonstrate, by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis prepared by a “registered professional engineer,” that the proposed antenna location is necessary'. This provision raises two concerns. First, APT’s Federal Communication Commission (the “FCC”) license virtually assures non-interference. In addition, this is a federal licensing issue w ithin the jurisdiction of the FCC. Section 704(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “Act”) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(iv)) provides that: No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC’s] regulations concerning such emissions. Although the Act prohibits the City’s regulation of personal wireless service facilities based upon radio frequency emissions, we would consider it a reasonable requirement if an interference report was required only when the facilities in question are to be co-located with other public or private wireless facilities. The newest provider of such services w’ould then be required to provide an interference report prior to being allowed to install its facilities at that co-location. Second, this provision requires the coverage/interference and capacity analysis to be prepared by a “registered professional engineer.” Our understanding of the various issues to be evaluated by an engineer in connection with the siting of MlKSt]riumi^IlTiiraK^ NfVsTiTf ^HCH¥I¥iraT« MikSOSsl r«f ■''If rtftinrc RRailtTiVTiTi •14 •] •?« 1 ■ iiwrairiat^ nima rtr4ti ^^IfiiTinT^ [•MiliJ rtikv^«i iItJ:iilM4tVAli]fsllillir«J r^^BcwrniT^ sprint [cfTYOF"'^rrnORONO I I [pfpn=nY\/7j^[[Jj Sprint PCS* Minneapolis MT\ -'H)0 Lone Oak P.irk'Au;. Suite l-fO Eagan. Minneviia Ttrlephnne: ^H() JhoO f.l\ 61: 68(j roo APR 2 8 1997 p f » • April 25, 1997 Ms. Elizabeth Van Zomeren, AICP City Planner City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, Minn. 55323 Dear Ms. Van Zomeren: The purpose of this letter is to summarize our verbal comments to the Orono Planning Commission last Tuesday evening in writing for the record. First, we are of the opinion that your proposed ordinance, by allowing personal wireless services antenna only on municipal structures, is a violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which forbids a jurisdiction from using it’s zoning powers from prohibiting or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal communication services. Second I indicated that we have interest in talking to the City of Orono about leasing space on your water tower on Kelley Parkway. Third, I expressed concern that the proposed ordinance allows antenna to be mounted only to water towers located in the B-1 Retail Sales Business District and that the Kelley Parkway water tower is zoned Residential. If you have any questions about this letter or if you would like to discuss your proposed ordinance in more detail please call. I would be happy to meet with you on it whenever and wherever it is convenient. Sincerely, David Hagen ^ Property Specialist 686 2600 00 MINUTES OF THE KEGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL / MEETING HELD ON MAY 12,1997(*#15) ADVERTISE FOR BIDS - OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD BIKE/HIKE TRAIL VGoetten moved, Peterson seconded, to authorize the City Engineer to advertise for bids for the Old Crystal Bay Road Trail segment from the northerly boundary of the city facilities property to County Road 6. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#16) TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND ANTENNA REGULATIONS - UPDATE Moorse presented the Council with updated information regarding the telecommunications tower and antenna regulations for discussion and input. He noted the City is moving forward in a conservative manner regarding the regulations to find a balance between accommodating PCS vendors and the law. He is concerned that the limitation of antennas to City structures, namely the two water towers may eventually cause a problem with accommodating the potential 5-6 vendors. Moorse said each tower will probably be limited to use by 2-3 vendors. He asked the Council to consider allowing towers be built by vendors and owned by the City for lease to the vendors. Jabbour asked if Moorse was convmced that the two water towers would be insufficient to handle the PCS antennas. Moorse indicated the PCS companies use a grid system to determine location of antennas and the towers may not accommodate this system. He did note that surrounding cities have water towers that also can be used. Radio said the full extent of the new law is yet unknown. The PCS companies and their representatives have actively been advancing the cause for the companies. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MAY 12,1997 . /■'Kelley said he felt that the law would probably not require the City to maintain.space for y' - a large number of proNdders and recommended maintaining the antenna locations on the two water towers. He said the first ring suburbs will be affected first by the PCS companies, and the City can watch what occurs. ✓ 0 Jabbour said the companies can choose fi'om the locations provided at this time. (#f!7) OFF-SALE UQUOR LICENSE - 12 HI UQUOR Moorse reviewed the floor plan for the liquor store. He voiced concern that there will be the ability to access the liquor store from the tcnvenience store. He recommended a door be installed to prevent access by customers for use by employees only. Construction of a wall would impede access to the office and rest room. The police chief recommended approval of the license. Kelley thought there should be a separate entrance for the liquor store fi^om the convenience store. He does not want the liquor store parking to occur by the gas pumps. Kelley inquired about the rules for maintaining a liquor license. Moorse said staff is reviev/ing recodifying the liquor ordinance and would probably use a series of suspensions for violations. Peterson asked that the license require the door separating the liquor store fi’om the convenience store to remain closed. 3. TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, Cit> Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 15, 1997 SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendments regarding Home Occupations Background: Traditionally, in zoning, certain occupational uses termed "home occupations" have been allowed in dwelling units. Such uses have been allowed largely on the basis that such uses are incidental to the use of the premises as residence, that the nature of home occupational uses is such that they are compatible with or even "belong" in the home, or that a home occupational uses are of a highly professional nature involving the use of mental rather than physical capabilities and are therefore compatible with residential uses. All of the above criteria dely precise definition or interpretation. Definitions of home occupations by the above criteria has in some cases totally prohibited home occupations while in other instances allowed uses which markedly detract from the residential character of a neighborhood and thereby infringed upon the rights of surrounding residents. In the reaction to the fact that liberal home occupation ordinances allow a wide variety of uses that are extremely difficult to administer, enforce, and control, many communities have chosen the alternative to prohibit such uses altogether. It is recognized, however, in Orono, that certain home occupational uses are both useful to the general community as well as the resident-proprietor. It is also recognized that it is difficult to write an ordinance dealing with home occupations in a "middle-of-the-road" fashion, which is neither discriminatory nor arbitrary. It s hoped that both citizens and courts will recognize these difficulties. Current Regulations: The current regulations are inadequate to respond to the types of home occupations in the community. A spreadsheet of the current licensing activity is attached for your review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Planning Commission schedule a work session with staff to discuss the following concerns relating to home occupations: A. B. Registration, Licensing, Administrative Process Rural vs. Urban occupations c. D. E. F. G. I Use of Accessor>* Structures Outside Employees Parking Impact on Neighbors Lot Size As there are applicants in process for home occupations that do not currently meet the zoning requirements, staff would like schedule a work session as quickly as possible. Please come the meeting with your calendars so that we can determine a time that will allow as many of Commissioners to participate as possible. HOME OCCUPATION LICENSESNAMEADDRESSZNG DIST BUSINESS TYPE TOT n EMP n OUT­ SIDE EMP CONFORM TO LICENSE VARIANCE GRANTED (OUTSIDE EMP) ACTIVE LICENSE COMMENTS Allstar Electric 3585 6th Ave N RR-IB Electrical contractor 4 Y Does Secretary work at site? Electrician, Summer PT help also Small Parts Manufacturing, Inc 1295 Loma Linda Ave LR-IB Machine shop 2 0 Y D & R Contracting 130 Cygnet Place RR-IB Building & remodeling 1 0 N '! _______ Danby Associates 1680 North Farm Rd LR-IA Consulting & lingerie distribution 1 0 Y UPS deliveries Fitq>atrick Enterprises 2845 Watertown Rd RR-IB Word processing sen icc 1 0 N John Halson 120 Golden View Dr RR-IB Guns, ammu ­ nition & related items 1 0 N Gun shows, occasional pickup at residence of guns Heliotrope Garden Design 4625 West Branch Rd RR-IB Garden design, planting, upkeep 7 6 Reso #2825 Y(?)Application from '94-95 pending- unresolved issues-see Lyle Julie LaVere 995 Wildhurst Tr LR-IB Mail order flags 1 0 N Take phone orders & mail out flags Marmet Services 130 Cygnet PI RR-IB Secretarial services I 0 N D.J. Mac Sales 4041 North Shore Dr LR-IB Mail sales 1 0 Y UPS delivery, customer picks up order, no stock Tayor Moor 735 Femdale Rd N RR-IB Gift baskets 1 0 N NAME ADDRESS ZNG DIST BUSINESS TYPE TOT n EMP u OUT­ SIDE EMP CONFORM TO LICENSE VARIANCE GRANTED (OUTSIDE EMP) ACTIVE LICENSE COMMENTS Nails by Ginger 2620 Kelly Ave LR-IB Nail service 1 0 Y North Shore Roofing 3980 North Shore Dr LR-IC Roofing 1 0 N Norum & Pearson, PA 3264 North Shore Dr LR-IC-I Law office 1 Y LeRoy A. Pilgram, D.C. 1795 Shadywood Rd LR-IC Chiropractic office 2 0 Y Priority Management Franchise 1680 North Farm Rd LR-IA Management training 1 0 N Ross Repke FFC 3380 Watertown Rd RR-IB Firearms 1 0 Y Federal Firearms License Renewal-10 years Small Engine Machine Shop 1830 Lakeview Terrace LR-IA Small engine shop-mail order & for dealers 2 0 N Ten Tec Corp 2760 White Oak Cir RR-IB Marketing 1 0 N TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 12, 1997 SUBJECT:#2182 Herbert Terry Olson, 3640 Bayside Road Conditional Use Permit/Variance Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, One-Family Residential District, (2 Acres) Lot Size:86,125 sq. ft. (1.97 acres) Application:Applicant seeks a conditional use permit and variance to reconstruct a 27.2' X 25.9' detached garage. A conditional use permit is required for an accessory structure on a through lot. A variance to reduce the street setback from 50' to 9' is also reouired. Background This application was previously considered by the Planning Commission on 10/21/96. At the request of the applicant, the application was tabled to provide the applicants time to consider available options to relocate the garage. The applicant has since decided that they prefer to rebuild the garage in its existing location. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.02 (35) and (42), Definition of comer lot and through lot. Section 10.03, Subd. 10, Conditional Use permit for all accessory structures on a through lot. Section 10.23, Subd. 6(B), Street setback requirement of 50' for the garage Section 10.75, Subd. 4, Required front/street setback is required for each street line of a through lot 7 I i Statement of Hardship The applicant has provided a list of concerns that may be created if the garage was not replaced at the existing location and required to be located elsewhere on the property. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. 2. 5. The propert)' in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can continue to be used for residential use w ithout the replacement of the garage. A garage could be constructed elsewhere on the lot, how ever, it would increase hardcover and possibly impact views. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The property is unique due to the topography along the shoreline which originally allowed for a garage to be constructed into the steep slope. The property is also unique because it is a comer lot and a through lot which places additional setback requirements on the south, cast, and north property lines. The variance, if granted, w ill not alter the essential character of the locality. Replacement of the garage w ill not change the character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the temis of this chapter. No cost estimates have been prepared to detemiine if replacement is more financially feasible that constructing a garage elsewhere on the property. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for .solar energy systems. Solar access is not an issue. 6.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. An accessor)' stmeture on a through lot is allowed as a conditional use. 7. 8. 9. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Lakeshore properties in the vicinity of the subject property are unique due to the topography and existing accessoiy structures built into the slope. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Other properties along the lakeshore have accessory structures built into the steep slope, however, few if any other are considered both a through lot and a comer lot. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The property owner enjoys having a garage with access off of Bayside Road. The garage pro\ ides secure storage for boating equipment. 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 replacement of the garage in its current location will not impair health, comfort, or morals. Safety, in terms of traffic impact on Bayside Road, will remain the same. 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 granting of the variance will allow the applicant to replace an existing accessory structure. It may be considered convenient to the applicant to rebuild in the existing location, however, the location of the garage for the purpose of passenger vehicle storage is not convenient respective of its location to the principal stmeture. Issues 1.The applicant is requesting to replace an existing garage that encroaches 4T into the required setback from Bayside Road (County Rd. 84). 2. The lot is considered both a comer lot and through lot that requires street setbacks 1 . 1 from Bayside Road, Stubbs Bay Road, and Eileen Street. 3. The proposal does not result in any additional I»ardcover. Options 1.To direct applicant to replace the garage in a location on the property that meets all setback requirements and grant the conditional use permit; or 2.To approve the conditional use permit with conditions regarding building plans and variance for a 41 ’ encroachment into the required setback for Bayside Road. 3. To deny the conditional use permit and variance. Attachments A B C D E F G H Plat Map Topographical Sur\ ey Applicant's letter Notice to Applicant re: Planning Corrunission on 10/21/96 Previous staff report from 10/21/96 meeting Previous application Minutes from 10/21/96 Engineer's letter U2182 Herbert Terry Olson 3640 Bayside Road 5/19/97 page—4 CARGILL MUMIU WimiTIOII DiinSIIM 15407 McGxnly Road W>5( Wayzatn, MS 55391-2309 Mail Address PO Box 5614 Minneapolis, MN 55440 5614 24 April 1997 n PR 1 * Elizabeth Van Zomeren AICP City Planner City of Orono Re: Garage Rebuild at 3640 Bayside Road On 21 October 1996, the Planning Commission of Orono tabled the request to relocate our garage. Members of the commission recommended we consider putting a garage west and north of the east/west driveway. We've spent the last few months considering many options and are now requesting we rebuild the garage in the present location with the same size and shape as presently exists, including doors, roof pitch, etc. Building on the east/west driveway presents the following problems: 1. If we bu’iQ with a turnaround to avoid backing down the long driveway, it will add a great deal of hard surface and much more e.xcavating on the property. 2 . Tc build close to the house causes removal of a large flower bed and grapevines, and puts the we.I and piping in the equation. 3. The long east/west driveway is gravel and we would want to hard surface it. 4. This driveway tends to drift badly in a snowstorm, which wou Iq cause some problems in the winter if not cleared quickly - now it can wait a few hours before plowing. The shorter driveway and existing garage seldom drifts and is easily blown clean. 5. Presently, we use the existing garage to store boat motors and boating gear as we cannot leave equipment in or on the boat. We have granted a scenic easement to Orono for the lake property and can't and don't want tc put a shed there. 6. The landscaping and sidewalks have all been laid out to support where the present garage is located. 7. The view from the house would be blocked if the gai age were located higher on the property. 8. Unless set back from the east/west driveway, there would be no close access to the house by the Fire Department. The contractor and my.self feel we can build a garage that will not deteriorate as this one has. The heaving of the walls and floor has reached the point where it is becoming unsafe. The floor slab is only 2" thick, there appears to have been no footings under the slab and walls. The concrete block was not reinforced with steel. The outside walls were not coated for waterprotection or insulated and there is no rock or sand next to the outside walls. By providing all of these omissions for the new construction, the garage would last a normal life. I respectfully request permission to rebuild the garage in it's present location. Sincerely, H. Terry Olson \Mce President CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Terry Olson 3640 Bayside Road Long Lake, MN 55356 ZONING FILE #2182 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 23, 1996 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: DATE OF MEETING: 10/21/96 Conditional Use PermitA^ariance VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: At the request of Mrs. Olson, the application was tabled providing applicants additional time to consider all available options in the relocation of a detached garage on your through lot. The City Engineer in his report dated October 16, 1996, advised that if garage is proposed at 9 ’ setback adjacent to Bayside Road lot line that existing sewer line will need to be relocated if retaining walls are proposed along the north side of the garage. Staff has enclosed a copy of the engineer ’s report specifying other information needed to complete the engineer ’s review of your application. At the meeting, Mrs. Olson advised that she would ap;;rw*Ciate additional time to contact your contractor to determine the cost of relocating sewer line to the north of the detached garage. Planning Commission members failed to provide specific direction concerning your street setback variance for the proposed location of the new garage although members strongly encouraged you both to reconsider locating garage at the west and north side of the east driveway. The majority of members felt the relocated garage with two tiers of retaining wall will involve far more excavation than a garage located to the north side of the east access drive. Please contact my office if you have any further questions concerning your application. If it is your plan to be scheduled at the November 18th meeting of the Planning Commission, staff must be in receipt of your amended proposal with additional information requested by the engineer no later than Wednesday, November 6 or January 7,1997 for the Planning Commission meeting of January 21st (Tuesday). Please note the City does not hold a meeting of the Planning Commission in the month of December. TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:October 15,1996 SUBJECT: #2182 Herbert Terry Olson, 3640 Bayside Road - Conditional Use PermitA^ariance Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA Lot area = 86,125 s.f. Application: Applicant wishes to reconstruct a 27.2'x25.9' detached garage within the required street yard adjacent to County Road 84 or Bayside Road. The property would be defined as both a comer and through lot. Applicant has filed the required conditional use permit to install the accessory structure on property. The garage must also meet the required street yard setback from Eileen Street and Stubbs Bay Road. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1.Section 10.02 A. Definition 35 - Lot comer. B. Definition 42 - Lot through. 2.Section 10.03, Subd. 10 - Conditional use permit required for all accessory stmetures on through lot. 3.Section 10.23, Subd. 6(B) - Street setback variance required for new detached garage. Required = 50' Existing = 9' Proposed = 9' Variance = 41' or 82% 4.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. 75-250' setback area = 21,531.25 s.f. or 25% Existing = 5,946 s.f. or 13.8% Proposed = 5,946 s.f. or 13.8% No hardcover variance is required for this application. 5.Section 10.75, Subd. 4 - Required front/street setback is required from each street line of through lot. • 1 Zoning File #2182 October 15,1996 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Hardcover Inventory E - Photograph of Property from Lakeshore F - Survey 10/14/96 G - Survey 9/13/76 H - Gustafson Report 10/16/96 Description of Request Applicant seeks approval of a conditional use permit and setback variance that would permit reconstruction of a similar sized detached garage within the street yard adjacent to Bayside Road. Applicant proposes moving the garage 6’ further east. His plan is to reconstruct new foundation walls and to excavate around structure to allow installation of two tiers of retaining wall (refer to Exhibit A). The first tier of wall would be set back 4’ from the structure and a second tier to be set back an additional 4’. Applicant's plan has not located walls adjacent to structure. The elevations adjacent to the garage do not reflect the cuts made into existing bank with construction of original garage. The wdls of the existing garage serve as retaining w alls of the surrounding bank. Earthen walls are not pushing in and having a major impact on the stability of three walls of garage. Upon your site inspection, please note the steep bank to the immediate west of the backout drive as you back out onto Bayside Road. Members are also asked to review the driveway at Stubbs Bay Road that provides access to the second detached garage and direct access to parking area adjacent to residence. Applicant was granted a side setback variance from the west lot line in 1986 for an addition to the principal structure. Please review Exhibit F, upon staffs inspection cf the site we noted a sewer clean out to the northeast of the existing garage. Applicant's private sewer line extends from Stubbs Bay Road to residence. Staff asked applicant's surveyor to locate sewer clean out to determine the approximate location of the private sewer line that serves the residence. Review Exhibit H, Gustafson confirms that it is doubtful that applicant could install the retaining walls as planned based on the information provided in the most amended survey. If the garage is to be approved in this location, the sewer line would have to be relocated further north. Gustafson also asks for more detail such as a specific wall cross section and that the walls be located on the survey. Applicant's addendum information notes a rock wall. Gustafson notes that if a boulder wall is proposed the size of the boulders, wall batter and embedment dimensions must be specified. Zoning File #2182 October 15,1996 Page 3 Statement of Hardship Please refer to Exhibit A, applicant notes the following: Applicant claims existing landscaping, side walks, stairs, trees and bushes makes the proposed location a natural location. He notes the steep slope of the property and placement of the garage elsewhere on property would require extensive excavation and leave the lot less attractive. Issues for Consideration 1.Will you support applicant's request for a setback variance for a garage to be installed within the approximate location of the existing garage. 2.Should applicant be asked to consider another location for the detached garage in consideration of the location of the existing sewer line and the impact of the extensive excavations needed to install new garage with two tiers of retaining wall within steep bank area along Bayside? Review Exhibit G, can a detached garage be relocated adjacent to existing gravel drive entering from east side of property? There is an extensive gravel parking area adjacent to residence at the west end of this drive. 3. Other issues raised by Plarming Commission members. Options of Action To approve conditional use permit for the installation for a new detached garage on the through lot that would meet all required street/front yard setbacks from three street lot lines; or To table application providing applicant additional time to provide an amended plan showing relocated sewer line and detail on two tiered retaining wall adjacent to garage placed within the required street yard setback adjacent to Bayside Road. -^O . o 1 Application If P. I ^ Date Received Amount Paid O'i, : CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00 (no change from original application) ‘ Variance for non-conforming structures S220.00 After-the-Faci Fees (Double application fee) ‘ v..f % •% - •* V ,» . ?«v PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^LHO P^AVSIPE: Property Identification Number (P.I.D.). Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. P?“ ... IV± l.nd ^ Present use of propertv" __presidential Zoning District:___________________ other (specify). applicant Name QUSo/^ Address: 3^*to iSAy^ipR ________City: Phone (home ) 3L43fe Phone (work ’) 7*f>» Z\o:S^3Sio OMNER (if different than applicant) Name ---------------- Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip:, description OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S, Describe request in detail: gePLAtjE cxj(jri.<fe t.' e>r f^T *c>aq I (attach additional sheets if necessary) 44'A^ow«: TO ^0/«- ATf VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshorc Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: fr / A^t> J-CAT^ f^CC---------- f or -rrfe. a d g=^i-.nyat>*r/Qj 4 TAKA AtfT (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 (#7 - #2181 James Nystrom - Continued) Mabusth noted that the hardcover in the 75-250' setback would require a 10% variance and a 30% variance in the 250-500' setback, due to the limited area in the 250-500' setback area. The existing driveway at 1250 s.f has a major impact. Mabusth informed McMillan that a new garage would be built in the street yard and would result in a reduction of hardcover for the driveway. Frazee added that the garage currently loads to the side and major removal of asphalt would result from the doors facing the street. Stoddard received confirmation from Mabusth that the proposal is the same as what was approved in 1995. Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2181 for variance renewal. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#8) #2182 HERBERT TERRY OLSON, 3640 BAYSTOE ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITA'ARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:59-9:23 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Jane Olson was present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a conditional use permit and variance to construct a detached garage The existing garage is currently located adjacent to CoRd 84, and the applicant proposes to rebuild at same substandard street setback 6 to the east. A private sewer clean out was located by Staff just to the northeast of existing garage. If retaining walls are proposed around newly located garage, the sewer line would be impacted. Mabusth said she received a call from Mrs. Olson on this dale, who informed her that the purpose of rebuilding the garage was due to the fact that the walls of the existing garage serve as retaining walls of adjacent steep banks. The Olsons would like to rebuild the garage and e.xcavate around the garage in order to have retaining walls. The property is considered a through lot as well as a comer lot requiring a 50 setback from three sides of lot There is also steep topography to contend with. There is an accessory' structure at the northwest comer of the property. Mabusth said an application for a side setback variance in 1986 for a proposed addition was never proceeded with. Mrs Ol.-^on said the addition was built but moved to the north si'^e of the home where no variance was required It had been requested at the Planning » mmission during that review that w ith the large size of the property, another area n- ! ► i nng variances could be found where the addition could be built. The Olsons thou::nt It r .-^r and made the change. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1996 (#8 - #2182 Herbert Terry Olson - Continued) McMillan asked if there was any more detail on the retaining walls Mabusth said no detail was known but the design would have to show how much excavation would take place. McMillan also asked if sewer lines can be moved Mabusth said they could but would be at the expense of the applicant. Mabusth also noted that the sewer lines need clean outs located every so many feet. Schroeder asked Olson if they have thought through the cost involved in relocating the sewer line. Olson said no but did know what the sewer cost them initially. Schroeder said it was his opinion that the application should be tabled to allow for further consideration. Olson was informe d of the proceedings whether the application would move on to the Council or tabled and brought back before the Planning Commission. Hawn asked if the Olsons were able to pull out from the garage onto Bayside Road. Olson said there is about 1-1/2 car lengths prior to entering Bayside, which enables them to look for any traffic. Stoddard said he struggles with relocating the garage in this area when there is room to move it elsewhere without requiring a variance. Berg added that the cost of moving the sewer line is on top of the relocation. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission for direction, whether they would allow the rebuilding of the garage in that location, to enable the Olsons to proceed. Hawn said she didn't understand why the applicant preferred the garage in that location but asked for consideration of safety and of other options Hawn also asked about any impact on the sewer, the cost involved to relocate the line, and whether the applicant was prepared to pay the cost. McMillan suggested building the garage to the north. She later said it would be a good exercise to consider such a change. Olson responded that it would require more excavation. McMillan asked what makes this garage handy. Olson said she s able to look across the street and stores items in the garage, though not her main reason McMillan said she favored tabling the application and would like to see the design of the prage if it is to be rebuilt in that area or see a working plan for a garage off of the long driveway. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #2182 for further review. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. if I Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects October 16, 1996 Bonestroo. Rosene. Amtertik and AssocMfes. Inc Is J*n Affirm^f^ ♦ Acnor £quM Opportunity Employer Principals Otto G Bonestroo, Pf • Joseph C Anderliii PE • .n L Sorval^ PE • Richard E Turner PE • Glenn P Cooh. PE • Thomai E Noyes P£ • Rot>c< < G Schunichi. P£ • Jerry A Bourdon PE • PuOert W Rosene PE and Susan M EDerlin. CPA Senior Consultants Associate Principals Howard A S.'nford PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard W Foster PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek Al A • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs, PE • « « Sidney P WiMianson. PE . L S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St Cloud MN • Mequon. Wl Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Herbert Olson Residence File No. 139-2182 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the proposal to replace the exi.sling gai'age and driveway at 3640 Bayside Road. The plan requires a two-tiered rock retaining wall. The topography provided with the application is missing a significant amount of detail at the location of the proposed work. In addition, no indication of the propo.sed elevations, contours or wall location has been provided. The plan shows the location of the existing sanita»y sewer service pipe. ITie pipe may need to be relocated if the retaining walls are proposed along the north side of the garage. More information must be provided to identify the specific wall cross section and location. The two walls must be placed at least as far apart as they are tall (1:1) or a surcharge loading must be used. If a boulder wall is proposed, the size of the boulders, wall baiter and embedment dimensions should be specified. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul. MN 55113-3898 ■ 612-636-4600 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City* Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 12, 1997 SUBJECT : #2221, Sven A. Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Dr. Variances-Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, One-Family Lakeshore Residential District, (1 Acre) Sewered Lot Size: 19,140 sq. ft. (.439 acres of dry buildable) Application:Applicant is seeking lot area, lot width, hardcover, average lakeshore setback, and side yard variances to remove an existing residence and construct a new residence. A conditional use permit is also required to excavate in the 0'-75' setback area to establish a new foundation. Background:The applicant has appeared before the Planning Commission in March and April. Applicant was advised to rework the plan to reduce the need for variances. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24, Subd. 5, B., LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements Section 10.22, Subd. 1. B., Lakeshore Set Back Regulations and Subd. 2, Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Section 10.56, Subd. C., 6. Average Lakeshore Setback ^2221 Sven A. Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Drive. Variances 5/19'97 page-1 Analysis LOT AREA AND YARDS LRl-B District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Frortt Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 43,560 sq. ft. (1 acre) 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 30 feet Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 19, 140 sq. ft. (.439 acres) 80 feet Lakeshore lot 9•9• The property does not meet the lot width, lot area, sideyard. or average lakeshore setback requirements for the zoning district. The applicant's architect sent a revised plan, however, the numbers for the lakeside setback and side yard are not legible. The new plans should be available at the Planning Commission meeting. Statement of Hardship The applicant has indicated that the curreiit residence is inhabitable. The foundation cannot support a second story. The lot is restricted by the lakeshore setback requirements from Lake Minnetonka and the lagoon. The length of the driveway increases the amount of hardcover. The lot width and location of the lagoon further restricts the building pad. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The existing residence could remain on the property. However, the applicant has indicated that the existing residence is not in good condition. The foundation would not support U222I Sven A. IVasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Drive. Variances 5/19/97 page-2 ^ * an additional story. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is due the proposal to construct a new residence on a lot that is; a. Substandard pertaining to lot size, lot width, and required yards. b. Impacted by the location of the lagoon on the property and hardcover for a driveway. c.Existing elevations in a floodway or floodfringe district. d.The location of the building site relative to the 0’-75 ’ setback requirements and average lakeshore setback requirements. 3. The variance, if granted, w ill not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed residence would architecturally be difl'erent in style than the existing residence. Buildings in this zoning district are allowed to be 2.5 stories or 30 feet. The building foundation is approximately the same size as the existing residence. 4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. The applicant will need to provide testimony as to the findings of fact regarding the reasonable use of the existing structure. 5. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not an issue. 6.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 proposed residence is a permitted use in this zoning district. H2221 Sven A. IVasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Drive. Variances 5/19/97 page~3 7.The Board or Council may permit as a \ ariance the temporaiy use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar such property or immediately adjoining property. This lot is peculiar given all the restrictions that apply to the lot due to its lot area, lot width, setback requirements, and hardcover. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The lot sizes and lot widths in this area var>' considerably. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The granting of the application is necessary to construct a new residence. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code Staff does not anticipate that the variance would have a negative impact on Tifort. safet>. or morals. The floor elevation of the new residence needs to meet . flood protection elevations. 12. The granting ot such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessaiy- to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Staff has not been inside the structure and cannot attest to the convenience to the applicant to construct a new residence vs. living in the existing residence. The applicant will need to provide testimony to make findings of fact regarding the necessity of the variance. Issues 1. The lot does not meet the lot area, lot width, side yaid, hardcover or lakeshore setback requirements. U222! Sven .4. Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3! 15 North Shore Drive. Variances 5/19/97 page-4 I 2. 3. 4. The lagoon subjects nearly the entire site to 0'-75 ’ setback. The proposed residence follows the foundation of the existing residence. The hardcover amount required is influenced significantly by the need for a long driveway and a turnaround. 5. The architect has worked to reduce hardcover and the impact on the line of sight. Staff Recommendation The applicant should have the revised plan at the Planning Commission for your review. Attachments A B C D Fax from Architect Revised plans Minutes from 4/21/97 Planning Commission Report from 4/21/97 #222/ Sven A. Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Drive. Variances S/19/97 page-5 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 16,1997 SUBJECT: #2221, Sven A. Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Dr. Conditional Use-Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, One-Family Lakeshore Residential District, (1 Acre) Sewered Lot Size: 19,140 sq. ft. (.439 acres of dry buildable) Application:Applicant is scckinp a conditional use permit in order to excavate within the C'-75' setback to establish a foundation for a new residence. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.55. Subd. 4, B., Flood Plain and Wetlands Management Flood Fringe District Section 10.55, Subd. 7, Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation Findings: 1.T’ at the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the z,oning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; The conditional use permit is required to alter land in the floodplain area, not for a specific use. 2.1 hat the proposed location of the conditional use and the propo.sed 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. U222I Sven A. Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3 ns North Shore Dr. Variances 5/19/97 page-1 ■'1 The applicant would also be required to obtain a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Land alteration would be monitored and inspected to determine compliance with all applicable public health and safety requirements. 3.That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. This is a companion application to multiple variances. If the variances are not granted, the conditional use permit will not be needed. Multiple variances are required, refer to Variance staff report. Staff Recommendation To consider the conditional use pcnnit for land alteration with the other request for varainces. I1 < U2221 Sven A. Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Dr. Variances 5/19/97 page-2 FROri : Psi-.S-ionic TAD-FAX PHCii E rro.Ni-M. IF r?9T iO:l'!:Atl Pi fit T R A N 6 M 1 T T A L TO ^ADDRESS PROJECT SUBJECT , VIA DESOnJp]rioff rRANSMirfED tnps X.DESIGN SKI-1 CUES A5? RBQiJEStLb >c fAX^Z3-^/^PRINT sns REVIEWS COMMENf COURIER OniGINAl TRACINGS REVIEW & APPROVAL imor/PtoK UP SPECIUCATIUNS >40 REFERENCE AIR SHOP DRAl'ANGS RECORD ----------------—OVI R NIGHT SAMni Fr> -----------------PRINT INO ITEMS S N073S ■■ T^s-Tixe ’ /5<a#» ^/^0i>tsir-^^'y'. A**' Y^eA- ^ ^ _________________________________________________________________ / COP/ r • » ■* »* . ^.v I yP*t!^.A— SHAnnATT DLiSlON AflCHirfrCTS 5590 WOODStDE LANE SHOREWOOD, MINNt ROTA 55331 612 470 9750 FAX 470 0407 This comnvintcfillon may contain conlldrnllal Information. Any usn of tho tnUmnnilon oontninofi within this dncumont Without the pormissbn of tho toupiont Is ptohlbUod. If racolvod In onor pionsa (Uir.tioy. £.'CO5 / V <n /^ 1 o• • #o /o:^M r- / Ci /a* 1 T-l '1 an / V ^ 1 «r> ^ / f or I o § UJ 01a Cl •IH O '•4c 0 a LiJ < p? g e» —_w.^4JS.SfeifciS!:—^— Hen* ii»^±TP<Ji»n^*S iaofSCfe.pT~T " \joa.Tn ^ti^ae cbu\/S. c>&£>t^c> , £5 3*?/ FROM 2 For Kji i^ori i c Th D Fh X __I PHONE NO.May. ito 1997 10:14AM P3 • f • • • \ f, ■•929.4 Contour Line EXISTING ' He 4 < <u.< M U i>eck LAKE FPOt't : P5r%3-:.of-.»c ThD-PW': PHOME MO. : • \ tUjy. Ite 1997 12:12Pt1 PI T R A N 8 M /T T A i. ~ ADDRESSs*j^ .... sy/*>/ty , . SUBJECT V/:-: VIA DFS(y'tPm>N (JSPS X DESIGN SKE TCHl 'S .PRINT SETS ----- COURIER ORIGINAL TRACINGS DROP.IPICK UP SPECirtCATKJNy. AIR SHOP DRAWINGS OVLriNIGin SAMPI fS m ■ m m Items'" -i. .«4aM»anB III AS REQUESTED rU'VlEWA COMMENl nnviBV& APPROVAL REFERENCE RECORD PRINTING NOTES y c^iuc,\ % ATTRCthHG/Jr • 7%^ ^Sl»ufa^AV-‘ Ar>^ Y^et^ -p^A ^ <3g»t-gOi^t^ ^ =--^ -w. ^ ^ COPY ««««*«» wmL St lARRATT DEStON ARCHITECTS 5590 WOOOStOELANB SHORE WOOD, MINNESO TA 55331 ^70-P750 PAX ^70 0407 This communication may contain contidanUal Iniormatloii Any uso ol the Inforihallon contalnod within this documetU vdtlioul tha petmissinr of 'Jto t '\.<pkvit /*• prvhibHeO. If tovoived In error ploa 'O douttoy. - - a* FPC*M : p3r-i3«oriic T hD>F hX PHOflE NO.is 199? 12:12PM P2 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 250-500' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN A. House >4 Jxngih WldUi X X B. Gernge C. Driveway D. Sidewalk n /4,3 E. Patio/Deck ' ^ 7uJ£ F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic 0. Other X X X X X X X X X ^4'4 :»4,4 ’0 * TOTAL hardcover JN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A __\n 09^ TROPOSED HAHnOOVEk IN 7.CMV. A. House Length i I 1 B. Ga^e C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pftlio/Dcck F. Landscape Dndcrlain _ By Plastic O. Other X X X SL X X X X X X X X X X WjdUls TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE \1(^ I -t- B 500-1000' fo fee S.F. i3^ Ah3o X 100 ts X 100 /e*3 tT-if S.P. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.P. S.P. S.F. S.F. HO^ S.F. A (p3o S.P. ____% e?_ S.F. _ S.F. _______ S.F. S.F. ~?e> ^ S.F. 4 e? I'i.o S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.1-. S.F. S.F. I _ S.F. S P ‘2*1, M“ 9i 4-(£>‘^cr A D A D FROM ! F'ari* sc^o t c TAD-^mX PHOf e f O. t M*y. ito 1937 12:13R1 P3 llARDCOVEU CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'75-250 250-500' EXISTING HARUCOVER IN 70NF A. House Lenoih Width X X X d2.S B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X O. Ollier TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE I + B punnosKn iiARPCovpR in zonk A. House Lengthn X X X width C ‘ B. Oarage 'LA C. Driveway loo X X D. Sidewalk 2-7- 4 X X n E. Pailo/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plasiic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE I + B X 100 X 100 500-1000* S?«:> I S.F. __S.F. __s.n. fc)^ S.F. 4a S.F. •3 / S.F. S.F. 4‘L •30 5 5 / ^ '74fe>o S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^ / S.F. -7 4 ^0> S.F. 4fe.7i % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. fe4d? S.F. S.F. S.F. •^73 fhO> S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 42. ' % A B A D J FPOM : Panasonic TAD'P’ft*;PHONE NO.May. 16 1997 12:13R1 P4 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEEl SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7a* 75-250’500-1000* EXISTING,HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lcneih WlJth sr. X X X S.F. S.F. S.P. B. Oarnge C. Drivewny lOifi X X fo D. Sidewalk X X E. Palio/Dcck 'X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other 'TiriASE*.lO TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE / + B ’10 SG PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONK. A. House Ltngih Width X X X B, Oarage C. Driveway lOta X X _______ D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X P. laudscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other ^ TOTAl. HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ___+ B ’nOSO S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.P. S.P. S.P. S.P. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.P. 1 C'^O S.F. X 100 -I«% S.P. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.P. / O4>o S.F. S.P. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. X 100 S.P. n <?gfc> S.P. An A D FROM • Panasonic TAD--FAX PHCiNE to.May. 16 1997 12: I^IFM R5 5/16/97 Second Attachment to City of Orono • Variance Application For: Average Lakeshore. Hardcover, Side eetbaoka, Lot width and area, and Conditional uae permit for excavation anr: fill, etc. Owner: Address: Sven Wasberg and Arlene DeCandea Home 3115 north Shore Drive Orono, Mn 55391 Contractor: To be determined Architect: Sharratt Design Company 471-1024 .470-9750 RESPONSE TO MOST RECENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Requests in the minutes where for possible design adjustments. These design adjustments have been completed (please see the attached drawings). * Sell borings and analysis are complete and piling construction (with approximately 50 foot deep pilings) will be required for a proper building foundation. HARDSHIP DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS: film The site is over 356 feet deep from the Minnetonka lakeshore to North shore Drive. However, the site Is very narrow and the lagoon cuts into the site area. The only location available for a structure Is the approximate location of the existing structure. The proposed building Is 16 feet back from the existing building and the earlier proposed building location. The existing home to be removed Is very forward of the line of site average lakeshore setback due to 3135 being set back 80 far due to the lagoon. This is due to an irregular lakeshore lire created by the lagoon. Reasonable use In order to put the site to reasonable use, any new home design will occupy nearly the same location as tho existing home requiring all the necessary '/ariancos per current ordinances. (Please see drawings attached) FROH • PcK-ic'son 1 c TAD-'FAI'n PHOt iE no.May. iF 1097 12:14PM P6 VARIANCE APPLICATION (cont.) Hflrdfiovflr Hardship for hardcover Is simply due to a very small lot size behind the buildabie lake setback and a deep lot requiring a long driveway. In the proposed design, an overall hardcover reduction In zones O' - 75'. 75’ - 250', and 250' * 500' has been made as follows: Zone Existing % of Zone Proposed A %of Zone Proposed B % of Zone 0-75 7B - 260 250 - 500 1708 sq.ft. 36.9% 3491 sq. ft. 46.79 % 1098 sq.ft. 15.57% 1699 sq.ft. 36.7% 3468 sq. ft. 46.50 % 1098 sq.ft. 15.57% 1261 sq.ft. 27.24% 3138 sq.ft. 42.06% 1098 sq.ft. 15.67% Totals 6297 sq. ft.6265 sq. ft.5497 sq. ft. Total lot area « 19,140 sq. ft. Hardcover % of total lot = 32.89 %32.73 %28.72 % Summary The project's hardships requiring the variance: • Very narrow lot width and size permitting virtually no allowable bulldable area by current zoning requirements. • Long lot depth requiring a longer than normal driveway. • Setback from the lakoshore of the present existing home structure is non-conforming. If the v/i-sling home was adequate to remain, it’s position and size would not bo required to change. • Irregular shoreline and extreme setback of one adjacent home. • The lagoon encroachment Design Commer^ts Summary: • The design concept Is for a one and ono half story home to minimize the height Impact on the neighboring homes. • The design was adjusted from the previous proposal pulling the house back 16 feet from the primary lakeshore significantly reducing the setback encroachment and overall hardcover. If further Information or clarification Is required, please contact the Owner or Michael Sharratt. Thank you for your time. Michael Shartatt (on the behalf of Arnie Wasberg and Arlene DeCandea) r-a*cr«. 7^ 2 m 't = ! 0 I i^nr: II* I J-ai^trr Hr .1 f»-V I • • • • wi-^ li i s? _ {PI KU>4<3r- Ic B - r< in~T . tliKT^' • / « ^4^/-----\-f 1o :i/P*» p-o'‘—#---------- le-c/HTP 1,so.?- ,.<re^, U?-'. et^efr:.____.. i ^/\t0j^'^ _ • • ■*_______^_____Id^ • lJ->CL3lA r- S*cr» •T.I O UJ 01 CL U. a s •J) c II ■—’- ^ i M N '-! !■/ 1# rn$m 5 ijlj -Hi^ 1 • • • • w^ee’&p»5i -'^/iV^'7 r:. —1— 'i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 C (#5 - #2217 John Thimmesh - Continued) Discussion at the last meeting involved concern that a future homeowner may add blacktop. Exist'mg hardcover in the 75-250' setback is 26.15%. It is proposed at 29.40% for a 4.4% variance. Van Zomeren indicated the applicant would also like to maintain the shed. She noted the existing structural coverage is in conformance at 14.4%. The addition will increase the coverage to 16.91% requiring a 1.9% variance. Removal of the shed would reduce that figure to 15.5% Van Zomeren said no permit was required when the shed was built. The shed does encroach the rear and side yards. There is no impact on the neighboring property but it does increase the hardcover. Van Zomeren said Staff prefers that storager areas be consolidated in one location. A 3.3' rear yard variance is also required. Mr. Thimmesh said he would prefer to keep the shed. He noted the shed's exterior matches that of the residence and is surrounded by a 6' fence. It b used for pool equipment and is in a convenient location accorefing to Mrs. Thimmesh. Lindquist indicated the need to correct problems when the opportunity arises. There were no public comments. Van Zomeren suggested negotiating with the applicant regarding the 3.3' rear yard encroachment. Thimmesh indicated shortening the addition would result in a lack of proportion. Hawn, Schroeder, and Smith agreed that the structural coverage should be reduced by the removal of the shed. The applicant agreed to remove the shed. Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2217 with the condition that the shed be removed when the addition is completed. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#6) #2221 SVEN A. WASBERG AND ARLENE DECANDIA, 3115 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:37-8:58 P,M. The Applicant was present. 8 MINUIES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 {M - #2214 Carmen and Richard Kozickj' - Continued) McNfillan inquired if there would be room for storage in the garage. Kozicky said he allowed 8-9’ for storage of his machinery. Commissioners discussed the amount of stnictural coverage. It was noted that the applicant had revised his plans consistent with the direction given previously by the Commission. Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application #2214 with the notation that the Planning Commission recommends no further structural coverage be allowed on the property. Vote; Ayes 3, Lindquist, Stoddard, Schroeder; Nays 4, Ha>\-n, Smith, Berg, McMillan. The applicant said he would revise the size of the garage. Stoddard suggested the garage be reduced by 6' in length. It was determined that the prevailing vote may request reconsideration of the application Hawn moved, McMillan seconded, to reconsider the application. Vote; Ayes 7, Nays 0. Stoddard moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2214 subject to a 6' reduction in the size of the garage per the survey and accompanied by a drawng. The structural coverage would be reduced to 19.63%. No additional structural coverage would be allowed on the property. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 2, McMillan, Hawn. Dissenting voters felt a 4% structural coverage variance is too high for a substandard lot. (#5) #2217 JOHN THIMMESH, 1945 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:25-8:37 P.M. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the applicant is requesting hardcover variance, structural coverage variance, and a rear yard variance to add a 18'x31' storage addition to the existing garage. The application was tabled at last month's meeting to enable the applicant to consider whether he would combine the two lots. He has agreed to do so. Information provided by the assessor indicates there would be no tax consequence by doing so. This enables the applicant to use the total lot coverage for calculations. MIN» ITES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21. 1997 (#6 - #2221-Sven Wasbeiig and Arlene DeCandia - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the application is for a conditional use permit and variances to remove an existing residence and construct a new residence. There is a lagoon on the property that is regulated by the Shoreland Ordinance. The CUP is necessary for excavation and fill within the 75' setback area. The building footprint is forward of the 75* line. The lot docs not meet minimum standards for the LR-IB zoning district. The lot is .439 acres and 80' wide. Hardcover currently exists at 32.73% in the 0-75' setback where none is allowed. The existence of the property within the 0-75' setback is a hardship. The 75-250' setback allows for 25% hardcover. Existing hardcover is 46.8% and is proposed at 46.9? 0. The 250-500' setback hardcover meets the requirements. Van Zomeren indicated the average lakeshore setback is unusual due to the location of the adjacent residences. She noted that the property owner to the cast had objected to the height of the proposed residence at the last Planning Commission meeting. The side yard setback exists at 1-1/2' and will be maintained at that distance. Van Zomeren reported that new information available has indicated the existing foundation will not support the design. A new foundation would result in the application being reviewed as new construction. While recognizing the hardship due to the lagoon. Van Zomeren said Staff has difficulty in recommending approval of the application. Mr. Wasberg said he has not yet received the soil test to substantiate that the existing foundation will not support the structure. He reported that the hardcover will decrease with the new residence. Van Zomeren noted that the 6297 s.f of hardcover (32.97%) in the 0-75' setback will only reduce to 6265 s.f or 32.75%. Schroeder indicated his support if the residence was built on the existing site due to the hardships of the property. L'uidquist asked if he understood it was new construction. Schroeder said he did. Hawn noted the new structure would be two-stories. Wasberg said the residence would be 1-1/2 stories in the front. The applicant has owned the property for eight months and has resided in the residence to the west of the subject property for two years. There were no public comments. Lindquist indicated the proposed structure is too large for the small lot and would like the plan to be brought in conformance. Van Zomeren brought attention to Exhibit K, a letter from the architect. The second paragraph reports the need for a new foundation. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#6 -11^2221-Sven Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia - Continued) Stoddard said he would support the application if the existing foundation were used. If not, he asked that the residence be repositioned and made smaller. Wasberg said he would move the design back on the lot. He also indicated he informed the neighbor that he would plant a row of trees between their properties. Berg indicated the applicant should be able to move the proposed residence back behind the average lakeshore setback line. Lindquist suggested tabling the application to allow the residence to be redesigned for a smaller structure that could be placed further back on the property. Wasberg indicated he cannot pull the entire structure behind the 75' setback because he needs room to back a car out. Lindquist asked Wasberg to work with his architect on the design. He also asked the applicant to attempt to eliminate the need for a side setback. Wasberg asked for direction on how big the structure may be. After discussion, the applicant was informed to limit the structure coverage to 1500 s.f Hawn suggested the structure be shifted so it lays peipendicular rather than parallel to the shoreline. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to table application #2221 for further review. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#7) #2221 JOSEPH VOCHKO, 2925 CASCO POINT ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 8:59-9:08 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a request for an after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit for the construction of a retaining wall and stairwr^. Hardcover variance is required for the wall in the 0-75* setback and the CUP to alter the retaining wall. The work was stopped in progress. Letters from and to the applicant are part of the package. The resolution would allow the applicam to place random boulders. The engineering consultant recommended the boulders with caution as there is concern of movement with boulders. The proposed stairway is adequate. The resolution would include conditions 1-5 as noted in the staff report. D TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/ Zoning Administrator April 16.1997 SUBJECT: #2221 Sven A. Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia, 3115 North Shore Dr.-Conditional Use Permit and Variances-Public Hearing ZONING DISTRICT: LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, 1 Acre, Sewered Application: To remove the existing residence and a construct a new residence. Variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover, average lakeshore setback, and side yards are needed. A conditional use permit is needed for excavation and fill in the 75' setback area. Pertinent Ordinances: /.Section 10.24, One Family Lakeshore Residential District DISTRICT STANDARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Another Lot Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1 acre 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 30 feet 35 feet SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT AREA AND YARDS-as proposed Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Adjactn: to Another Lot Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 19,140 sq.ft. (excludes lagoon) .439 acres 80 feet Lakeshore lot 1.5'Lakeshore lot Not Applicable H2221 Sven IVasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 Forth Shore Dr.-Variances 4/21/97 page-1 The subject property is ,439 acres which is less than the required 1 acre minimum lot size. The proposed residence would encroach into the 10' side yard setback. A variance of 8.5' for the side yard is required to construct the new residence. The lot width is 80 feet which does not meet the 140 ft. minimum lot width requirement. 2. Section 10.22, Sitbd.2, Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporarj' or permanent structures except as permitted under Subdivision 1 of this section. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. HARDCOVER ANALYSIS Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback (sq. ft.) Hardcover Allowed Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'4,630 0 1,708 sq. ft. (36.89%) 1,699 sq. ft. (36.69%) 1,699 sq, ft. (36.7%) 75-'250'7,460 1,865 sq. ft. (25%) 3,491 sq. ft. (46.8%) 3,468 sq. ft. (46.49%) 1,603 sq. ft. (21.49%) 250'-500'7,050 2,115 sq.ft. (30%) 1,098 sq. ft. (15.57%) 1,098 sq. ft. (15.57%) 1,017 sq. ft. (14.42%) 19,140 sq. ft. total lot area 6,297 sq. ft. (32.9%) 6,265 sq. ft. (32.73%) The hardcover analysis above was prepared based on the interpretation by the applicant and surveyor that tlie lagoon is manmade and should not be subject to the 75' setback requirement. However, the staff considers the lagoon to be protected as well as the lake which places the entire site w ithin the 75' setback with the exception of a small piece near the road and driveway. If the entire site is considered to be in the 75' setback then a 32.73% variance is required where no hardcover would otherwise be allowed. The applicant is proposing to reduce the existing hardcover from 6,297 sq. ft. or 32.9% to 6,265 sq. ft. or 32.73%. The location of the lagoon creates the need for a long driveway which increases the total amount of hardcover. U2221 Sven fVasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Dr. - Variances 4/21/97 page-2 1 LAKESHORE SETBACK 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 1, B., Lake shore Set Back Regulations The setback from the shoreline for lakeshore lots: B.No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. The entire site is in the 75' setback from the shoreline. ITie proposed residence would encroach into the lakeshore setback approximately 38 ’ forward of the 75' setback line. The proposed residence encroaches approximately 63' into the 75' setback from the lagoon. AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK 4. Section 10.56, Subd. C, 6., Average Lakeshore setback No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes, and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. The proposed residence is forward of the adjacent residence to the northeast. The proposed residence is also forward of the residence to the west w hich is separated from the subject property by the lagoon. 1 he proposed residence encroaches approximately 65' forward of the average lakeshore setback line. FLOOD PLAIN AND WETLANDS MANAGEMENT 5.Section 10.55, Flood Plain and Wetlands Management, Subd. 4, B., Flood Fringe District (FFD) The Flood Fringe District shall include those areas designated as floodway fringe in the Flood Insurance Study, including without limitation the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka between elevations 929.4 MSL and 931.5 MSL, the area between the floodway and the edge of the 100-year flood on all other lakes, ponds and streams, all designated sheet flow areas, all intermittent streams, and ponding areas and all lands containing soil types classified as wetland soils, whether or not there is water standing on those soils at any given time. U222I Sven Washerg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Dr.-Variances 4/21/97 page-3 The existing survey shows that there are areas on the property that are in the Flood Fringe District. The proposed survey shows that the elevation at the southwest comer is proposed at 931.4 and the proposed first floor elevation is proposed at 932.9. The Watershed District will require a first floor elevation at 933.5. 6. Section 10.55, Subd. 7, Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation A.The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation within the Floodway and Flood Fringe Districts shall be established by adding 1.0 foot to the Base Flood Water Surface Elevations within Floodway listed in the Floodway Data Table contained in the Flood Insurance Study. Regulatory flood protection elevations between cross- sections shall be inteipolated. B. The regulatory’ flood protection elevation for Lake Minnetonka shall be 932.5 MSL. The subject property is located in part below the flood protection elevation. The applicant needs to provide a detailed elevation and grading plan so that staff can determine the location and elevations of the proposed residence relative to the flood protection elevation. A conditional use permit is required for any fill or excavation in the floodway and flood fringe district. The elevations need to be revised to increase the elevation to 933.5 to comply with the Watershed District requirements. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J K L Application Plat Map Property Owner's list Hardcover Calculations Existing Survey Proposed Survey Topographical Map Elevations Floor Plans Acknowledgement Form from Adjacent Property Ow'ner's Letter from Architect Responding to Planning Cormnission Minutes Minutes from 3/17/97 Planning Commission Meeting U222I Sven Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Dr.-Variances 4/21/97 page—4 Description of Request Applicant seeks multiple variances for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, hardcover, lot area, lot width and side yard setbacks in order to remove an existing residence and to construct a new residence. The proposed residence would be a three-bedroom residence with a large garage for at least three vehicles. A lot area variance of .561 acres or 56% is needed where 1 acre is the minimum lot size and .439 is existing. A lot width variance of 60 ft. or 42.8% is needed where 140 ft. is the minimum and 80 ft. is existing. A side yard setback variance is needed where the proposed side yard is 1.5' where 10' is required. A hardcover variance is needed to allow 6,265 sq. ft. or 32.73% where 6,297 sq. ft. or 32.9% is existing and where none is allowed in the 0 ’-75' setback. An average lakeshore setback variance is needed to encroach 65' into the required setback. The regulatory flood protection elevation is 932.5 MSL. The proposed elevation for the new residence shows that part of the new residence will be above the flood protection elevation but below the 933.5 elevation required by the Watershed District. Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The lot does not meet the minimum standards for lot area and lot width. The proposed residence does not meet side yard setbacks from side property lines. The proposed residence is located entirely within the 75’ setback for Lake Minnetonka and the lagoon. The proposed residence is located forward of the average lakeshore setback. The location of the lagoon and setback requirements restrict the location of structures on site. The amount of hardcover existing and proposed is influenced by the need for a long driveway to the existing and proposed location of the structure. Any excavation or fill requires a conditional use permit. Detailed elevations and grading plans need to be reviewed by the Watershed District. The proposed residence does not exceed lot coverage requirements. ff72Jl Sven fVasherg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Dr. - Variances 4/21/97 page-5 10. The applicant's architect has submitted a letter that states that the existing foundation will need to be removed. A new foundation should meet the side yard setback requirements. 11. The adjacent resident appeared at the previous Planning Commission and objected to the height. Staff* Recommendation Tliere are multiple variances for the proposed residence created by the uniqueness of this lot being narrow and the location of the lagoon. The lakeshore setback, and average lakeshore setback, and hardcover requirements as applied to this lot restrict redevelopment of the site. Staff is concerned about the impact of redevelopment on the floodway and flood fringe district. A conditional use permit is also required for excavation or fill. Demolition and new construction on the subject property would be required to take precautions to protect the shoreline and the lagoon. Staff recommends that the proposed strucmre be located behind the 75 ’ setback line and conform to the 10' side yard setback on the east property line. The applicant also needs to submit the fee for a conditional use permit. U2221 Sven Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Dr.-Variances 4/21/97 page~6 Application # Date Received 7k/ Amount Paid A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) - g . *'* • Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) d- .-a-i *■ Variance for non-conforming structures $j2v.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) \ \4 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^ t i Property Identification Number (P.1.D.)_ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired /^ V-________________^____________^(month/year) I (do) (de-net)- also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: >c residential ___pother (specify) Zoning District:___________________________________ APPLICANT A:. Name Phone (home’l 4 7 i -* I ^ ^4** Address: ^17.^ P P- _____Phone (work^ City: _______Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^A/tAg- ^gsX, Address:_________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ _ Describe request in detail: ------------------------------------ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area x Lot Width X Hardcover.Lot Coverage X Setback:Front Side Rear X Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or uni^ual property condjtions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: A j----------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) p,y 370.OO REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150 ’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j ’ x 11 ” for reproduction. 't opographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 '/a" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SVi' x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. "This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included« APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the, best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATU.____ 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 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 abend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 *1^ 2/21/97 i/k ^ '• •.** •.“■>1 .jVa Attachment to City of Orono • Variance Appiication For: Average Lakeshore, Hardcover, etc. Owner: Address: Sven Wasberg and Arlene DeCandea Home 3115 north Shore Drive Orono, Mn 55391 Contractor: To be determined Architect: Sharratt Design Company 471-1024 470-9750 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Most aspects of the existing structure are non-conforming. The existing structure is very marginal, structurally, mechanically, and spatially as it relates to present day standards on the lake and relative to the Owner's desires. Removal of the existing structure and replacing it in virtually the same size and position is the basis of the Owner's request for all the variances necessary. This need for variance is due solely to the existing non-conforming conditions and not due to the Owner's actions. The average lakeshore request is to be able to build the proposed structure in the same location as the present structure relative to the setback from the lake. Due to the adjacent structure/straight line approach to the lakeside setback, this request is for a lakeside setback variance of 80 feet forward of the straight line setback created by the closest to the lake structure projections of the two adjacent lakeshore homes, but no further forward than the existing/heated home's enclosed area. The hardcover request is to exceed the maximum hardcover permitted for new construction, however the total proposed hardcover is less than the existing total hardcover. HARDSHIP DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS: Site The site is over 356 feet deep from the Minnetonka lakeshore to North shore Drive. However, the site is very narrow and the lagoon cuts into the site area. The only location available for a structure is where the existing structure is located. Since the existing structure is allowed to remain as-is, the proposed building is only in the same location. The existing home to be removed is very foerward of the line of site average lakeshore setback due to 3135 being setback so far due to the lagoon. This is due to an irregular lakeshore line created by the lagoon. Reasonable use In order to put the site to reasonable use, any new home design will occupy the same location as the existing home requiring all the necessary variances per current ordinances. (Please see drawings attached) VARIANCE APPLICATION (cont) .ao' A i I ' ': • • f *• ‘ % • \ \ i -J Hardcover Hardship for hardcover is simply due to a very small lot size behiixl the buildable lake setback and a deep lot requiring a long driveway. In the proposed design, an overall hardcover reduction in zones 0’ - 75'. 75' • 250', and 250’ • 500' has been made as follows: Zone 0-75 Existino % of Zone ProDosed %of Zone 1708 36.9%1699 sq. ft.36.7% 75 - 250 3491 46.79%3468 sq. ft.46.50% 250 - 500 1098 15.57%1098 sq. ft.15.57% Totals 6297 6265 sq. ft. Total lot area =19,140 sq.ft. Hardcover % of total lot =32.89%32.73% Summary The project's hardships requiring the variance: • Very narrow lot width and size permitting virtually no allowable buildable area by current zoning requirements. • Long lot depth requiring a longer than normal driveway. • Setback from the lakeshore of the present existing home structure is non-conforming. If the existing home was adequate to remain, it’s position and size would not be required to change. • Irregular shoreline and extreme setback of one adjacent home. • The lagoon encroachment If further information or clarification is required, please contact the Owner or Michael Sharratt. Thank you for your time. Mich.:dl Sharratt (on the behalf of Arnie Wasberg and Elaina DeCandea) • -----\ fe/h\b\!: HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250 ’ 250-500' 500-1000* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House 44.X ^*4 1 /O go _S.F. Length Width X 1 =S.F. • • X S.F. X e=^ S.F. • , B. # Garage n X /'I.?(3^_ S.F. C.Driveway X S.F. •X I S.F. D.Sidewalk * 1 X S.F. X es I S.F. E.Patio/Deck • 5 ”X ^•4/ 4-S.F. 7/5 “X •3.4i4 -i ~/e^3 " S.F. F.Landscape X S.F. Underlain X »= ”■ S.F. By Plastic X « __■ S.F. ___ lo.Other X ^ '_ S.F. ^ i TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ,nce>S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -4fe»3o " S.F. A inoe?4-B _Ab30 _X 100 1% ? • \. proposed HARDCOVER IN ZONE ^ «.* A.House X = ____ S.F. Length ' ^ Width % r. ••X /3 = _S.F. VV- •I z.X « _" S.F. X lO - _k»o “ S.F. r '»'V • • 1 't • ■ nr; 1 **•Garage '1 X *1-4 1 _ S.F. > c.Driveway ?*s X •2A n: _64 S.F. • •# " X « __" S.F. i:•. S.F.D.Sidewalk X = __ X = _I S.F. E.Patio/Deck X S.F. X a ][]“ S.F. F.Landscape Underlain X s S.F. X a "" S.F. By Plastic Other X =_ S.F. G.•2^'X S3 (Vi^_ S.F. • • • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE .4fc»3^S.F. A ••B _Ah^o X 100 S3 % D A B A B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0>75'75-250'250-500'500-11 EXISTING HAWDCnVF.R IN ZONE A. House ’ Length Width B. Garage • • C. Driveway X X X OiS X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X f Landscape U ^;J Underlain By Plastic X X X /C ’ • “N f ^*0. Other /•. if . { TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 54^ I + B pwoposEn HAunrovER in zone •/' A. House Length Width r 'O'-viiX •' -• • X X X B.Oarage C. Driveway loo X X D.Sidewalk , » E.Patio/Deck F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic 0.Other X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B X 100 - X 100 /_S.F. 4 S.F. " S.F. B " S.F. C3 _ S.F. S.F. B ~I S.F. 4x S.F. B """ S.F. S.F. B """ S.F. S.F. B """ S.F. B I S.F. •_ S.F. m ^4^ /S.F. •14 " S.F. B 4&.-/4 3o _ S.F. S.F. B " S.F. B " S.F. &4^_ S.F. /S.F. m “/4^“ S.F. B S.F. B 40 I S.F. S.F. « ""“ S.F. S.F. e " S.F. r=_ S.F. _ S.F. •S.F. •l4<po _ S.F. a “4te ___% A B A B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WOIHCSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X 75-250’250-500’500-1000’ Length Wi(Jth B. C. Garage Driveway X X X :nXTT: f\7) D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X X X /o \ » I ‘ 0. Other t»w«0L 1 O • ♦ va> TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE / + B •SOe»5,,V ■'Tr A. House PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Palio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X \OJ0 X X X X X X X X X I C G. Other ’\Q cotEg"; " TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE lo^e> + B 'no^c> X 100 X 100 /o<go / O(o^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. _________S.F. tS.ST % 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. 3 & S.F. lO^h S.F. n S.F. IS.SI__.% A B A B t. *<k 1 4-X f-'- ^‘-^1 } *• -' .V •■■' '■ • ■' ♦ >; -.C/ ’/•- ?* •» ' ^ - *^-__ fj riutcbza £xhibl- CLRTlI lCAir or SURVCY FOR RICHARD J. OLSON OF TRACTS A & B. RL.S. NO. 269 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA ^ ^i4o Y Tfoelt A. ond & R«^tt«r*d Land St^vay No. 269 r4«t of R*9Ntror ot Tiltet, H«nn«o<n Cot^ty. UinnaMt& o . donoita Iren morhtr doneltt ••itung ipot oNvotion. m»on sao dotwn BaorinQ* ahovn ora b«««d upon on e«Mnod do(t^ Tri«t i^v«y Intond* to oho« th« bA^idofUt of th* obc*o d«»crlb«d p#opwty. tn« locotion of on aaittind howta, ond in« locotion of d vi»<ON ‘'hordcovor'* tnofoon. H do«« not purport le tho* any oinor inprovomonlt or tnc/ooclvnonlt. wafa«<\l>«lt I#** n^a«v • • A*«S •• comN & gronberg. inc. Cotuulhn^t b/yPh\T». tiirfcf Sift* VLiniKts •W Tanurjck Aurnue * lun^ UKc. M\ S5 l136 6!2-473mVl I atiMt OU4 A*« HM**-* la «a l-Ca |aMa al K • • a« fc« M •i»a« • aM|«t ln««l. Jiaal lK<t 14 alwta H(y>«t'MaJt ltd I aVKim 4(0 1 Mubi dar L(aa» #4 0« HjIi- a4 \lw’a4j \UL S la(.«d*iy \lmua.44Uokv W4«f ^ "* '“Va'••A ■ •ail 7-lf 66 • • \aa UZ72 r* ft \r ti U ( / iu ;• ''<0^ * '; V.» i i « i kjh‘- *,^<54M^<uT“ P<aoflH<i l^rrn- l*iKtsH P50A*^\^S fgq^p;:^ >^r.■ s./-P0(^n O'. fiA 1: .1 /1i <ft(5fH<vcr P0C)P»^ 7^ 5 2£,ro<sc<? >»cni-_ • ■ L... r*• 9 i ••, f "0. \‘.j f; j /1 —t i - P<»F 7-en)cc^> ^:?e:^A1^il::?5^/ks^ Homc. .^<^ . _ /-:""::: :i'' Wm rfriit^err f*1-CtPP— r l/»i «. 1>'©'' • • • i |tt C5" H ^/ao/i-“. ‘SKo; % \ •^l5&. - - • — t-PHE. V*TTr-r- II; \ .• •Bhtbi+ 7 Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) IMA p1^________Qf [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at M/. t7f>.also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. V. ; f. • r 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 Date Property Owner Date 4^.^. I (we). r« [print name(s)] of ’Z\Ot9 M>|g^ [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at-?^lltg ujjg. CMtgie^ c7g..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. iT. Ut/Mc5Vtul<r1— Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. r"’ Exhibi-t 4/10/97 Second Attachment to City of Orono • Variance Appiication For: Average Lakeshore, Hardcover, Side setbacks, Lot width and area, and Conditionai use permit for excavation and fiii, etc. Owner: Address Sven Wasberg and Ariene DeCandea Home 3115 north Shore Drive Orono, Mn 55391 Contractor: To be determined Architect: Sharratt Design Company 471-1024 470-9750 RESPONSE TO 3/17/97 PLANNiNiG COMiSSiON MiNUTES Requests in the minutes where for detailed grading plans and grade elevations. Please see attached refined grading plans of both the existing and proposed site plans. Contour lines and spot elevatipns are shown. The completion of soil borings and analysis are still In process at the time of this submittal, however, the conclusion has been confirmed that the existing foundation is inadequate for the reliable and structurally sound accomodation of the proposed home. The existing foundation will require removal and a new conventional foundation system or piling will be required to support the proposed home. The soH boring analysis being performed by Advanced Engineering Company will confirm the recommended foundation type and such recommendation will be integrated into the the final drawings required for permit. There will be some excavation and backfilling required to install the new foundation and, accordingly, a conditionai use permit is also part of this request to allow the proposed construction. All requirements for such permit will be executed in the proposed construction. If further information or clarification is required, please contact the Owner or Michael Sharratt. Thank you for your time and consideration. Michael Sharratt 470-9750 (on the behalf of Arnie Wasberg and Elaina DeCandea) ‘•929.4 Contour Line L> TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 12,1997 SUBJECT: #2230 Georgina Hackney, 2184 Shadywood Road Variance-Public Hearing 2k>ning District: LR-IC, One-Family Lakeshore Residential District, (1/2 Acre), Sewered Lot Size:16,012 sq. ft. (.367 acres) Application:Application seeks a hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback area to increase hardcover from 2,419 sq. ft. (25.1%) to 2,488 sq. ft. (25.8%) to allow for improvements to the kitchen and front entrance of an existing residence. A side yard variance to encroach 3.4' into a required 10' side yard is needed for the kitchen addition. Background This application was previously considered by the Planning Commission on 4/21/97. At the City Council meeting on 4/28/97, the applicant indicated that she also wanted to make improvements to the front entry. City Council referred this matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.25, Subd. 6, LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, Area Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements Section 10.22, Subd. 2, Lakeshore Hardcover Analysis LOT AREA AND YARDS LRl-C District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 21,780 sq. ft. (1/2 acre) 100 teet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet Subject Property Lot A.rea and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Side Yard Street Side 16,012 sq. ft. .367 acre 50 ft. at lakefront 57 ft. at street 53 ft. at Approx. 98 ft. 13 ft. at south line; 6.6 ft. proposed at north line 37.8 ft. to garage HARDCOVER Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Hardcover Allowed Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75'3,860 sq. ft.None None None None 75‘-250’9,652 sq. ft.2,413 sq. ft. (25%) 2,419 sq.ft. (25.01%) 2,488 sq. ft. (25.8%) 69 sq. ft. .79% 250’-500’2,500 sq. ft.750 sq. ft. (30%) 1,363 sq. ft. (54.5%) 1,363 sq. ft. (54.5%) No Change _________________1 Statement of Hardship The applicant has provided a statement regarding the existing residence not meeting building code requirements for stairway width and step rise. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. 4. 5. The property can continue to be used as a residential dwelling. The proposed variances will bring the residence into conformance with building codes regarding stairway width and step rise. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The landowner is dealing with an existing structure that does not meet building code requirements. The circumstances are not created by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The \ ariances for hardcover and sideyard setback will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic considerations are not a factor with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not an issue. 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 «he zone where the affected person's land is located. The variances requested are for a residential structure which is a permitted use in this zoning district. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. 9. The variances requested are unique to the design of the existing structure. It was constructed before the current building code requirements regarding stairway width and step rise. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Other properties in tliis area are deficient for lot size and some do not meet the sideyard setback requirements. The variances being requested are specific to the existing residence's deficiencies related to the building code. 10. The granting of the application is necessary’ for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances requested will preserve the property owner’s right to use the residence in a safe manner. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variances will improve safety by improving the steps and internal stairway. 12. The granting of sue’’ variance w ill not merely serv e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The granting of the variances improves the livability of the existing residence to bring it into conformance with the building code. Issues 1.Planning Commission previously recommended approval of the sideyard variance and hardcover variance for the kitchen addition. 2.The improvements would bring the structure into conformance with building code requirements for the internal stairwell and front steps. 3. The lot does not meet the required lot area or lot width requirements. Stair Recommendation To approve the variance for a sideyard encroachment of 3.4' for the kitchen expansion and an increase in hardcover by 69 sq. ft. in the 75'-250' setback to allow the proposed improvements. Attachments A B C D E F G Plat Map Application Hardship Statement Proposed Surv ey Proposed Kitchen Improvements Proposed Porch Improvements Hardcover Calculations (3 pages) #2230, Georgina Hackney 2184 Shadywood Road 5/19/97 page-5 t • 1 Application O Date Received 3 7 Amount Paid >>■> CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ^ • ') . (no change from original application) / / .3 Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 ' * ^' After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) e» 1?! PROPERTY INFORMATION v A Site Address ^ v ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) \1 - \\•' ; * ^\ Attach legal description to application if not included on required sur\'ey. Date PropcrtvAcquired I (do)^o ”no0)also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propert>': v^esidential ___other (specify) Zoning District: \—\ ^___________________ (month/year) APPLICANT Namec^^'^ s \ J ' • I Phone (home ) AHV- -• Phone (work)--------------- Address:j ^ Cit\"Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home)_ pJ - ne (worI.,_ Address:O'City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ^•■Zo. Estimated Construction Cost $ vS, coo (attach additional sheets if necessaiy’) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width X Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore _ Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:,__________________________________— (attach additional sheets if necessary) 03/31/97 Pay 220.00 ■ TTTTITT' - . A'. 6 March 31.1997 paJfeebfecei\)'gn> 4-/2? /'?'] Hardship/Description of Unusual Property Conditions Currently our stairs at 27 inches wide (from finished wall to finished wall) are 9 inches narrower than current building codes. This situation presents a serious safety problem when a minimum of a 3 inch railing is added. Our kitchen is a galley style kitchen which serves as an entrance hall (31 inches wide) between the front door and the living room. We would like to increase the size of this narrow corridor. It presents constant problems while cooking and can be dangerous with too many people In the kixhen. We have investigated the possibility of expanding the stairs and the kitchen by moving the wail that bounds them, but have found it to be a load-bearing wail. The only other option is to expand by 2 1/2 feet on the north side of the house. We are also requesting a variance to replace the front porch, which does not currently meet Orono building code. The building code states that stairs cannot be over 8 inches in height, and cannot vary by more than 3/16 of an inch. Currently, our steps measure (in ascending order) 3 inches, 7 inches, 7 inches, 9 inches and 4 inches. In addition to correcting the stair construction, the porch needs to be widened to cover the concrete slab at the bottom of the stairs. This slab is in place to divert water from the basement. The porch would also be expanded on either side, to allow adequate access to the front door. C OF LOT 16, BLOCK 1, WILEY' S PARK LAKE MINNETONKA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES r Lot 16, Block 1, Wiley's Pork Lake Minnetonka 0 : denotes iron marker ® : denotes Judicial Landmark Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. NOTE : All information shown on this survey, with the exception of the location of the garage, deck, proposed addition, and 929.4 contour line, is taken from a survey by others. This survey intends to show 'the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house, garage, and deck, and the proposed location of a proposed addition thereon. It. does not purport to show ony other improvements vnr encroachments. ArcA 0~7S • 7T-1SO z i 70 'So» Z 0/2 t ra.pr. 3 8<o ?fS2 // 2 S oo // /- o" BNITRA/^C£ \ /A c^''-T\ i^/C/jr/zv^' Comc/^efS’ S( A 'f /- HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)/ 0-75’75-250'250-500 ’ EXiSTINO HARDCOVER IN 70NF. A. House Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X ; D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic s: rs X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 4. B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVFR IN ZONE A. House X Length Width t X X X B. Garage C. Driveway o D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B X 100 500-1000' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B /O S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B •* 'V •., • -.'.vi• « ‘ I HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ r.xiyriNC hardcover in zone A. House ^ 500-1000 ’ Length ; -y- 5>^ X X X Width rz y. B. Garage/I /7- ^ C. Driveway _______ 'r’i ■ -i? X X D. Sidew^k*^'^^ E. Patio/Deck 70 ’ ^ X X X X /i2. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •■An - B ^1(y5 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 'Ar-^ . / • / • ‘ jr Length A ^..r7 V^.< rv^/i £ C. Driveway Z) X X Width // 3 /7- ir X X 6** e eA X X D. Side^^'<’''_j^l^ E. Patio/Deck ^9*^ X X •2-. X X /<■ F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ B ^^59-£^63 X lOO B 83 X 100 = /<^3z fj / 4 2- ■ni. ^ c •2An AI-S'2. rp 5/ 5Vf l-S.ii 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. 25'./ % /^32. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B A B \ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'75-250' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X X 9 B. Garage C. 3-8/'2^ 4 C. Driveway 37> S 32. 3 X X 32.3 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 /'3C^3> B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width X X X H B. Garage CL C, Driveway ^7/ ^ 3?. 3 X X ^.3 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 ^ B 500-1000' /J2-P/ z= X 100 = := /77/ X 100 =S4-.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.A S.F.B % S.F. n ■■ • ' V-i'; •' S.F. S.F.. * %: S.F. S.F. • • ‘ \ / S.F.5 S.F. S.F.0 A A S.F.K '' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.A S.F.B % \ I 7. TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Piaimer/Zoning Administrator May 12, 1997 SUBJECT: #2231 Evan Anderson, 1260 Spruce Place Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Size: LR-IB, One-Family Lakeshore Residential District, (1 Acre) 11,526 sq. ft. (.26 acres) Application:Applicant seeks a hardcover variance in the 75'-250’ setback area to add a froft^porch over an existing concrete slab. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24, Subd. 5, LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential Di'irict, Area Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements • Section 10.?2, Subd. 2, Lakeshore Hardcover Analysis LOT AREA AND YARDS LRl-B District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 43,560 sq. ft. (1 acre) 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 30 feet Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Side Yard Street Side 11,526 sq. ft. (.26 acres) 55 ft. at Spruce Place: 48.6 ft. at lake i>ii vre 70' to principal structure 5.3 on north side near deck; 11'from south side 1 r to garage The subject property does not meet the lot area or lot width requirements for the LR-IB zoning district. The property rlso does not meet the lakeshore setback requirement of 75'. HARDCOVER Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Hardcover Allowed Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'3,900 sq. ft.None 174.5 sq.ft.174.5 sq. ft.No Change 75-250'7,626 sq. ft.1,906.5 (25%) 3,683.95 sq. ft. (48.3%) 3,723.95 sq. ft. (48.83%) • 40 sq. ft. (.80%) staff estimate based on drawing The ptO|* 'eJ roof over the front entry increases hardcover by 40 sq. ft. or .80%. Statement of Hardship The applicant has indicated in his hardship statement that the property is very low' and that there is a lot of runoff through the property. Critei 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 residential dwelling. The proposed variances will allow the existing front step to have a covered entr>’. The plight of the landowner is due to circum stances unique to his property not created bv the landowner. The landowner is dealing with an existing structure that does not have a covered front entrance. The circumstances are not created by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, w ill not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for hardco\ er w ill not alter the character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic considerations are not a factor with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not an issue. 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 variances requested are for a residential structure which is a permitted use in this zoning district. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The variance requested is unique to the design of the existing structure. Several residences along the lakefront do not have covered front entries. 9.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Other properties in this area are deficient for lot size and hardcover. The variance being requested is specific to the existing residence's front entry. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoymc nt of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances requested will preserve the property owner's right to use the residence and have a covered cntiy. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrar>- to the intent of the Zoning Code. The vanance will not impair health, safety, comfort, or morals. It will increase the coiTifon of the property owner and guests. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The granting of the variances improves the livability of the existing residence. It is not merely a convenience to the property owner. Issues 1. The variance would increase hardcover by 40 sq. ft. or .80%. No other variances are requested. 2. The lakeside of the residence encroaches into the required 75' lakeshore setback. No improvements are proposed for the lakeside of the residence. 3. The lot does not meet the required lot area or lot width requirements. Staff Recommendation To approve the variance for an increase in hardcover by 40 sq. ft. or .80% to allow for the construction of a roof over an existing concrete slab. U223I Evan Anderson 1260 Spruce Place 5/19/97 page—4 ■ i 1 Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Proposed Front Elevation Proposed Front Entrance-Side Elevation Survey Hardcover Calculations (2 pages) Acknowledgement Form from Neighbors Topographical Map H2230. Georgina Hackney 2184 Shadywood Road 5/19.97 page-5 Application # -A ^ 5 / Date Received V// vA 7 Amount Paid ^ , i-ti A r CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ^ Initial Application Fee $220.00 ^ ($50.00 per each additional variance) f/_ ^ } Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 f (no change from original application) / / * Variance for non-confoaning structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) g; €. ^ -7 J • r*/ i. "n 8 PROPERTY INTORMATION Site Address______________/:■ - •:> < ‘ " . •>' . 4'/n u /.!: .V • • - • ' > W ^ '_________________ —------------------------------—— ——— Properr\- Identification Number (P.I.D.)___________________^-------------- Attach lecal description to applicauon if not included on required survey. Date Propertv Acquired (month/year) I (do) ((^n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propertv'; ^ residential ____pother (specify) Zoning District:______________________________________ APPLICANT Name /V'-i 'i.-rV.:■k // / Address: Phone fhome ’l *-f' / _____ Phone fwork ’l ‘7^' City; ^ Zip: ' OWNER (if different than^applicant) Name _____--------------------------- Address:________.—--'------------- Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ City:..Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $____^------- Describe request in detail: q^ a (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front ___Side # \/ \ Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description of unusual property conditions Describe undue haidship or practical difficulty or unusual properpi conditions pre''«n‘'"8 compliance tvith Zoning Code requirements: ^ ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 . ■/ T\i Pot^ ^-'^V,REQUIRED SUB>UTTALS A(fOo "^' All of the following inforroarion must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; '1. kJ* 2. J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 ‘/i" 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'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SYi' 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 yam 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^^xpensw incurred/) in review of this application, and certifies that the information suppU^is^e and corr^t to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature _______Date A r .» —-• , . * V i-VN 5 V f _L I agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council ion and verificatyt(n of this request. Date 4^.. , SM. --------- ' , •' ■ nmission Meetings are held on the third Monday ot eacn V ent at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning J> . ^ tv-ipplicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please Is into the City offices 25 days before the Planning nmission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each ' . \L ,r to the meeting. rized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building 8 n • I / y/ r-:-\ c f . ^ 6'263 g <^’ ( 14) 15 V 270 { 15) 16 245 ^ filed IC-15-71 25 DOC NC 3912062 (1) o o ^ r- ? LOMA !:IN0A AVE ,\ V ^ ^ 1 * lyy 1 s'I ) I90 / ^l ‘A G 4V1 l ;^J6L S I ia--------\jLC 1 ? . ______________ /PARK \ > \ ci-’’ 164.5 / / \ \^rX^> 6 V ------- <y\ ! L 2-64 FILED [Tl c5o\ ^5) I 156. 1 ----------------* ^ <-n S?/ 9 l..9^ f'' J' srvl^u 4 MS'.,-. •• -<)==0 5 ^;. 5 \2'^ (77^ A 10 ^ ^,1 >r>h^ V., -' V ^ v^-yV'-o'//^ ^'51) \^\'i- .. •. ‘''^'O.'v—^1‘ ‘ ' _(1^- A (2/oi '' '*^'\^\ \ W3. 5 v i iW.' 7‘ I0%9 V Vy-. <-\ ( isAv :; ^ \ 5 y 63i5V''^ ' 0>/ IT to\ .y(53)‘^\ (52)^''VI ,\V' ?^6- / =i 1 —i.i 1 V24 ) 250 f f\lto ( 252.5 • (25) <V a 232 \ 95.8 ^\c> 1 135.85 it L S S (26) G=^ ^\ (^ 226 r?=^ : \ ^ 237.7 V a eS **® c=5^237.5 1 V *7 5fn -— 230.0 .\ 1 9 g 6 ( ?2) 234. .5 i 1 V R 6 <z)'i i V II r, •N - • r V h) .. . >^,3^. 'A. __ »—>. .. i' "%JVO ^-1 . « i.."■ • t----------------- 9 • • ^ e • * • ft. —• . • BXl<.T/Af6, SLu£ PHoPo&^\ I i____ i • \ 1 . . . .'...i i-% \ - —*. ■ZK tv VAt-cey <=-x.AS/y/st/$ A-s A/ec.. »* fl I . .. 4_ • „ CX(» OCr --1----1---- i Xtl 3r6t%T MootM Ccjir buT/i^it zW ^ ‘ ! r IA­INI CV4T eeh^K 0)/AUAJf/kwitucs &ts£’ e/iarMiii 7':.::7:\ .JJJLl >(> 1 i ' . SCAB -8 ‘ — 4. •«.. —1- 1^——r...- - •- —•—* • 1 1i•1 1tI-!1 1\ • "V siusmli £y/sr>vJ^— 8i.u£-2J(<. fi" ft.y^o<sO, __ a4o*- a \ - 4------- I I I —t 1 ! . -- ...... a --------j ».«• r« » • • » #. Y Lot 1, aiock 1C. Saga Hill Revised, together with that part Uimtrect ad jolnln;? said Lot 1, Block 10 as shoun on the survey attachedvacated —- —_ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , - - - - - -- ■ to the notice of vacation in Book 3^-0 of Miscellaneous, page 59o. Document No, 3213533 filed In the office of the Heulster of Deeds, Hennepin County, Minnesota, □ « WOOD STAKE PLACED O ■ IRON MON. SET B.M. - BEARINGS ON PROPOSED INFORMATION ASSUMED DATUM ________1st FLOOR ELEV. ________BASEMENT ELEV. • - IRON MON. INPLACE GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV. DRAINAGE 000.0 • EXIST. ELEV. (o00.o)> PROPOSED ELEV. ^ EXIST, i PROP. ELEV. SCHOBORG ND SURVEYING INC. sra«3i ■S7 Qy. P«. 13 SC MN I hereby certify that this plen. survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of MinnesotaiinnesoiB q Date: _____ Registration No. 14700 JOBS 477S Book - Page 39-/-? Scale j20 Pft?C^C£ rIMciW SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCQVl^ IN ZONE A. House ■— ___________ ___________ hardcover calculation worksheet X X X X B. Cange C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck .// F. Landscape Ufadcrlojn By Ploitjc X X X X X X X X X C. Oihcr TOTAL PRCPSRTY AREA IN ZONE - B Pwnpn^KD HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House______________ Lenges B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pario/Dcck X X X X P. Landscape _ Underlain __ By Plaath _ C. Other X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _________^ B . 75-250*25-500*500-1000* m S.F. * ! \ Wki(& zr - ^Z. S.F. \ \ S.F.. .S.F.% .ts S.F.t . •« Vi wa S.F. *• j 8 S.F.• '-a S.F. 1 • 1 1 S S.F. 1 ! *UO S.F.• =S.F.*. S.F.“1 >S.F.V •• i•:r- ss S .=.i JS S.F. s ?.A 39^^ S.F.B i>^cd X loo S 4A7 rs S.F. Wid’J! S.F. 8 S.F. S S.F. S.F. •S.F. S.F. • S.F. a S.F. ec S.F.i m S.F.1 S.F.1 8 - S.F.1 8 S.F.i _ S.F.i S.F.A m S.F.B X lOQ -% ^r^- hardcover CAL *. •'** SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXLSTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 0-75’25-500'500-l< A. House ________-X B 722 7 3 _S.F. Lec|di Widib • X B S.F. X «•-------S.F. •X •_J _S.F.« ^ - - - i ' • . T L. Oarage X RS _S.F. •' C. Driveway —X ______■es S.F.V ■ ■ X B ~S.F. D. Sidewalk 3 \1 /3T S.F. .* * *,'• 3 X -73 B z/9 _S.F.#• • “• / • ' 1 » / ’• E. Pacio/Deck X B /S9r _S.F.‘..7 A. X —~S.F./Cr\ F. (,0 _X /io S.F.('■ V. y L’udirlxin X t -’"SF. X B _ S F. G.9 X &ac '6'4‘_S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER :n ZON'H •^5"s F.A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE S.F.B A -r B ^X100 ST *^6,3 PROPOSED ILARDCOVEKIN ZONE A. House X a _ S.F. Lxn|(h X B S.F.m X B S.F.m X _e .S.F. B. Garage X _.S.F. C. Driveway X ^ •S.F.• X *S.F.» D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Ocher X X X X X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL H.*JlDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B .X100 - S.F. 3.F. S.F. S.F, S.F. S.F. % A B Cr Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) Pl^yLU^ iOoLPC ' [print name(s)] f^L print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at /2Q>0 also referred to as Land Use Application No. ^'^3/ . 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. Property Owner 4 7 Date Property^ Owner / ^//i/9 7 Date / I (we) ^/c/CitvJ of /2. 70 ^ F^OtA£ pL.. ' [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at /2 (gt^r^c. also referred to as Land Use Application No. ^3~5/ . 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. Uey^7 Propert>' Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ) • p ‘ ••• * * *1 • •-i •r • * •** ^ I m T ilJb^ SfVXAcjL "PL. I Uattr 929.6 Ff 1 i To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator May 12,1997 #2232 Woodsmith, Ltd. on behalf of Allegra and Paul Parker 1520 Fox Street Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acres) Lot Size: 99,815 sq. ft. (2.291 acres) Application: Applicant seeks a sideyard variance to allow for an addition to the master bedroom suite in an exiting residence. The structure currently encroaches 11.6' into the required 30' sideyard. The addition would follow the existing wall and would also encroach 11.6' into the required sideyard. Pertinent Ordinances • Section 10.28, Subd. 5, RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District, Area Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements Analysis LOT AREA AND YARDS RR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 87,120 sq. ft. (2 acres) 200 feet 50 feet 30 feet 50 feet U2232, WoodsmitK Ltd for Allegra and Paul Parker 1520 Fox Street 5/19/19 page-1 Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Side Yard adjacent to roadway easement Side Yard Street Side 99,815 sq. ft. (2.291 acres) 255' (measured at 50' from Fox Street 102.1’18.4’235.2' from Fox Street The property meets the requirements for lot width and front yard requirements. The west side yard is 18.4' where 30’ is required. Statement of Hardship The existing structure was built before the current Zoning Code regulations. The planned master bedroom expansion is located on the west side of the residence. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can continue to be used as a residential dwelling. The proposed variances will allow the existing master bathroom to be expanded by using the existing master bedroom closet. The south wall of the house would be extended to increase closet space for the master bedroom. The bathroom design and master bedroom addition is consistent with remodeling and new construction in the City of Orono. 2.The plight of the landoNvner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The landowner is dealing with an existing structure that was built prior to current Zoning Code requirements. The existing residence encroaches 1 1.6' into the required 30' setback. The addition would also encroach 11.6' into the required sideyard. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant has designed the addition to blend with the architectural character of the residence. H2232. Woodsmith. Ltd. for Allegro and Paul Parker 1520 Fax Street 5/19/19 page-2 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic considerations are not a factor with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not an issue. 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 variances requested are for a residential structure which is a permitted use in this zoning district. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. This is an unusual lot because Fox Street is considered the front yard. The front of the residence, however, faces the roadway easement which is considered a side yard. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The variance being requested is specific to the existing location of the house on the lot and the architectural style of the house. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial properly right of the applicant. The variances requested will preserve the property owner's right to use the residence and have a larger bedroom and master bedroom that is typical for many residences in the immediate area. »2232, WoodsmitK Ltd. for Allegro and Paul Parker 1520 Fox Street 5/19 19 page-3 11 . The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort, or morals. It will increase the comfort of the property owner and guests. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The granting of the variances follows the exterior wall of the existing residence and does not further encroach into the required sideyard than the existing residence. There is no other available alternative to the applicant to increase the master bedroom within the existing footprint of the residence without significantly changing the architectural style of the structure. Issues 1 . This is a unique lot because of its shape and the location of the existing residence on the lot. 2. The addition does not further encroach into the required sideyard. Staff Recommendation To approve the variance for a 1 1 .6' encroachment into the required 30' sideyard to allow the master bedroom addition as shown on the proposed survey. Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Existing Survey Applicant's Letters Floor Plans Proposed Elevations Applicant's Letter Regarding Neighborhood Contact Signatures from Neighbors U2232. n'oodsmilh. Lid. for Allegro and Paul Parker 1520 Fox Street 5/19/19 page—f \ Application # Date Received V'// f'/ 97 Amount Paid c-6 I Ai^ • ^ 3fV7 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220,00 - - r ($50.00 per each additional variance) & /;) & :) ^ Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ’ *' (no change from original application) / / e * Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) c- M >s*i^8 a* PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress /ron 'tr€^T Propert> Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ m m m m mAttach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired At/6c/^ /y?c 1 (dn^^rdo not^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: \__presidential ___mother (specify) Zoning District:.____________________________________ (month/year) « A APPLICANT Name cA> Address: Phone (home’l /L>t. _____ Phone('woriO City, aaZip. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name jl mlc, y*AA^ftu0c. Address: y<9^. >c^ Phone (home)_ji2ii.225£_______ _____ Phone (workl - 5/ y /_______ C\xy:_^:ja<t^__________Zip: mf! - DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ <? Describe request in detail: a tv r**»4*A^ ^TM J f rv ^rM. A /ge«« A<icWt ^ (attach additional s|ieets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage X Setback:Front VSide Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: /±ty/cy /T 7^^ ^ ^-------------- m ^ Ta r/4a: jyJT ^ 4^^/^ 7A/eT “Sz-Tl^/o^ A^inK^tysr^iiy JUt^Bu/^ A 7b (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.v/ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. y Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVi' x 11" for reproduction. Topographic surv ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8’/a" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'A" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the propert}'. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach ^ separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry' onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature //J Date Si/<2 17 y 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 ar^. 'I . '* _ (I) P2- in-2?-52 305.06 53 ^4^5^‘S5'44*i I'OT. 93 "SPW^ 494.3? !Soo (M) I I 'h m. ??,* rsi 13<.C< ‘c?, »“ScM o M2 MIf CO L - „ !27.S> VS 24 \% 1. ./\ » ;>:'(43; % a 22\.-\ 8 21 •••. • 20 ^ S ’5 <• i» '® (6J i S ’’ .'‘ 16 (ID & 8 '5 RS^ : (10) 13 " 127.75 ' o s y --------12------ w Bim I P«»T CF (19) 123.9 * 23.4 «*mi tMiMi MiniVMa advjwce stmnmfa s swm OT&a^l^ai “Im uni ~~1 ~T~ Nil nNCBsmnt tfNil 7::ss:7.ri#«al ilM^ tmt rikitft. f^«m >»«* S mv VST iInn SSST mTX^^ »• «NNM OT • tti l|gi aM • IN tti M iM • ■*■ if m t k« • M«M W4 ftNiM ■ tr M.II ftN • «NW if «Mi iB talftM •HMi ifN NNil ■M • Ni iBB • ■*■ if m« fta • ■ «M ■ CUS tai • ■ I Qm if INm M ta if ^N| is pHNBteaMMB BM I i*Ma rf«Ji Bn MMi « ■ lifMitNi fjrjf^ • *i «M to M Nb Mr if Mi MtoQMNtftotolUBN SB^iV^toStoto?rMHNtofStorSSS ■toMlBL«HilirM!i^^ toNfiiiMiia NMlto^^ to Nm! IpNift BMI riftol riNbI vifMI IM • toM if m to b M nM if I I» toto • «toa b fli to M» f ibMtol rifbi toM ibflB mm MM ■guMj m ntr I, r. r :i,!i I ••* i* *.w '•- / f •‘i ..! --V -y ‘ 1 •*• . y /i. **•) *^7 *• * i'V^ • *. • / 5i •• l^»- ~~u^- -^SSS!r ...f I •WN •• •■ W f Jf I f 5I I j '€ JttmKMft a r-...•. 0 •• •«• • •V A • 0 • :• • ■ %. y. . .' .. * - i bcdStmth lAd •. • • • * • i .* #- f •. • • •• * % V. V *•*••• - • .• -• • • . •5 ‘•. i .- • .••* . • • • • • u •«. J-.• • • ~K I « , PERSONALIZED DESIGNS & FINE CRAFTSMANSHIP April 17,1997 CityofOrono. . Planning Department 2750 Kelley^Parkway Orono, MN 55356 h' ' ■■} \\ • • j$ rf •f - *.• » Dear Liz:. . *. • " , • • * . # • •. • • a We met each other at the Parker residence, 1520 Fox Street, back in January of this year. After several delays I have finally managed to get everything together to apply for the variance that we heed to proceed with the planned addition. We are not applying for a building permit at this time nor have we done the far more extensive drawings needed to pull the building permit. If everything seems to be proceeding without difficulty on the variance I will work up the necessary drawings and apply for the building permit.. If it is possible, I would like to receive a copy of the Planning Departments report before it is discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. If there are any questions or you need additional material from us please don't hesitate to call. I can be reached via either of the numbers at the bottom of this page. i • i ••' * Sincerely, Vincent Smith President • -♦* % • ^ *• .. '• -• • .1 2439 SHERWOOD HILLS ROAD • MINNETONKA • MINNESOTA • S530S OFFICE / FAX (612) 930-1046 • PAGER (612) 909-9512 STATE Lie 8994 • MINNEAPOLIS LIC. 4978 ' ' • •• • « * p L ^liisa Wood&nith Ltd TEftSONALIZED DESIGNS & FINE CRAFTSMANSHIP te * , • ** * % , V •' V • • i • ^; • ***, * * I » ' WdodSmith Memorandum n r% .-"^i o O,r^r"* j gr» '* •. ^ iJ V •- / To:Kaare & Cynthia Birkeland * John A. Nolan & Joan A. Nolan Edward H. Hamm Leann J. Coe / Mark E. Knutson «• • From: Vincent Smith . • '. CC: • Paul & Allegra Parker CKy of Orono - Planning Department .' Date:- April17J997 Subject: Variance Application 1520 Fox Street - Orono This is fo inform you that WoodSmith Ltd. has been hired to build an addition on the residence at 1520 Fox Street. The present house, however, is situated closer to the property line than is allowed by current zoning standards. As a neighbor whose property is located within 150* of the property in question the City of Orono requires that we notify you of the need to file for a zoning variance. Quite simply, the situation is that the house was built 18.4' off the side property line. In the years since the house was built the City of Orono tias changed the side setback requirement to 30'. The proposed addition does not move any closer to the side property line than the preseat house. Enclosed you will find elevation drawings showing the before and after views of the house as viewed from the South and West sides. The City of Orono will be sending out an official notification of this application for variance in the coming weeks and anyone wishing to have input on the matter can notify the planing department or attend the monthly meeting of the planning commission. Or if you have any questions that I can answer please feel free to call the office at the number below. Sincerely, Vihcent Smith President 2439 SHERWOOD HILLS ROAD • MINNETONKA • MINNESOTA • 55305 OFFICE/FAX (612) 930-1046 • PAGER (612) 909-9512 . - STATE Lie 8994 • MINNEAPOLIS LIC. 4978 " * ‘ ‘ 1 . •. • ^ • m if'rP WoocMhlM • -r^ -T;) ^ i") ^ J if fr--J “''-^PERSONALIZED DESIGNS & FINE CRAFTSMANSH • • t • w * .%• • ^ • • ••.*• 4 1 •l» • . •-.•• •‘ • • :r • * . > -4 '• ‘/ .- ... •: • . . • *4 I » « « • • ^•* K' • • ^ • •••. *. * • •• ^ Listing of the concerned parties with regard to the property at 1620 Fox Street Orono: Allegro W. Parker (Owner) 1520 Fox Street Orono, MN 55391-9328 (H) .473-5740 Paul L. Parker (Owner's Husband) Same Address Additional Interested Party: WoodSmIth Ltd. (Contractor) Attn.: Vincent Smith 2439 Shenvood Hills Road Minnetonka, MN 65306 (W) 930-1046 (P) 909-9512 f 2439 SHERWOOD HILLS ROAD • MINNETONKA • MINNESOTA • 55305 OFFICE / FAX (612) 930-1046 • PAGER (612) 909-9512 • • STATE Lie 8994 • MINNEAPOLIS LlC 4978 •' ' ’ fvVL ■ 4 jyjii/?2* 3 1/2"13* ti ly?" lA* 0"A* T ifl* 0 ly?*A* 3*lA* B“ -A Not* on the CADD Drawlngt- It <fifficult t(? teB how the hou*>e fe ^oin^ to ch^wi^e looking ot the elevations alone. Therefore, I hove incluJeil two plan views (views looking from the top <lown) to help with un<lerst<»i4ng the a«Ution. The drawing that has the pink highlighter shows the addition in relation to the existing house. The pink highlighted wols are the new constructioa On the other hand, as I of our past customers said, It afl just looks like Ihes on paper.' nrA \.y • / i )V \/ t X ■a . y PARKER RESIDENCE 1520 Fox Street Orono, MN 55391 -CURRENT ELEVATION: SOUTH-SCALE - 1/8 PP-AD-BS 1- 19 ’ 10 1/2'.'W’ 9 I/?' PARKER RESIDENCE 1520 Fox Street Orono, MN 55391 -PROPOSED ELEVATION: SOUTH- 1 ■ '•f’ •'“i 1R* 1R 1/?* SCALE » 1/8 PP-EL-S2 1^.‘ t- • X • V >i PARKER RESIDENCE 1520 Fox Street Orono, MN 55391 "v \\ • \, \ \\ \ V \\\ ‘ \1- \ s \\ , \ \ \ ‘ \‘ \ \\\ \\ \ , \, \ \\ ‘ \ -PROPOSED ELEVATION: WEST- f* SCALE = 1/8 PP-BL-Wl May 6, 1997 To: From: Subj: City of Orono - Planning Department Paul and Allegra Parker of 1520 Fox Street, Orono, f4N Parker's application for a variance. On April 17 of this year, we notified all neighbors whose property is within 150* of ours that we had applied for a variance in connection with the pro­ posed remodeling of our home. Neighbors were supplied with detailed Informa tion as regard our plans. During this past week, we have spoken to three of the four neighborhood fa­ milies involved - our closest neighbors, the John NoTans, were Invited over so that we might show them first hand what we were hoping to do. As indicated by the attached sheet, each of the three -neighbors has indicated approval of our plans. A fourth neighbor, Edward (Ted) Hamm, has been out of the city for some time, and we have not been able to reach him. We trust that this Information may be of interest and value to you. Sincerely, Paul L. Parker Allegra W. Parker May 3, 1997 To: From: Subj: City of Orono Interested neighbors Application for Variance as made by MM Paul L. Parker, 1520 Fox Street. As neighbors of the Parkers, we have been advised of their request for a vari­ ance in order that they may remodel their master bedroom. We wish to state that we have no objection whatsoever to this proposal and hope that the City will ac­ cede to the Parker's request. Kaare and Cynthia Birkeland John and Joan Nolan mtu-— Leanne Coe/Mark Knutson r* TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 12,1997 SUBJECT: #2233, Walter Holzer, 1130 North Shore Drive West Variance —Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, One-Family Lakeshore Residential District, (1 Acre) Lot Size: 39,700 sq. ft. (.91 acres) Application:Applicant is seeking a height variance to allow for construction of an accessory structure that would provide storage for his business and an office. The applicant has also applied for a home occupation license. Background: The applicant operates Walter Holzer Plumbing and Heating. He resides at the subject property. His residence was constructed in the early 1900's. It was probably a utility building. The total height of the principal structure is less than the proposed accessory structure (22 feet). Accessory structures that are greater in height than principal structures require variances. Additionally, the current Zoning ordinance does not allow accessory structures to be used for home occupations. Also, it is questionable whether a bathroom is allowed in an accessory structure. This application should be reviewed and considered after the home occupation amendments are considered. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.02,13, "Building Height" The vertical distance behveen the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest grade level, whichever is lower and the top of the cornice of 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 Section 10.24, Subd. 5,B., LR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District, »2233 Waller Holzer 1 130 NorthShore Drive West 5/19/97 page-1 /) O' I 1 i 1 Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements Section 10.03, Subd. 9, Accessory- Buildings, B. Height Restrictions "No accessory building in the "R" District shall exceed the height of the principal building, nor shall an accessory building exceed 30 feet in height. Analysis LOT AREA AND YARDS LRl-B District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 43,560 sq. ft. (1 acre) 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 30 feet Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Side 39,700 sq. ft. (.91 acres) 100 feet 100.4'24.2' on north for house 30' on each side of proposed accessory building 30 feet proposed The property meets the front, side, and rear yard requirements. The property does not meet the minimum lot size requirement or lot width for the LR-IB zoning district. Statement of Hardship The principal residence was built as a utility building in 1920, according to the applicant. The height of the residence is less than the proposed accessory structure (22 feet). The applicant wants to use his property to store equipment and supplies for his plumbing business. U2233 Walter Holier ll30 NorihShore Drive West 5/19/97 page-2 Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Any accessory building would have to be less than the height of the principal structure. Without the proposed accessory structure, the residence could be continued to used for residential purposes The current residence does not lend itself to storing the equipment and supplies for the applicant's plumbing business. 2.1 I*e plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is created by several factors: a. The height of the principal structure. b. The proposed plan to store plumbing equipment and supplies where the Zoning Code does not currently allow accessory structures to be used for home occupations. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The accessory structure, if used for the intended purpose would introduce a commercial activity into a structure designed as a garage. If a bathroom is installed, it might encourage the structure to be used at some future point as a dwelling unit. 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic considerations are a factor with this application because the applicant would be able to use property he owns as his residence for business purposes. 5. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not an issue. 6. 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 #2233 Waller Hoher U30 NorthShore Drive West 5/19/97 page-3 7. 8. 9. 11. the affected person’s land is located. The Planning Commission and City Council cannot grant a variance for the accessor>’ structure to be used for the applicant's stated purpose unless the home occupation ordinance is changed. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. There are special conditions that regulate the height of the accessory structure due to the height of the principal structure. The restrictions on the plumbing business not being allowed in the accessory structure apply throughout the City. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in w hich said land is located. The variance being requested is sp)ecific to the existing height of the residence on the lot and its architectural style. The restrictions on the use of an accessor>' structure apply throughout all residential zoning districts. The granting of the application is necessar>' for the preserv ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The granting of the variance is necessary for the applicant to construct the accessory structure. However, the property is zoned residential and there are restrictions on home occupations. The proposed home occupation is not allowed to locate in an accessory structure under current City ordinances. The granting of the proposed variance w ill not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to tl'e iiitent of the Zoning Code. The granting of the proposed variance for an accessory structure would not impair safety, comfort, or morals on its face. However, granting a variance to aiiow the use of the proposed structiue for a use not allowed in the Zoning Code would be contrary to the Zoning Code. M2233 Halter Holzer 1130 NorlhShore Drive IVest 5/19/97 page—4 i 1 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The granting of the variance w ill allow the applicant to build an accessory structure on the lot that is greater in height than the current principal structure. The hardship is created by the height of the existing principal structure. The proposed use of the accessory structure is a separate issue. Issues 1 . The lot does not meet the lot area or lot width requirements. 2.The proposed accessoiy structure cannot be used for any home occupation under the current ordinance. 3. The height of the principal structure limits the height of any new accessory use, 4.Accessor}' structures with bathrooms and offices can easily be converted into commercial uses or additional dwelling units. 5.There are amendments proposed to the Zoning Ordinance that may alleviate the applicant's situation. Staff Recommendation To consider the following options: 1.Granting the height variance for the accessory structure to exceed the height of the principal structure and amend the ordinance to allow plumbing and heating services to locate in an accessory structure. 2.Granting the height variance for the accessory structure to exceed the height of the principal structure but recommend that it only provide storage for the residential use, and not the plumbing business. 3. 3. Advise the applicant to reduce the height of the accessory structure. Deny the height variance and advise the applicant to attach the proposed garage to the residence, if possible. H2233 Waller Holier 1130 NorthShore Drive West 5/19/97 page-5 Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Survey Zoning Code excerpt Proposed Exterior Elevations Proposed Floor Plans Building Sections Neighbor’s Acknowledgement Form ( U2233 Walter Holzer 1130 NorthShore Drive West 5/19/97 page~6 Application # 2^3 _____ Date Receiyed </- ^ *7 Amount Paid fX3iO>rt> CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) ou Variance for non-conforming structures $22QW After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) - %• f. / 7* w * *. •• / PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress Ahf*Th)^fldQtr P^VUiB UJ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.). Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired “\fxr\ fT \C\^ii_______________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___other (specify) Zoning District: __________________________— APPLICANT Name (iJ f)L T l ^CL ilr?\7 tr fl Phone (home) 7 2..-1/ u5*7 Phone (wrok) iaawi* Address:OClLiF City:Zip: 5!^^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimated Construction Cost $ ''J^Q-OOO . c* (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback: Other (specify) Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Cooe. —IQ.0'3,---- -fh^ -Hv :prifyffval pvopr>s^<^ builrli'ng,. ~TVvg.—“pririCflpgL- ~ (artaclj additional sheets if*necessary ) p^y pp^ qq L3CXS biA\W »Vk \(\2o \^xxs a b^iidtVg. I < REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following infnrmarinn must be submitted bv the appligatipn qea4Un<? nrrfgr for vnur annlication to be considered COmpletei 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 ‘/2" x 11" for reproduction. . ^ , Topographic sur\ey (existing and proposed elevaUons) if any changes in existmg grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8>/2" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yfijiE •e onniirnfinn is not rnmnlgte if the abovc information has not been includeiL APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE . u u 7 The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonmg 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 coaect to t^ best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes re^onable entry onto the property by City staff, consultanjs, apnts. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and v^fication of this request. Owner's Signature /A/.Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Pl^g CoLnission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plannmg Commission and Council. If an appUcant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, ple^e make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Buildmg & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 * i Survey for: WALTER HOIZER DESCRIPTION; */S<SC. V, Xt/7^je.^3 That part of the W 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 7, Township 117, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal meridian described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section; thence Easterly along the Northerly line thereof a distance of 402.5 feet; thence Southerly a distance of 2,124.4 feet along the North and South line that will intersect the East and West Quarter Section line of said Section 7, 396.5 feet East of the West Quarter post of said Section 7 which shall be the point of beginning; thence continuing Southerly along said line a distance of 100 feet; thence Westerly and parallel with the Northerly lineof said Section to the Westerly line of said Section; thence North­ erly along said Westerly line to the intersection with a line drawn from the point of beginning parallel with the North line of said Section; thence East along parallel line to the point of beginning, according to the U. S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ** o •*- H-o >» • 0> > OI Ii- c rsy >1 O ID^ to O lO C C o - - s;>7.7/ /0O.4 ‘ ^6. S- • ----------a 4-> OI px: 40 31 jS-MQ ^ 1 > * ) § 10.03 Subd. 7. " 0ne BuTldihg Per Lot. Except in the case of Planned Residential Developments as provided for hereinafter, no more than one principal building shall be located on a lot except that staff may issue a permit to use a manufactured home that shall meet all required setback standards or an existing dwelling while a new principal structure is being constructed. Such permit shall be issued for a period of 3 months, any extensions must be approved by the City and shall expire upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new structure and such structure removed. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 Subd. 8. Lots to Face Streets. Each lot shall face on a public street or appropriate private easement. Subd. 9. Accessory Buildings. A. Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. B. Height Restrictions. No accessory building in the "R” District shall exceed the height of the principal building, nor shall an accessory building exceed 30 feet in height. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 C. Area Restrictions. In all ”R" Districts no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: 1. Not more than one Oversized Accessory Structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. An "Oversized Accessory Structure" is defined as an accessory structure of foot­ print area in excess of 1,000 square feet, except that the following non-roofed accessory structures which exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area are not considered as "Oversize Accessory Structures", but are subject to the special setback restrictions of Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (D): - Tennis courts - Pools, when pool basin structure (excluding non encroachment-type patios) is greater than 1,000 s.f. - Paddocks or arenas ORONO CC 255 (4-1-84) na'riffi.’c •>/ if'f 't \ * »- N^’ > \ss&sstsrms^ 2Xli!2ai ^'cSKKCA r-iza-HzaH fQ«f(i/^-r 'Trr**^ fvt MlNNgrc?NKA P^5l^iN, INC. eo w. 7eui. 5t., Suite 210 0«H ub 9«i. A«sJ &&5I7 1BLC6I2) 9M*7440r^(6l2) 954-4505 Wy^O-TER MCPUZER _5V» OTMJ Irriiinri 1 — 1 IBO 9«B PHVE VW-Sf MOiw.wg ___________|>PWIUiiB------|ac»ow Vv I eom.m 1 I njmm. I". SSS?<m8up i^iTa ■L-i ii^4sn"0--, n £Smk %« i»l9 ::2 J7----------imt trS* PC. i<.#**e0Nc.nK.^eraMC.mjLxrtiT»ceuc.na. puLPiKka sectTON fUNM^LdCOOMl Fii'li'i 1 '.IM.f.f.l■■■■ HBHHH■■■■■MM fi'A'I'ft'A'2^5 □ GHMt ^eac.tJ»M(Mmn“mMPttM9mm PULPIT sectTON )DU. »/8>'«l' ri Air SiRSiSrMicM asSsr-’* iB^sn ••If fOG%l ti/y #MGMfliiani#r<y*oc ■ig K.#«a»c.iu. M4H^.aaBOf4 1 0 V ••'1 • *; .•\ . -.j ("i t < j *j Ai-.-r \ •• *•. .*.> Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) "-^A^ ^ ^ S[print name(s)] of aJciLTH Siwie. Kli.ix)- [print address] 0. m ^ ^ ^ ^ have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ll30 pg al^.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’" project or use requires Council approval. jt'V erty vDwner £ Property Owner Date V -3./ ■ f £ Date 1 (we) Trnl [print name(s)^ of F(\\fU( fr.co OtM n V C W^'<C [print address] )|7*f c^ccA^ have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at h v^ At/flk _____also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (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 '.omments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. /O. 4 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator May 12, 1997 SUBJECT: #2234, Doug Waldoch. 4215 North Shore Drive Variance--Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, One-Family Lakeshore Residential District, (1 Acre) Lot Size: 28,908 sq. ft. (.664 acres) Application:Applicant is seeking a lot area variance to remove an existing residence and construct a new residence. No other variances are required. A lot width variance of 50' or 35.71% is required. A lot area variance of 14,652 sq. ft. or 33.63% is required. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24, Subd. 5,B., LR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District, Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements Analysis LOT AREA AND YARDS LRl-B District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 43,560 sq. ft. (1 acre) 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 30 feet #2234 Doug Waldoch 4215 North Shore Drive Vvianr^ page~l -t. J fT\-r35Vr f . • I -i-'.>» . .*> —--- t S J L Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area 28,908 sq. ft, (.664 acres) Lot Width 98' at street; 56.20' at lakeshore; app. 95' at front yard setback Street Yard 138' to proposed residence Side Yard 10'and 13.5' Lakeside 147 The property does not meet the lot wdth or lot area requirements for the zoning district. Statement of Hardship The applicant intends to remove the existing residence and construct a new residence. The existing lot does not meet the lot width or lot area requirements. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The existing residence could remain on the property. However, the existing residence does not conform with the sideyard setbacks and the garage is located on the road easement. The drivewa> requires an easement over the adjacent property. The proposed dwelling conforms more closely to the zoning district standards and removes the need for an easement. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is due to the existing size of the lot and the intent to build a new residence. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed structure does not require structural coverage variances or hardcover variances. The existing residence is a 1-story and the proposed residence is a 2-story. The proposed residence meets the height requirement of 2.5 stories or 30 feet. H2234 Doug Waldoch 4215 North Shore Drive Variance page-2 4. 5. 6. /. 8. 9. 10. II. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. There is a reasonable use available for the property. No economic hardship has been suggested. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not an issue. 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 proposed residence is a permitted use in this zoning district. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The special conditions apply to the existing lot size and lot width. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The lot sizes and lot widths in this area vary considerably. The granting of the application is nec^ j.'Try for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The granting of the application is necessary to construct a new residence. The granting of the proposed v;: iance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any ot!. < respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. #2234 Doug IValdoch 4215 North Shore Drive Variance page-3 Hi 1 Staff does not anticipate that the variance would have a negative impact on comfort, safety, or morals. Staff suggests that the location of the new garage and residence is an improvment relative to the roadway and the sideyards. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serv e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Staff has not been inside the structure and cannot attest to the convenience to the applicant to construct a new residence vs. living in the existing residence. The applicant will need to provide testimony to make findings of fact regarding the necessity of the variance. ■! Issues 1 . The lot does not meet the lot area or lot width requirements. 2. The proposed residence meets sideyard setbacks. 3. The proposed residence removes the garage from close proximity to the street. 4. The proposed driveway would not require an easement as the existing driveway. Staff Recommendation To approve the lot area and lot width variances. Attachments A B C D E F G H Plat Map Application Applicant's letter Existing Survey Proposed Survey Elevations Floor Plans Acknowledgement Form U2234 Doug Waldoch 4215 North Shore Drive Variance page—4 vy,' * / ' ^ fj yi {/ifi -a-vy \/ V' "’ll .y v2oX'®\\vx-^/ X. C ^ 00-:^"' PART OF --^AGA HILL PARR a '"^t\ 1(74); y 572) io« (28) \% ( M) v^‘ ’4 ■\ (I) / ''.«5/ (^5)h'' 45j:- m ( o h:/vv A / /(s; -3i/ / t >4/\ y / A 83 :/ 44 •vrr-*-• r.r 1 y » / • r 40 40 tn - 1^k vse a> hz ^l 20 ; 18)1 p4) S>- > “ HEgSiSiei LAKE Hil!®StOiKA" CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # Date Received Amount Paid an Q (H) <n)\ I I . I PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address_____ 8 ifProperty Identification Number (P.I.D.) _ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. g; Date Property Acquired ______^JL -.2. 5^ ^____________________(month/y^) I (do) ^ not)> also own the adjacent parcels of land. S Present use of property; X* residential ___^other (specify)______________________ Zoning District: L12-IB C>r\^ LA\£Slmfe. f fitCY€^ APPLICANT Phone (home) 9^7^ - Name ^ Phone(work)_ Address: City:Tvo\.jS::Szy^*/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address;City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost Describe request in detail: ^^ (attach additional s^ieets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage m Average Lakeshore Smother (specify) -r>^yotUxtC. rf HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property' conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^*71— —ry (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the annlicatinn deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complgtg; 1. 2.X 3. 4. 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 Deoartment of Finance, A-603, Govl Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Surv-ey (signed by a licensed surv'eyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction. ' ‘ 5. 6. x: XL 7. 8. Topographic sur\’ey (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 SVi' 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 variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Date ~ ^ 7 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. _ ~ ^ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings aie 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 o o ^ ^ Q Memo Date: To: April 24, 1997 Elizabeth Van Zomeren City of Orono From:Doug Waldoch 4215 North Shore Drive Orono, MN 55364 Phone/Fax: 472-6427 Subject: Land use application #2234 The following documents are enclosed -Reduced certificate of survey. -Reduced copy of house plans. List of names of all persons with an interest in this property. -Revised hardcover calculation provided by Advance Survey & Engineering, who did the survey on the property. This should replace the calculation submitted with the Variance Application on 22 April. -Signed copy of "Adjacent Property Owners Acknowledgment Form" from neighbor at 4209 N Shore Drive. As we discussed last Tuesday, a copy the "Adjacent Property Owners Acknowledgment Form" was sent via post to the L A. Donnay residence in Maple Grove, who owns the property at 1530 Orchard Beach Place Please contact me if any further information will be required before the 19 May Planning Commission meeting. C Am'Ar^CE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.5MS^IK m N> IM Miiim ii*l.MH5tl4* rW-rlMJUM»«M l»l« <Mi >SCALE; ONE wni lijiUlji M ni;rstmvrviim DOUG ll'ALDOCIl WJRXHU'E An»w«.i<IMtAnni): Ai(MIT.I«W LEUALU^'BiaJUtk ^ , „__ IlM mt af Ul !. OittaiJ Moali Jr«ii»wl n hlww Ctmmtmuit « •!« N<«1l««n« tatmtf nf Im ?. 0««t» Tiwitiinner m *c SMtfMCMnty comet el nM In-. *n« Stmihcotmt, r<oo( So«*cih l.m XrMof W lcct, *mt« Nmti^Mcri; i. . pM *. N«f*ert, h« «M lal «OM »rt SooitMcilt Horn '1^ Nn«llmc<ir K lit |4k « nf hcfitMinf. iMfcHvi »»»ili *ti nnrmnil Urn ikttotat «*»« »•« N.nhf*r«rfl% — led of fhr Ntnr ramnH 44 led «f llir fctlfc»tMt«f ilrv.iiKnl liaci i4 Um4 lhal pail i»f 114 ?. I»ich»d iW Ah ilctcuKrd d i;4li.«E^ I rfMiiv d ■ r«»«* **«• li«r .4 *akl I m 2 iIhi *i» •>« Im S.*rthr.dctl% Im-« iI» N^tliHctirih emt id jM ^ lliwrc SmRlkmtUtiU i.. a fMMti mm the Sotuhrilt Iwir nl mn I Id 7 mIwU ritmi W* 1^ Smu U kmh h riMH *e SiMlImMtIjr cwmt H .aid Ld 2; «W* Sr*ihcadnh almic Ike l.«e id Ld * a dhtMce 1*1 <io fed; Ikmcr NiwIliedirHy li» Ikr S*irtkdl> Imw i«l um I 2 m a pniin on laal kne mImc Ii pi *oi h 7f. fed fktdl aderK alM^ Nwilkrtli line id aanl Ii4 li.nti r.nnl id hcfinnnip. Ihe«c NorUntnidly aUmf NcHtl*r»V* f«w of oU Id 7* 5 fed lo Ike fdmi id hri^inmn;. accoidinf lo the iceotJcil plal ihefcof. ami iiiuaie m IIcnnepm Lmifif), Mmneaoi.>. ncerl Ikd port taken for Noilh Skoie Ihue riMMAIKINS: 1 lie «d*fte ol imr aenieee fnr Ihd ndt d ai li4U.**t 1 Shiminr lid htmmimy Unea id Ike Iqrai ifeitnrid** "kick ton (mnidietj 2 SI«««Mi« Ike localiraioi e^ing iiwfO'.dmTni ne Jretitrtl imfid mii 3 Iahnbune koiU cmet ctNnfaml niik i<n.d aiea i.* deietniMte pe«%BUre id kard cmei 4 Skiming *tcef oi tigjiiricame. 5 Ike ir«> need lo iltgkiK ai^ the mdketK ka cowiefi 7^ ; Ilifhnaif infonnaiKMi ne ate naiim# (d and ne have aome aJitlllrnil atakUf and localkif m dn i*n the hut thit fwrhmmanr leition of ike wifirey is furmilied lor E«mi ttie udil «tc can eomolde Ike wofk *0" llr«*lft 1/2* II) P'l'e ndlh |4atlk |d«fj heAiinc 5»ljlr I.Krnte Nundtet 9715. tel > air It 02 •aw iJ o rFRIinCATION. I licteH cettilt Ikal Ihit tnrid na*. ptefitfcJ h* imr m nmki no Uiievl iu|M%iMon and Uwl I an* a I'lolcv wvul I ngkietf and a l*fiflc*-t»onal Sof%rti»f umkr ine l.autol lin; Slate nl MnmendJ f l*iKe»M A •*.% l4« 'I.'15 " 0 IK-lt U.C •.HIK ■■CV^I.IN Mj,h„ rim nut 4ll«l UK Iwriul OK nc n.llnn II c ,rf kkrc m um unrcoi c*i;tii.menl ^ 1 .c lu>. Ivni Ii»ii.%Ih J o krjl >l>MMpln>n l.« Iln Mini. Jnnoi v«,in llul «,■ lult jAJi.tl m .Au,,..«.|.,riK P ., ul.nh.H...l.M„. Ik., tt,.I..Kn„.p.,..,.......... rin ..| ,.„ • ••il.kKiiinani ll iIku *1 Anilrixo»««n Iln: k fjlrik>»i.|i«»ni >wkm<.»j<n> ..nirium Mut Iv jhk t« kin l«<lic Ik... tt. lu. Ik Uc .......................... • .. ohm |.< .,,1 ri.« ,M .............. ..ml «, lu.. .kL^ninkil Ik v«.lko.fc.l, l,mr ..I Ik I.K. I., Mitrilin,- .1 ll.nnor.- n*. 1I...J. lU on,., km- k,.,..., n.-mH«, k«ml Ink k-., ................... »l. .i «,■ I,.I 1. Ik imnl kYHjI i.n.l|n.1olkn. nl Ik k,'jl •Wonini.n, oU... ilm Icrj) .koiinln -. I. u, „.ll, .............* .,m, .. .oil, .nn ,I.Oom.-. okn^ n .lunnin,' omi ......iloi Uc .lane o.aI n.nAI iei|Uiik- kpji c\rx'i .iik I imim m Umi; a iluonl imiti .riichi •Uicittonir ilic KHwnlutiiA id iho irxi 2 \\v luw- dimiM H k U hui Imi ..I Ilk- |k..|k ru .«kl huno Im, cKiipaU*.! r***vTmiicnt d UT»d.ii«MiN Mhh Ii.pi.u.l vtkaU .K .iImi kM.f I.cuf luuKt iW i\ liM iAamnlv It dv p^anmnp ,mpi..ii mc .Im. ..........,.Uc .,11 ri,.„U..ai» of ^••.»vlm».cdcl agemio Dui ma) k.w d mADlAi>fCE SUniElWG 1 ESGINEERtr<G CO.5MVN ll«» V !•! MMNCMa XIN MU< J74 UMfellMTI Kt?ajBvrvtilit DOLfG WALDOCU a-Rvi vni ,Wfttu i<nn U f>Al. i)T<:riiii»Tinv ^*** •*** "• l-*** tlrttewJ tlrjch jt lul*** Snwimrwrth w* ilir SMuih««r«irti% iivnci «»| vmU k- l^K£\r.rrU .REVI5ED.AiiQust3a*31& iiVJHB. w*lW. /ISCCI^ M»^ch1^,M97 rNMML! M Hr.* »»f I ?. ihrmr ■. . . ------------------ it:nictf NnuilirjMrttt utmx Smnfnrth linr rlK.'triit #•« ifw Mwmc riinHnjiu,K i.. j in N«<«4inK Ime i.i ^ .• wh U mum *r» icn \.>«iiirj«rth iitmi hervmme ihrmr n* tmmmf nni. j.. i.n p«w il.r Khmlmr^cd^ :: kn ^r'^ry****^** *"* **' **** drwiK-u »h b«l Ilui pj., „| | « : dcunhcU J« “!!rr^," * P— «*ir Knni. hnr H M , ..nt : Ohixm W krt |.«m rtir N«rtl.nr«c.h l« .. liiracr Snnlmr^t m j ,«W5 m, Vu mirth W nt «anl I m ? ntmh fnnm r, mi iw .^HCTUcih *Mi MHr VmNjmrMrih ti«tMrt mI uni 1. I uirmr Wliratirth ahnir Hn- SinHiirfh !.«« ..i | j yowcr wl Ml im Hwf hmrjMTfh m iIk Knn|icr> iwr t*< Im 2 m j m<« nn t»f Imr iHiicIi fnnni n 7n * alniti; Knnhcrh Iwf m %jnl kn itnm ^»fi rf hcpia wiy ilwnri: N«inli«cwrh ahwr N.n«‘^h Imr ** *** »*« *w ihr nnm i*| hrrinuMiv. acnndn*.- i- inr irtwiknl fim Uiiicul and tuiiair w llmuriint I •nmu khancwu. nrrft dni pati laUn Mr Kntdi Mwtr IJm* LIMIIAIklWS tk« «nif« «r MV fnr rtm If* it a« I. Stvmvif the Ictifth and ditmum uf tnivnilan Kwt rf ihr trpat drteHfilion nhick yn« ri«iM«hr J 2 fkavmf ilir locabcvi cd etitunf imp>n»»wvMt »t drnnrd VNfmtanl ) %<wiwp VMf MBMicwti M ctivvif MoMMicnw M wivtli *T cnmm fi#*r |wp>Tt> 4 Wamvif etltiMf t|viirlr^tiHVMnrt«Mar> loilinw einaMtmdiUrtrvrctMiihr ffir f 5 JflMV Ivf *e fwfifvtcd dnrniNf and ii« kvMiaii. on tw mc . fev ymv fc«in» and lot the irinrw id amt acmcirt Cavli vvd la laatr Ml rarvrr 25 ' - Uu > leer i»om Ohw i vaa Area»<2T 18 51 263<6?9 32 35* 1497loidiHoiOr1 U6I Gotaod Aaoa ?0 6? 22 72 468 . . 0 1 otaf Gvijgv 1 46b Ufcas 6 1851 111 8 4 32 loi.'ii Lieci't t 1 143 X^izteie vvaiiift 8 stab Area 1 . « . 5 30 J ^. 12 84 > 3 24 jloMi CofWtdid Want 8 SJ( ' 13a Utrvr 45 45 2025 8 0 0 1 mat Dttofway 20.‘f, •Total Hardcover 4S3S • Aiea 250.500 90 a 250 22SOO »*eicrnuior Maidcovei 20 1f% S£JLL tXNt r\ni hhials mi fcct h.f. •i t-'. M kim w ^ •• IkvMM IT* ID fapr mh Ii pU mk plu^ txMmf Siau LicrnM Nvndirr *»215 trt HWlaar S«tt0 ir —Ataa ld"‘ 120 feialSM ________ Total Caf^v** Otcits 5 d* Total 5^t ‘r ComtitJIVaaM A Slab Aiva ______0_ o" 0 otai Co^vit Waiit i i[ Orivt tolal brtvaway Total Hatdcowr A##a 0.75 75 « 52 Poictmaov Haidcova> 3900 3 08% ¥ -f ^1io iiit . ill • ♦*■! : q: rS «i rtirrir I liciriH iftiili iImi |Iii% uiiir «-.3> f'liTHi-d ••» l;ftvfii?rf and a l*rnlrtii«i«ul s«i»» of midif oi.* I .m. M • ____ JAJtctii ratictri .vrs \«- iMii r.n iliiiM Iirct i%Ha« Ji^l llui t .nti • *‘fM\ • Mmi d ; '^Uirtd Minnc «na »5 t m ^ ► w llm vt iMV mviftt *« »t » • dv mfv *1 •>* Ktint. .iiHll ym. nuy .nk •« mtvvvc I I. iM .W.* *,».l acu.M — (.ntci l!|fl Mkim — Mt •« met •» «*imm Wm--------.r imi « •!*.( M ym0 w»«nm M *v *o CM !• la^ M *n im>»,- A Mk camMiiy tw mm a MV a^. . c^ M am .raiaMfianm • m-•-V pM*? Micaa laa m# » fM Ml cMdaMin tM art MAM fffM c«|ir*M 1m m»4 m r»M gMaiff ttiwnr il dky m indrUfVd aad dv Imm n kMk he alW* mA VKMg M da MNwmIm CMnallaMf MMn Via I IlMdMf CMMf »r»MM|Mai«M.cfc«idvl»aMMMca#ikna»M»«»kf«mf iMliMt 1 at.1, »c »lM» a ptapaud Ikvm * Im dm Imm. »t vc am at faaiilM aidi ymt hMW pUa« a« ■ "a aad mm ««lMfti mOm ImMcf ^ Itwi om f.<rmcd Imaad laMf a# M« kMar aad »a*d cvcMI, M m dm dwy aMck alaa« Mkat imiratua arfMi Aha af »t aM at U mA mt .M Wal cadri m lA# k, «l K h Wm| maMg aOa ol m dm-------------^ vt UrtaMMUia. I wC -------- ---------------------------- tPamaMf an A Ml Mam caaMaav* an ItetaftMdMa Wr *^'*'*'‘ " “**' IMndAWM amt dv kaav and at laais. «d afaaai dva frfaa.aH trlaif j'i^JrK\rj=rrr_T:„T.::r^ IN krai douM<*» a wk MMaa,# coMram aiay to akk la toV .twd,f itoai »« maat ikv ito laic hiMatc lai laa 3 it akMd n Imc %»*m al drrd dmaMc aad ac to«c da teMtoaMnly kac af Va aact ky IfdMaif dw haaaaat aaa dtadt r^j-j dw tarteC laM tfcca r-i- mat ia.«d ktok «r to*t amted a*. .An .a l«d n d« pm. i k^a^i aar»|-nai-ai af dw kfal det^aM akatc. ’ ^.*,**** al *c fuafa*^ and mmm Mi««p»raAMt Sd to*c aal m«cvv *^4 |r r-aiaM|i wfakataM mk at trfwof J trthMki M vM^ff iM city Im t^f—f*t If ^ v« ftCaMitfif «m )M c.fiMi aM icfataiaMi al |p«cmm ««ru I atawai diai May Aa»c f«pitd<twa «»t ia|f rv dial JOB N0.9666T m I • ; tww .—-pf*mr-^rf^_-------::;------------ "■] •N. r^•^ -- ■ ^ • ■•■?*• >. Vi •V i 1 ‘-=.11j OMAWM OMACASa OATS •CAt^ AO* MO. ■M**T «A •«•«•••••• •^ » ? /IU *•^1 'Ji ''': .V- .. •• t I •in J^ •> ^ »■ r ■'> ■ 'V,.. '-i: f:>S) •\* % J'^\i- »* • t >i _ - 1 1 'v^ '^T'- i m • V !1 I: I'--• .V • «•* I- ?» n V 5^ * r' L' ^ V.,-, :v 4 \ '.J[r \ .'•? &V .*• *v' • ..-i/ - v\ J -'t' y V.’ >***, *i *»«cr 4^ crrf^ *5 l“t— •— ..f • I Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form I t'wel cL L. * JJ 'P [print name(s)] of ^A. [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at Jih JOa also referred lO as Land Use Application No. 3^*/. 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. 3./9 7 Property Owner Date / Property Owner Date ♦ *♦**♦*♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦** ♦*f*******i'***>'***’i*************************************''"^*’^* [print name(s)] of 4^f A'L [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of at ^ZJ!^ g also referred to as Land Use Application No. of the property located 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. Property Owner Date / Property Owner -7 Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to thr scheduled nieeting date. H TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner^oning Administrator DATE:May 15, 1997 SUBJECT: #2235, Martin B. Schneider, 2180 North Shore Drive (Old Hill Schoolhouse) Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit—Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District Lot Size:25,440 sq. ft. (.63 acres) Application:The owner of the Old Hill Schoolhouse at 2180 North Shore Drive, Martin B. Schneider, is requesting an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow the Lake Minnetonka Env ironmental School to locate in the building. Background: In 1984, Mr. Schneider obtained a conditional use permit to allow the continuation of a non- conforming use of the structure for a fine arts school providing full-time class instruction. A variance was also granted to allow parking in a required side yard. The proposal is a change from one non-conforming use to another and an amendment to tlie conditional use permit is required per the resolution that was adopted in 1994. Additionally, the Building Official has indicated that the occupancy classification would change from a "B2'' to a "E2” which requires improvements to the builuiug for handicap access and life safety standards. it2235, Martin B. Schneider 2180 North Shore Drive C.U.P. amendment 5/19/97 page-1 . I I Proposed Use: Staffing and Capacity The Lake Minnetonka Environmental School proposes to have 2 or 3 classes with 14 students in each class for a total of 52 students. The staff would consist of 3 or 4 teachers. Projected growth would be 56 students and 5 teachers. ■ ' #2235. Martin B. Schneider 2180 North Shore Drive C.U.P. amendment 5/19/97 page-2 Hours of Operation and Parking The school year would be weekdays from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., September through June 15. Parking for staff is available on the north side of the building. A drop-off area is available next to the building. All students currently arrive by private passenger vehicle. However, some may be bussed in the future. Classroom Plan The two main floors would be classrooms, the upstairs wll have classroom, library and computer room. The Building Official has indicated that a certificate of occupancy shall be obtained before the school can move into the building. Fire sprinklers, handicap accessibility, and handrails/guardrails will need to be approved by the Building Official before the school can occupy the building. The school ’s plans wll need to be prepared by an architect. No variance procedure is available to waive Building Code requirements for public health/safety requirements and handicap accessibility. Finding: 1.That the projiosed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; The RRl-B Zoning District is" intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of low density residential development and limited agricultural use." The permitted and conditional uses in the Rl-A district carry’ through to the RRi-B district. The Zoning Code states " Public schools and parochial or private schools which teach a curriculum similar to a public school provided no building shall be located within 50 feet on any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District and that a fence be erected fifteen feet or more from all street lot lines where the abutting use is for open play, and nursery schools providing fifty square feet of playground space per pupil". The building does not meet these requirements. The Comprehensive Plan states in the Land Use Chapter: RURAL EDUCATIONAL LAND USE Typical educational facilities will be expected to remain in the Urban Service A’^ea according to the U2235, Marlin B. Schneider 2 ISO North Shore Drive C.U.P. amendment 5/19/97 Land Use Plan. However, Orono is host to two unique educational institutions which have proven to be acceptable rural land uses because of their special characteristics. The Land Use Plan does not provide for any e.xpansion or duplication of these facilities, however, because the impact upon neighboring properties would increase as would the likelihood of urban service requirements. Only when these institutions are relatively small and low-key will they remain appropriate rural land uses. Minnetonka Center or Arts and Education Located on North Shore Drive in the Cry stal Bay neighborhood, this institution provides high- quality instruction and facilities for all forms of artistic expression. The center has recently expanded and does draw a significant number of persons to daily activities and frequent special functions. The rural location is especially appropriate for the artist's personality, but care is necessary that the facility does not overtax the City ’s ability to provide the necessary serv ices. Locating the Lake Minnetonka Environmental School in the existing structure appears to meet the requirements of the comprehensive plan for being compatible with rural land uses. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed operational plan for the school will be compatible with the neighborhood. The school should be limited to a maximum of 56 students or the maximum allowed by the Building Code, whichever is less. The building and the site should not be expanded to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3.That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. A variance has previously been granted for the parking area. A fifteen ft. fence, as required by the Zoning Code for public and private sc'cools in not a practical consideration for this site and would detract from the historical character of the structure. Staff Recommendation To approve the conditional use permit, subject to t!ie following standards: U223S, Martin B. Schneider 2180 North Shore Drive C.U.P amendment 5/19/97 page-4 t • 1.The building shall have a certificate of occupancy before the school relocates into the building. 2. A future change in tenancy shall require an amendment to the conditional use permit. Attachments A B C D E Application Letter from Applicant School Information Letters of Support Previous Resolution i U2235, Martin B. Schneider 2180 North Shore Drive C. U.P. amendment S/19/97 pages -----------! >•I -j*-.‘••?r -V S' L CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application § Date Received VZ?<//y>7 Amount Paid ^ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Z^30 3H&0>^ ^Z) ^C/fC0Uf^0jS6^ Type of Application to be Filed AMZt^bmitJT TP 69/\bi"flC/iAL VUiUM'iT Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /O^//"7 7>'?i ________ applicant Name /?f/f0r7/^J 3. SC^AjfjQefi^ Address /Z3^ Phone (home) ______ Phone (yyork) City /ifD/A/A_________Zip 5S3<?/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address City Zip, Date Prppefty^quired________3^ ______ I (do^do nop'also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____SI75.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee fV 8 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 y Other - see Fee Schedule (\vf>ev\^YY)cA ConJihonal 6lse Per/wi " (. I'^O-' PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District ^ Present Use of Property______Residential ^ Other (specify) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271;. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate liut of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:__________________________Date ____________ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature ^^1^ 3^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 l/j/i^TlTlN Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. i WINNETONKA AVE 50 :> ZJO r« 18 ^,^"MO fiTAIL' *^^(39) ^50~s« >0 ® (38) -» *5 .. J,2/\33) 8 8 3 '^0 (37.> ^ V 4 MO •N 140 ^ *=®:'(36) ® V 5(341 8 «•'' ■ ’''°a^ MO *=’135) 140^ CRYSTAL > :33s ■X3 . >«>.35 ,2 vvj; '7 160.1 11 ^ (30) «■/ \LC) i 23) ' >51.06,0 T|«/ a (29) f- R/ 3 C (24) i!;;/ j5M3.62 g\' •£>/ &5TKA “ R/ 4 s: (25) J 135.36 8 -o IV. 55 5 AV « (28).^»7 (26) ffr/ ^ o i?\5 , <=5'/r-^R ^ ^ -s cr7)6 ^./ .O118.9 R/ ;i75a(58);t (sna 'ill '75 ii S 2 \ 1 s 80 ^(15) (97) Cj VA*:*:::*. •3’ 5 gsii] OOOfiOuvL 67.5 m S ^ \ 1 (54)g 1 1 ZXi 1—1 y> S,55,'1 <55)8 1715 87.5 ! 1 1 87.5 1 ST160%D1605«-’S - - '0911 60 87.5 •V 37.5 (101) / ®(4n-V46)^ K;{)-f (!i)- NO -5-H /o-117-23-33 : . cx7 '4 -ncs>> " |4f^ -- ♦»" Mart in b. 6chne’idcr 1235 Hiintcr Drive Wavzata. Mimicjola 55391 APRIL 24. 1997. u-o V. . •?.-r' :j _■>' i ■ / ... RE: 2180 N.SHORE DRIVE (OLD HILL SCHOOLHOUSE) THE PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION IS TO COMPLY WITH A REQUEST FROM THE CITY STAFF TO AMEND THE CURRENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SO THAT A PRIVATE NON-PROFIT MIDDLE SCHOOL CAN MAKE USE OF THE BUILDING. GRADES 4-8 WILL BE TAUGHT THERE. SINCERELY, WlAWH MARTY SCHNEIDER 476-3525 I i LAKE MINNETONKA ENVIRONMENTAL SCHOOL Mission Xhe Lake Minnetonka Environmental School is a partnership of teachers, parents and students who work together to provide a caring, quality learning environment that promotes: •Basic acadenuc excellence •Study skills and test-taking skills •Life skills •Nature and environmental focus •Exploration of the fine arts •The ability to cope with new and changing situations •Hands-on learning •Cooperative learning •Conflict resolution skills •Manners and a respect environment •Utilization of the conununity as a classroom •Parental involvement •Close conununication between parents, staff and students •Community Partnership •Multi-cultural exploration and involvement •Hard work and joyful learning •Life long learning Philosophy We believe that childrens' jobs are to play, explore, learn to learn and give service and help to others. We believe the family is a strong unit that needs to be supported and deeply involved in the education of their youth. We believe the teacher is a resource and a facilitator offering information, skills, daily encouragement and training to students while supporting the family whenever possible. LAKE MINNETONKA ENVIRONMENTAL SCHOOL Staff and Students: During the upcoming two years we intend to have two - three classes of students with a maximum of 14 per classroom. CXir staff will likely be three to four full time teachers. Beyond the two years we project minimal growth, with a maximum of four classes of 14 or less students per classroom, and the staff to teach those students probably being no more than five. Hours of operation: School year - September - June 15, M-F, 8:00-3:30 with possible after school classes occasionally. We may have a summer program; that is still under consideration. A summer program would have less students than the school year program. Parking: We intend to have a staff parking area on the north side of the parking lot, leaving space for drop off/pick up and visitors in the main area next to the building. The students will be arriving both by bus and car, though at this time all arrive by car. Classroom Plan and Description: The two main floor rooms will be classrooms, the upstairs will consist of a classroom, library and computer room. See the brochure for more information about the description of the school. Academics are usually done in the morning, music, art classes (which will likely be held at the Art Center) and phy ed usually occur in the afternoon. We are frequently in the community learning and giving service. Recess: One to two short recesses are planned per day. The areas that will be used are—the yard, tennis court. Crystal Bay Park and we have permission from the Art Center to use their back play area. Most of our physical education classes are held in the community—on golf courses, bowling alleys, swimming pools and community gymnasiums, cross skiing, bike rides, etc. Community Learning Opportunities Lake Minnetonka Environmental School 1996-97 Community Service •Tamarack Senior Citizens - served at Valentine Lunch •Sojourn Day Program - beginning a cooperative partnership •Bryant House - Holiday program •Toys for Tots - purchased and donated numerous toys •Interfaith Outreach - collected food •Saga Hill Park area - litter clean-up •Highvvood Nature Trail - will work with Orono Park Commission as needed Government • Orono Council/Park/Planning Commission meeting - donation of Woodrill • Mound City Hall Open House • Volunteered for Republican election committee to help get out mailers • Attended Democratic rally where President Clinton spoke • Visited voting booth on election day • Toured Capitol and sat on House Floor with Congressional members Water Preservation • Workshop at Minnehaha Watershed District • Entered poster contest (two student teams and our school won prizes) • Awarded prizes at Int'l Water Symposium Conference (700 people) • Toured local water treatment plants • Stenciled anti-pollution message near storm sewers Nature, environmental and survival • Wolf Ridge • Nature walks, identified vegetation, phenology activities throughout the year • Arboretum • Collected sap and made syrup • Raptor Center and raptor release Social StudiesJScience • Voyageur Rendezvous, Albert Lea • Science Museum • History Museum • Bell Museum - Jason Project • Planetarium • Smithsonian Exhibit Marketing/advertising • Universal (formerly Naegle Signs) • Presentation by staff of Musicland marketing staff Physical Education » Coifing, cc-skiing, bowling, rock climbing, swimming, downhill skiing • Biking, rollerblading, tennis, basketball, volleyball 'fUor ^\^rk Ce-Co^Ji flaor ^«jou\A We> V^#l(Cc^ -VUrce 'teocUi^^ areas.Twe lar^jer o.re«v, W0u\^ IrkftVe. a S' K,^A CuL/cfe. l^^ll k^vrderiM^ it \mi4u 'four fa •fto0 Mm* Cawr^le^ otK +Ke Inside oi fkt, \^a.u f'ar Sfu\ot\'d^of yJoJl a^\o beuseaas fK>/ate sVuAyig a^eus. Tbe. Hii<r 4wo <u*< v&ou>\A. Ve So^oJitr classT^a/HS wrHi 'We. beiv\0 use^ as «. put Of U.b,. »iVOa( H«jUwaj^ b'»t3\* 'm lo'M a "TO raa pefE^Q^KS PHASE I SECOND LEVEL PLAN "A-SCALE: l/4'=r-0' TV\v5 vjaJUL noV +Wi’s foo •TV\€f«. IS A.eAear p«.VV\iD VfVV\ eitiVs. fV\€. V>a.s«ma1 weu\A tee ^r,c+\^ «p«-ce Kept oper\ s# +V|erc waulA lie A. cAeor fiA-W -H b«i-U €XvVs. • CUMM9««0H on.M«on^tei K\ PHASE I BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN ATELIEP LE SUEUR ORONO, MINNESOTA I I I I _ C^-„. - =1 uu ---- . "“Ij XXX Jil. —“ — t - ------------------ d Z .oif -4|ii--- * 3— — ^ f xxy^l — — “ IKSEXS^C. rorjfr I >x> I utman>A’Tt iM*<« iRS^^TION L XXX I PCTIH \ f XJOt I INISEX TOf^ET XXX ] M9«O0KO*« i noDMCiriM *01 icenmirr ma^mrmrt moax * «e«i OOM. j« M 4CCMMLI tMiB» tout i ixr MM nx» ■ iODV « «x B«m » Mirvcroii»Ot«»<^«i.a #iKucie mo« M mkm PHASE 1 FIRST LE'^EL PLAN NNESOTA Project Budget Restoration and Renovation........................$76^00.00 An authentic restoration of the exterior and a complete renovation of the interior for school use. Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment...............................6^00.00 To include dark room equipmeti-;. classroom and lecture furniture and fixture^ Operating Expense for “Old Hill School"......................................9,500.00 Maintenance, utility and clerical expense for transidon period. Restoration Campaign Expense....................................2,500.00 Total.....................................$95,000.00 Officers & Directors Mrs. John D. Chandler Mrs. Jason C. Becker President Recording Secretary Mrs. Alden Berman, Mrs. Thomas S. Hartzell Vice President Corresponding Secretary Mw. D»niel J. Moos Mr. Jam« E. Slctto. Vice President Treasurer Mrs. George Brueske Vice President Directors Mrs. Robert Cosgrove Mrs. Morrow Peyton Mrs. George Gruenwald Mrs. Otto Seidenberg Mr. John B. Hawley Mrs. Richard Siragusa Mrs. H.R. Johnston, Jr. Mrs. Roy O. Stewart Mrs. Mary Marshall Mrs. Gertrude Sexton Mrs. James G. Miles Thompson Mr. Stanley Vaill Advisory Directors Mr. Hugh Harmon Mrs. Cliarles Kelly Mr. Wayne Blackmarr ft^y^ API fi/f^ T-Aluff's Since its formation in 1952, The Minnetonka Center of Arts and Education has become a valued and essential element in the lives of Minnetonka and surrounding com­ munities. Dedicated to serving the public as a school of art and humanities, the Center has ex­ perienced a dramatic pattern of growth and suc­ cess which now seriously threatens its ability to keep pace with demand for its artistic and educa­ tional programs. Today, the Center’s class attendance is 218% greater than when the building was originally pur ­ chased (in 1971) and the membership is 167% larger. Therefore the Center has determined to restore the historic "Old Hill School", located on Center pro­ perty, which will economically remedy its pressing space problems while preserving an important part of the community’s heritage. Tlus handsome build­ ing, one of the last structures of its age in the Min­ netonka Commimity, will house lecture, photo- graphy, music, dance, and needlework in spaces ideally suited to these activities. In addidon, the saved building will provide focus for community and organizadonal meetings, and studio space for individual artists. But perhaps most important, the saved building will help the Center meet its ob- jeedye for quality educadon, enhancing the total fabric of community life. Restoration by James C. Hillegass of Keystone Construction Company. Photos by Michael L. Kopp. '0 m 1. IV r\eor mfi' Wi - t «ir- :• I, llBT I..- ■ ' • * V 'I* t ‘\^ •* '. ' '*-t^i,* i* U * i * • * • * * ’ ^ ^1'- v^s'"avv.v V _JL.^ •' . *:-.‘-.yv ’''.•l-> :. ■• r'-wi. ;■>”:. ✓.•>■ i v^.-y >».■: • '/•■•■•■ •■ W"''i&5La4i > : ^ t GRIFFITHS WAS RELN'STATED July 27 afler he took a polygraph test that city officials say cleared him of any involvement in the suspected arson, al- hough the two people who claimed Griffiths told them he had set the Ore also oaised polygraph tests on their testimony Griffiths denies any involvement in he fire. Griffiths and represenutives of Teamsters Local 320, which represents •^ayzata police, feel that Griffiths’ religious beliefs were questioned impro- >erly Ihi^ghout the investigation and the resulting arbitration hearing This lucstioning violated his constitutional rights, they believe that the union opposes the use oTb agahm seU-incriminaUoii i poiygra^ tests GRIFFITHS THEN TOLD Jeoie; month, Wayxau city manager Larrv cal testing service the city uses tot that Thompson told him that be **th' ui.utt mat mier me investigators asked him relij uirwSffs!'*^ questioning him about devil %irorship and Griffiths* GRIFFITHS SAYS HE UNDERSTOOD what the investigators were getting at by the questioning The house bad been used by devil worshipers for months, says Griffiths, and investigators were obviously tr>ing to connect Griffiths to the fire by csUblishing that Griffiths’ fundamentalist religious beliefs would have opposed the satanic practices. Assistant sUte fire marshal Tom Jensen called Griffiths in three weeks later and questioned him about the fire and about Griffiths’ religious beliefs Jensen had been called into the case by the county sheriff Jensen is required L ake Minnetonka „ . Serving Carver County and Plymouth) U jy/ju Siih.K.1 District 284. Mmneionkt School District 276. Mound Westonkt School District 27". and Oruno School District 278 RELIGK 7c A B Vol. A. No.34 TWO SECTIONS Wtdnesday, August 25, 1976 Second C>oti Poaiftyc At Msn«v«apoli|. ; Old Hill School re-dedication was a i ^. home-grown, 'small-towny' happening r .. i r i i I \4 THIS is how a parade should be!" Tbat’a the^co ‘nsellius of watchers who linM the four block route of Orono ’s first and only parade from the village hall to the newly restored old Hill Sd^l building Saturday. • Home grown, -snudL towny with a parade of antiquei cars, an old vel­ ocipede, kids, kids, kids and their dogs, Girl and Boy Scouts and the Blue Knights Drum & Bugle Corps were there. But nowhere in the entire line of march was a commercial float. THE PARADE was indicative of the rest of the day's happenings from the Girl and Boy Scout flag-raising • ceremony at Center West (the new ! name for new Hill School) to tne barn { dance that night. Tom Williams and I Judy Johnson were the scout leaders. > Presidents Carol Berman and Eleanor Cosgrove sounded the keyn- I ote in words and looks. Carol in a black school marm’s costume with , parasol representing the 1890s and I Eleanor as 1976 emphasized the I’ meaningful historical significance of j "Old Hill” in Orono and the con- HILL SCHOOL To Page 5 4 ' I —• • ■ - ” <1 ■> ' •> -*■*>* <. ' J ' frV-u I Pi' ■ ^ mjm. t • ? I: . ^ • > ..•' CUTTING THE RIBBON From left, Eileen Hock, Jim Hillegass, Betty Chandler, Laura Miles Sojourn Adult Day Program 4497 Shoreline Diive Spring Park, Minnesota SS384 5-5-97 Planning Commission City of Orono Orono City Hall Orono, Minnesota 55392 To Whom it May Concern. This is a letter in support of the Lake Minnetonka Environmental Schools relocation to the old Hill School buildtnc in Orono. Sojourn Adult D.'iy Program has been serving elders and their fanuiies around Lake Minnetonka since 1984. Our special emphasis is to provide intcrgenerational opportunities •which foster lifelong relationships valuing each other. The Lake Minnetonka Environmental School and Sojourn are collaborating on plans for intergenerational art, honictilture and video projects during the 1997-1998 school year. Community partnerships benefit everyone The City of Orono would be well seived to have an innovative, visionirv school located at Hill School. C IM c TO: ORONO CITY COUNCIL From: MINNETONKA CENTER FOR THE ARTS DATE: MAY 6,1997 Our organization wishos to add its support to the request of the Lake Minnetonka Environmental School to occupy the old Hill School, Their use appears to be consistent with the past uses of the building, and we believe they would an asset to the community. We would Intend to cooperate with them to ensure we are “aood nelghbprs". Thank you for your^onsraeration. isan Anderson ixecutive Director Minnetonka Center for the Arts received HAY 71997 HIHHETOHKfl CEHTERSflRTS CITY OF ORONO 2240 N«tlL Skot( Dritr Wtriili MN 5529I 9I27 Ttl 012 47] 7]6I Fii 612 47) 7)6) CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 24______ 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 taerest in the property located at 2180 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter City ) and legally described as; refer to Exliibit A, attached (hereinafter "property"); and ^VHEREAS, 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 m arts providing full-time class instruction and a variance to Section 10.61, ^ f ^ . would allow the continued use of an open parking area located within a require si e where no such parking would be allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: fd^dlsgs 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1923. The property is located in the RR-IB Single fT'Is^acres' requiring two acres in area. The property consists of 25,440 s.f. or .63 3. 4. 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 commumty. In 1957 the HUl School was purchased by the Minnetonka Art Center and the facility continued to serve the Art Center through 1989. Page 1 of 7 rnsmoiikc CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3424_____ 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. On June 12, 1989, the City 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, the Art Center of Minnesota (formerly Minnetonka Art Center) leased the facility 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: a.The use has existed prior to the creation of the single family zoning district through to present times without interruption. b.The use has had no detrimental effects on the surrounding residential neighborhood. c.The art school to be operated from the Hill School building will continue to share parking facilities of the ^ Center of Minnesota consistent with the former comprehensive operation. d.The City has no record of vehicular accidents resulting from the use of *e gravel parking areas along the east side of the property adjacent to Bnar Street. Page 2 of 7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 4 24_____ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Applicant shall retain a licensed architect to address some of ^e 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. This non-conforming use may not be changed to another non-conformmg use. Nothina in the Municipal Code shall prevent the placing of this structure in safe ^ondS wtn "d Lcmre is declared unsafe by *e Building Inspector providing the necessary repair shall not constitute more than 50% of market value of said structure. If structure is damaged by f.re, flood, explosion. record :«Lfnce;tt1;o:ii^^^^^ ««idential Zoning District, . f MCA nf this struemre is discontinued and remains shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Sin^ y District. 1 and 2 above to be completed by November 9, 199 . Page 4 of 7 ] twmicOi 0>ti^ CITY of ORONO iii-RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 4 24 11.The Council finds that the conditions existing on this propen>' 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 propenies, 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. 12.The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the continued use of the facility as a fine am school offering full-time instruction will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighbonng 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 H^ScSprlpen; !ndTe tooric a^nJlchooru^ of the pretty fre consequently grants a variance that would allow open parking sails within the required side Street yard. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. right-of-way of Briar Street. Page 3 of 7 NniSOOSOmOr* CITY of ORONO Sfer i RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 4 24_____ 8.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. 9.Annette LeSueur, the Director of Atelier LeSueur, 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 al in, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Annette LeSueur Director of Atelier LeSueur, Inc. chnetder /*^rru^«vv> Andrea E. Schneider STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ^ o . . . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on ttas 9* * V. City. LINDA S. VEE NOTARY PUBUC - MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My commission axplm 6>12*90 Notary Public Page 5 of 7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. .Q 4 94______ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of .1"u /y___________ and for said county, personally appeared , 199 y before me a Notary Public within Li nryia rri > Ju, r toown to me to be*the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument.and acknoy lerftred that he (theyLexfiCUlfid*the same as his (their) free act and deed. UNDA S. VEE -'V ^ ► OTABY WBUC - MtNNMOTAHENNEPIN COUNTY My COrr«r.lMton •-12^ NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. , 199^ before me a Notary Public withinCOUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of (h If A'/ "____________ and for said countv, personally appeared fA..rVn h Srhrt.djr ^------------ 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. LINDA S. VEE fiOTAPY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA ‘;i HENNEPIN COUNTY My com/T.iSSicn expires 6-12-96 NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) S™P.J.;. and for saidcounty, personally appeared r known to me to be the person(s) described m and who executed the foregoing instrum , acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. LINDA S. VEE NOTARY PUBUC • MINNESOTA""^ hS nepin county My commission expires 6-12-96 /,^'UCcL NOTARY PUBUC Page 6 of 7 0l1a^ TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM;Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 12, 1997 SUBJECT: #2236, William H. Bockmann, 1090 Loma Linda Avenue Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, One-Family Lakeshore Residential District, (1 Acre) Lot Size: 9,365 sq. ft. (.215 acres) Application:Applicant is seeking a variance to the street setback and side yard requirements and hardcover to remove an existing 1 car garage to install a new 2 car garage. A lot area variance of 34,195 sq. ft. or 78.5% is required. A hardcover variance in the 75'-250' setback area is required to increase hardcover from 1,754 sq. ft. or 37.20% to 1,838 sq. ft. (38.98%) for a variance of 84 sq. ft. or .018%. A variance to reduce the side yard from 3.0' to 2.6* is required. The setback from the street is existing at 14.6'and the proposed 2 car garage would also be 14.6' from property line. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24, Subd. 5,B., L.R-IB, One Family Rural Residential District, Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements Section 10.22, Subd. 2, Lakeshore Hardcover #2236 William Bockmann 1090 Loma Linda Avenue Variance 5/19/97 •i Analysis LOT AREA AND YARDS LRl-B District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 43,560 sq. ft. (1 acre) 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 30 feet Subject Propert}' Lot Area and V'ards Lot Area Loi Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 9,365 sq. ft. (.215 acres) 50 feet 14.6' from street 3.0' existing; 2.6' proposed approx. 80' from lakeshore HARDCOVER ANALYSIS Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'4,650 sq. ft.152 sq. ft. (3.27%) None 152 sq. ft. (3.72%) No Change 75'-250'4,715 sq. ft.1,754 sq. ft. (37.20%) 1,178 sq. ft. (25%) 1,833 sq. ft. (38.98%) 655 sq.ft. (.139%) Statement of Hardship The subject propert>' does not meet the minimum lot area or lot width. The existing garage does not meet the 10' sideyard requirement. The location of a new garage is restricted by the location of a well on the property. Building Code requirements that any new construction be located at least 3' away from the well. The well is in the middle of the property at 25'. #22i(5 iVilliam Bockmann 1090 Loma Linda Avenue Variance 5/19/97 \ u, Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The variance is for an accessory structure. It is reasonable for a property owner to want to have an enclosed parking area for storage of vehicles. The residence can continue to be used as a dwelling without a double garage, however, most of the other properties in this area have double garages with the same 50' lot width. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is due to the lot width and lot area of the property and the location of a well on the property. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance w ill not change the character of the area. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Accessory structures are allowed in this residential district. U2236 William Bockmann 1090 Loma Linda Avenue Variance 5/19/97 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The special conditions that apply to this property are the lot area, lot w idth and the location of a well on the property. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The lots in this area are substandard as to lot width and lot area. This property, however, is further restricted by the location of the w ell in the middle of the yard. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has an interest in having an enclosed area for his vehicles. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The applicant cannot construct a new accessory structure on his property without a variance. Issues 1 . The lot area and lot width are substandard for the zoning district. 2. Most of the properties in the vicinity have double garages. #2236 William Bockmann 1090 Loma Linda Avenue Variance 5/19/97 3.There is a well in the middle of the yard. Building Code requires any structure to be at least 3' from the well. Staff Recommendation To approve the lot area, lot width, and hardcover variances. Attachments A B C D E Plat Map Application Hardcover Calculations Survey Letters from Neighbors #2236 William Bockmann 1090 Loma Linda Avenue Variance 5/19/97 A \ \ \ \ , • Application ff Date Received A (1^ /^O Amount Paid — CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Vjiriance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) u o O Q, f f t ^ —' PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress 10^ Q Latova LiAla Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) "1^7,3 7.S 00 IQ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired _______________ I (do) also own the adjacent parcels of land. .(month/year) Present use of property: X residential Zoning District: other (specify) APPLICANT Name W. Boc,l< Phone (home) Phone (work ) Address: \o<10 UrA,, A-of>. City: M&urN«i_________Zip: SS OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ G.ooo » oo Describe request in detail: T^ar *)*-*'*3« ^ Rm* fd ■p0urvAftA'>o'^ A kA X 7.^^ •__________________________----------------------IHT— (attach additional s|ieets if necessary) ^’ARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback: Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual prope^ conditions preventing pnmpliance with Zoning Code requirements: 2- aer*y i5 Aae ■in Ur.f<;U Co’niplianCft. CpitL V kU 3c 4 z 1). (attach additional sheets if necessary) B 8 & 1 ol REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application d^HIjne date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of o\vners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Go\i Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Surv'ey (signed by a licensed sur\'eyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/a" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic suirey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8*/a" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the propert)'. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true .and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date O-f -?7 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 V- ^ 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 Planninj Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 ‘B^CU.MAN i4 P 4 uum HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ■i* SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARPCOVER IN ZONE A. Houm ___________ Length t 2? •?;. • • * C 75-250’2SO-SOO’S00-l00<»* Wi4th . X X X B. Garage ______ C. Owwway ____•_ •I • • • .D. Sklewglk E. Patiomeck ih<€inps ’ 2.4 F. Lindsctpe Undcrltin By Plastic G. Ocher /.7 X X X X X K X X X 3.0 7.6 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ys2 + B 4^30 PROPOSEn HARDCOVER IN mTtfF A. House X Lxnfth Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk I.- E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By* Plutic Oe Other X X X X X X X X X X • » . A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B f2 ZO /s /07 IS2 X 100 X 100 *•» 4 . *1 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.’ 3,Z7 % * I S.F, S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. •s:f.‘ S.F. S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B A B # •. L- 9 LomA ••• 4 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0.75*75-25(r.250-500* EXISTING hardcover IN ZONE A. House L«ii||h X X X Wi«h B.Garage ST6P» ' C.’ Driveway 2-/Z*3 z> s /A# /a.t» X X 2-4* Sidewalk /5*2> Z /•? e^¥Krr X X E. Patio/Deck 2*4 X X ^.2 F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic► !• X X X f3.l f,3 Via&P wACc G. Other3^Cii.\0AU.~ 2S-i0 L 40.fc 4^O ./7 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ' TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONEns^B 4'7/S PROPOSE!! lIARnCflVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X 11 9 • B. Garage I C. Driveway 24 2o.? /? A/c fiAt} D. Sidewalk 2. ? X X > X X /4. d' 4- E. Pacio/Deck rr^Aj n, ^X X 2- F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X /S. / Z- 3 G. Other^^??^is. 6 . § *7 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B 41/S n o X 100 X 100 500-1000* S.F. 79 7 S.F. •S.F. S.F. 2T3 S.F, € zop HO S.F. S.F. a S.F. S.F. /^3 S.F. S.F. 76 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /7S4 471S * I S.F. S.F, 37.20 % 7 97 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 4?7 S.F.‘ Z63 S.F. S.F. •.» -4€ 29 S.F. 7a S.F. /67 ~~W S.F, S.F. 37 S.F. S.F. S.F. 7 Z.S.F. /73^ A B S.F. _________S.F. % 47 / S A B 1r 05"-^7-?7 E (\. V ah 'ZoHcaejj ^?|TY Of^ 0(^OA/O Yo Bc>y (e(e C c ^stal'^^X MhJSS^Z3 RECEIVED MAY 81997 *T^SAif Ht» \JAh/ 2,oM8ASa/. CITY OF ORONO 'T^'S- i.<rrrs^ ,s TO A0U,S<, you TAAr R oc ^tT. ^OUMTAMf A/JO~^ Aer/A/ AOCi. A(^lt.rriltijr U)ITH Ttig Fd.AJUI UtcoiAM A ajo A/AAAcy'ZecxHAAA^, !0<)c> U ma Luuoa A uc ^ UAUr SuaHn-noTo TAc C.yyoA Oa ^aao C oa tAS c.oA>ATAUcrfc^ oA TAfiK NftU e-ACAAF. 'Ths egofoiA^ THC 3ockhaa /»'s Aas etatt-uTuie- U>ICL “Qf ACrtif^r Fr-t/rP/r fi-oic "ruttit ?itofenTy^ Aa/p A/^iOAtbOAH OOO . ^oua/taa/is Afi/o "XT A AO tOApytO To ATTrvO THf AfPlttAJ^ OA^ HAy /? /??7 T0 SntLj 0(/A SUPfOAt QtfT U)tF UAUO AMOrHtn C oHH/THSjuT. A aj K ZOi/f^C/t YfiUA TlM(T A a JO PZ.ffAS€ G-iLA a /T TAtS (ISdxJSST. ^lA/tontty iJ. fio6trOT'^> (rOijj^jTAjUt S Z^Uf' OtZOA/t^ MM Ss3^*f t4. Sr&t/SMS l0*i8Z~OM4 LtAg0AMUe- OZIO/UO Ha/ SS3Cf f y TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 12, 1997 SUBJECT: #2237, Jim and Roxanne Stasik, 1270 Wildhurst Trail Variance —Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, C le-Family Lakeshore Residential District, (1 Acre) Lot Size: 42,180 sq. ft. (.96 acres)■ >t;i Application:Applicant is seeking a hardcover variance to replace an existing deck. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24, Subd. 5,B., LR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District, Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements Section 10.22, Subd. 2, Lakeshore Hardcover #2236 Jim and Roxanne Stasik 1270 Wildhurst Trail Variance 5/19/97 page~l s h- (/) UJcro ^2 X Certificate of survey for William H. Bockmann of Lot 9. LOMA LINDA Hennepin County, Minnesota • I S fOWOO- c 162^ * '• LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Lot 9, LOMA LINDA This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house and garage, and all other visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or en­ croachments. o : Iron marker , Bearings shown ore based upon an assumed datum.• I I I. 1 VI VIMl »\IHsiVirihiN IINAWN COFFIN & GRONBERG. INC. CoihnlliiK Lii^iiiccrs, bwil Sitnvifor>, Site nvwcr^ 482 l.inuuiiik Avcinii* • long MN .S3356 612-473*4141 I Inn l*\ n flifv tli.il llii^ |Mi |Mi« tl In nii'otumlrt fn\ ilir»nlMi|Vf \ .iiul flu! I .im .1 «lnl\ t i\ il I .iiul I .iml iiinlrf llu* l.m*» Ihr M.ili* MiMiirv4«t,i M.irl ^ (triMiU ifi I hriiM* \iiniN t l?7^^ S4 .\ll 1>MI hn Mt 97/5.^ m Analysu LOT AREA AND YARDS LRl-B District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 43,560 sq. ft. (1 acre) 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 30 feet Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 42,180 sq. ft. (.96 acres) 180 feet at street side; 115 feet at lakefront 103.9 ft.52.3 ft. and 37.8 ft. deck is approximately 125 ft. from shoreline HARDCOVER ANALYSIS Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75 ’9,110 sq. ft.481 sq. ft. (5.28%) NONE 481 sq. ft. (5.28%) No change 75'-250 ’26,880 sq. ft.13,299 sq. ft. (49.47%) 6,720 sq. ft. (49.48%) 13,299 sq. ft. (49.47%) Variance is to allow existing deck hardcover to be replaced 250 ’-500 ’6,190 sq. ft.3,004 sq. ft. (48.53%) 2,166.5 sq. ft. (35%) 3,004 sq.ft. (48.53%) No change The applicant is not increasing hardcover. However, the Building Official has indicated that decks ft2236 Jim and Roxanne Stasik 1270 Wildhurst Trail Variance 5/19^97 page-2 or other structures above existing non-structural hardcover cannot be added without meeting hardcover limits. Decks that replaced over non-structural hardcover also need variances if the amount of existing hardcovder exceeds the requirements. Statement of Hardship The existing deck is rotted and is a safety problem. The residence is designed to have an upper deck. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The variance is to replace an existing deck. The dwelling can continue to be used as a residence without the deck, however, it is existing and the house is designed to include the deck. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is created by the condition of the existing deck and the amount of hardcover on the property. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. 5. The variance will not change the character of the area. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. 6. 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. U2236 Jim and Roxanne Stasik 1270 Wildhurst Trail Variance 5/19/97 page-3 8. Decks are allowed. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The special conditions that apply are the existing amount of hardcover and the condition of the deck. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Other residences in the area have decks. The variance is due to the owner’s need to replace the unsafe deck and the city’s policy regarding decks over non-structural hardcover. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has an interest in reconstructing the deck for safety reasons. ; 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The variance is required to replace the deck. Issues 1. The deck is existing in an unsafe condition. 2. The amount of hardcover will not be increased. H2236 Jim and Roxanne Stasik 1270 Wildhurst Trail Variance 5/19/97 page—4 wawip wvm Staff Recommendation To grant the variance for no change in hardcover to allow the replacement of the existing deck. Attachments A B C D E F Plat Map Application Hardcover Calculations Survey Letters from Neighbors Acknowledgement Form #2236 Jim and Roxanne Slasik 1270 Wildhurst Trail Variance 5/19/97 page-5 (43) / / / s m 'i^rd ^7 99 / / y\%^'-> ^/#/<4 / / 0 7 - (17/4':3<FMBmWFT s yF 69 (45) » ""■I3 y V '^S - V /‘T abV/x ^ •% »■ xys»^ ■<fNX ',---<AO g" /•/ '• 5) a/ 17 ; 10 \ 14 (19) ^ ■%(!7) ;% j/ It".! k ''^ * (7) /, 0> 4&' 7 e (37)7 \ PI OF 49 ?60.2 .f i :4/ (46) 266.6 48 ct/ / (36) <? N./V yp^www 4A7. I 7II hU.i '-'. .C-' \w> \ «• • • vX;X;• • « « « * • • « « •xvO ’.*. (43) © A ® llfSJ S d ^ \\ m.*•*•*•*#*'On • ^ • • • • • ^T •. 7 /V6?' \ \ \ X: \ J *7 ’44' y.'/ ^ c"67 ^iii.*. r-;j EAST LINE 41.55 ItSASJ^I^ t 50/ <,\ \X"(63)■:^ /- 7^-:^ / '2’3.84 Cf R L S 1 «2 / X (40)^^_^^, (26)Q\'A •«" / 'X!T OF ■i;^39. 1 ^X 94.79 5»(31)V X<;/=XT- Y’^ .9^ & (24)V *y ^7 / Cs/ 1.96-y \ <X XS7 X ' O V. V (27)/-V / / ’(r.X>'■‘M^X >• A'v <4?. J7 ioYA .N'«vi> \ (26) (29) 'A a/ T«50 ^^1 3> X,<y i / / /v.X< ■'^5^ Oj c? (30) V / \% \<3\\5 1/55. 1 22. 32 X8)a^ I N'> ;^R- A*/ '• r • <§l^- 92-67%4^> W «/ ■'^i' \-> (17) R-489.92 4. 15 iR K . -* ’ w t 97.67 x'o- NOT 7 \ ■X Ya\m>- ■''k.^V\7 9 1 8 \^(7)'g! '6) =X» >* \ (4) /.aVr=» ^(3) "V Application # c333~7 Date Received Amount Paid 9.^ O • oo V'= >-^.- C 0 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 *^*3^“ : (no change from original application) • * ^ Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address______Tr//it’ DhutJ ^ t ^ / . OSU-'- \ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.), Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired _________________________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Pr^nt'use ofproperty: residential o ther (specify)_____________________ Zoning District:_________________________________________________________ APPLICANT Name inu SiaS:\ Address: /.?7C hi ild ht>ir jh TfAil. City: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home ! Phone (work ) ______ l)\ i> U u d______Zip: Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmetion Cost $ IL' i £• ^ Describe request in detail: i K-l 1 K.’(^ U !4t) fi't'S/'i io I f I'ICOi (L-fk (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width 8 i Setback:Front Side V Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance v^th Zoning Code requirements: CS^rir nP,v) rinrv^kurij(r3\ t&nrirrL'i&^ ultoryT (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of o\Miers within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy BVi' x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy BY2' 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 Propert>’ Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 day t'Vre the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the 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 4 ' f Pc^NN f StmS IK HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET IdAiT A\\. *>»4 • 't SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) C 0-7S*75-250’250-500’500-1000’ FXICTINC HAttPCOVER IN ZONE . A. Hotis« ’______________ X Lcngih WMlh X X X B. Garxge C. Driveway CAa<T(7P fHTH X' X D. Sidewalk ONCitSTe $T5P5 X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. L^lscapd^ RQ^lkl Uonfliln ________ B^rnsUc ______ X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A____________+ B X 100 PI^OPOSFn lIARDCnVER IN ZniNTF House • • Lcfifih Wi<lth 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 O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 • 11* S.F. S.F.. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. iF. T7 *>♦ ^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. q-l 5.2B S.F. I I- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S>. S.F. ..S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. s.f: S.F. S.F. S.F: % l.t 4 *• » ■ A B A B f<^OXAMHB Stt^S/K HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET TJdACT Ay M3Z V-l^-9’7 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* EXISTINC HARPCOVER IN 7.0NR A. House _______________ X 75-250*250*500*500*1000* Lcnfih Width ttoO^ R0TAiNiHlr WMa5 >0 5T5PS < CANOiN^ X X X Bi Carxge X X D. Sidewalk5cA ftS M5P5 •CR5TE Rj^TAININ^ WALLS X X */.7 F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G.. Other ^OOu TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ____________ + B X 100 PRQPOSPn iiARnrnvER in 7.nt>nr House Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck X X F. Landscape Uoderlaln. By Plastic X X X O'. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •*> B X 100 ■* Z5\0 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 33SO S.F. S.F. Mo S.Fi S.F. )^o 11. S.F. S.F. 37 6g s.f: S.F. s.f. S:f. S'.F. S.F. S.F. SuF. S.F. S.F. S;F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.s.r. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % • 1 B A B • I r «• HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 1132 V*'29'^7 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) • 0-75* 75-250*^50»50y^500-1000* ' * • EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE » - • ‘1 14 A ■ A. House m • X • $ '• fa S.F. •Lcnaih wneui X • •♦ 1^ s:r. -5WeO X m s.f: /2.4 X \o.'^m “m S.F. B. Garege .•• X* •• • •S.F. o C. Driveway • X Tmo S.F. X ••S:F. D. Sidewalk X S.F.•• • X m S’F. 1 • E. Patio/peck $ • X • ••• < .1 ‘ S.F. t X •S.F. l-i F. Landscape X CV S.F.Underlain X .«3 •S.F.• By PlasUc •X S.F. r f, .G. Other X S8 S.F. •TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE •S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B • X 100 B A V8. S3 S.F. % * • PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE • A: House X-S.F. •Lcmth WMib X S.F.• •X S.F. X a S.F. . B. Garage •X • S.F. C. Driveway • X S.F. X n S.F. D. Sidewalk X S.F.»• A •X a S.F. E. Patio/Deck •X 1 S.F.' • ••X • “ •S:f.• F. Landscape X •11. S.F. Underlain X VP •• S.Ft* By Plastic X a S.F.- 0. Other X m ••S.F. #TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE • m • •• S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN .ZONE m S.F. A ♦ B X too «ft # •13 _ •• «• •• A B A I i $ .* •> lO Q ^H>> O^Zm •■" i^.crt ^s: __mn - u)-< 5oiN) ^3 71' • I 4510 North Shore Drive Orono, MN 55364 May 8,1997 O" Planning Commission City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box ^ Crystal Bay, MTI 55323 Dear Members of the Orono Planning Commission: Reference: Variance U 2237, Jim & Roxanne Stasik, 1270 Wildhurst Trail Our home is one lot east of the Stasik^ home on Forest Lake Bay. We are familiar with their home and understand that the new deck will replace an existing deck, essentially board for board. Furthermore, the deck is located over a concrete patio and does not, therefore, add any additional hardcover. We support the Stasik’s request for a hardcover variance and question the lo^c in requiring a variance, when construction of the deck does not, in reality, change the hardcover. Water run-off from the Stasik’s property heads to the lake through a gradually sloping lawn and is adequately filtered by the grass. In addition, the pool which is technically considered hardcover, also serves as a rain water retention site for the deck and patio areas. Further, we disagree in principle with stror*; arm tactics, such as forcing homeowners to tear up driveways, or disassemble gardens to come into perfect compliance with hardcover ratios. We can attest to the fact that the turn-around area of their drive-way is absolutely necessary for access to their home in the winter time. The driveway is quite steep, and becomes unuseable when ice accumulates. To force removal of the turn-around area would create a hardship and force the Stasiks to park on the street. Wildhurst Trail is quite narrow and does not accommodate on street parking. Our home is well under the hardcover limits, as are most of the homes in the vicinity of the Stasik’s property. Looking at the area as a whole, I see no value in denying them construction of a replacement deck over an existing concrete patio. Following the letter of the law in this instance serves no useful purpose and we urge the Orono Planning Commission to let logic and common sense prevail and to grant this variance. UAta JEr ITathi, -7 Pete & Kathy Savwki / <l 4. VfV > ^ K ^/7 Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we)^C4 }^l p of / ^ ^H [prinnt name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at y “2-^7 ^ ______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. Pro^rtv^wner Date 7 Property Owner Date I (we) (?. L. />■ uL <r/ of li' i lc/koi'^ / Tic [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the prr «cd improvement or proposed use of the property located at / ^__________also i red to as Land Use Application No.______ T (we) under*^*'fd 'hat in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval uisapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (’- . .) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. f{. ^(/Z 97 Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at leisi 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Lindquist & Planiiing Commission Members Miciiael P. GafTron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator May 14,1997 #2238 Chic Dwight & Fred Guttormson, 1220 Tonkawa Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Application:A. Request for after-the-fact lakeshore setback, 0-75' hardcover variances for enclosure of room below pre-existing deck. B. Request for 75-250 ’ hardcover variance for construction of detached 30* X 32' garage. List of Exhibits: A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List, Adjacent Owner Acknowledgements D - Survey E - Garage Construction Plans & Elevations F - Resolution #3611: 1995 Conditional Approval for Below-Deck Enclosure (Expired) G - Building Inspector's Letter/Notice of March, 1997 and Memo of 8/8/95 H - Staff Sketches, Selected Exhibits from Prior Application #2049 Pertinent Code Sections: 1. 10.22 Subd. 1; 10.55 Subd. 8; 10.56 Subd 16(L): Hardcover limited to 0% in 0-75' zone, 25% in 75-250' zone. £2dsling ££Qi2Qssd 0-75 ’ 3609 sf (10.9%) 2691 sf (8.1%) 75-250 ’ 4879 sf (36.4%) 4815 sf (35.9%) 10.22 Subd.l; 10.55 Subd. 8; 10.56 Subd. 16(C): structures allowed within 75' of shoreline. Pre-existing upper level deck setback: 34' Proposed setback of room below deck : 34' No temporary or permanent 10.22 Subd. 1; 10.56 Subd. 16(C)6: No average lakeshore setback encroachment allowed. Existing and proposed encroachment: (Deck is 34' from shore; adjacent home to the north is approx. 50' from shore; there is no adjacent house to the south for defining the average setback line). T,—r-i'7 ’»rr:^"'P. "SV" #2238 May 14,1997 Page 2 Summary of request: In 1995 applicant requested variance approval to enclose the area under his existing 8'x24’ deck on the east side of the house. The Building Inspector noted this would require continuous 42" frost footings, and that the existing deck could not be used as a roof. Variance approval was granted by Council on October 9, 1995, subject to a requirement for specific hardcover removals including an 800 sf gravel driveway and the 120 sf detached deck located at the shoreline. Applicant never signed the appro\ al resolutions and the variance approval expired on October 9,1996. In March 1997 the Building Inspector, during an inspection of other remodeling work on the house, found that applicant had in fact enclosed the area under the deck without permits, without the appropriate variance being in effect, and without having completed any hardcover removals. In fact, the gravel driveway to the lake now has new gravel added to it. Applicant now requests after-the fict approval to allow the enclosure under the deck to remain; and is concurrently proposing a 30'x32' (960 sf) detached garage (which will be located to meet setback requirements). This building will provide additional inside storage for a number of items currently stored outside. It is not known whether the large RV stored at the site will fit inside, but storage of this vehicle might be more appropriate outside the 0-75' zone. The removal of the two remaining sheds on the property will be an improvement. Structural coverage on the overall property will be 2887 sf or 6.2%. Enclosure As Constructed Does Not Meet Building Code The construction uf the enclosure under the deck does not meet building code standards, and there is no building code definition of a "temporary structure" as suggested to staff by the applicant. Even if the enclosure is ultimately granted variance approval, it will have to be dismantled ir. order to be rebuilt to meet the building code. Applicant t;; not provided construction plans for the enclosure. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement regarding the need for inside storage for vehicles and other equipment, and he notes a security concern due to the new Maxwell Bay public landing. Applicant has not provided any hardships in regards to the deck room enclosure. Hardships and justifications for this enclosure were enumerated in Resolution #3611 (Exhibit F). Hardcover Applicants surveyor has provided a revised hardcover worksheet which does not reflect a shed that has been removed in the 0-75' zone. The 800 sf gravel driveway in the 0-75' zone has been re­ graveled rather than revegetated. This driveway appears to have been in place in the past, but its #2238 May 14. 1997 Page 3 hardcover status was always questionable. Proposed hardcover removals include the small shed near the lake, the shed near the house, the 800 sf gravel driveway, and additional portions of the loop driveway. The current hardcover appears to be as follows: 0-75’ Zone (Area = 33,050 sf) Existing Proposed Structural:House 770 sf 770 sf Deck/Room/Stair 240 sf 240 sf Deck at Shore 120 sf 120 sf 4x9 Shed 36 sf (Remove) Non-Structural:Loop Driveway 1530 sf 1480 sf Sidewalks, etc.113 sf 81 sf Driveway to Lake 800 sf fRemovel 3609 sf 2691 sf (10.9%)(8.1%) 75-250' Zone (Area = 13,400 sO Existing Proposed Structural:House 797 sf 797 sf Shed 12.6x8.2 103 sf (Remove) New Garage —960 sf Non-Structural:Driveway 3680 sf 2830 sf Sidewalk 126 sf 126 sf Other Concrete 89 sf 56 sf Misc Decks, etc 84 sf 46 sf 4879 sf 4815 sf (36.4%)(35.9%) -£ Issues for Discussion 1 . Has adequate hardship been demonstrated to support approval of the additional structural hardcover associated with the new garage? Does Planning Commission accept the proposed gravel hardcover removals as well as the shed removals as adequate mitigation? As an alternative to the applicants plan, can the loop driveway be eliminated in the 0-75' zone, leaving a larger parking pad in the 75-250' zone? 2, Do the findings and conditions of the prior approval (Resolution # 3611) still apply as regards the deck enclosure? If so, is there any reason to allow the 120 sf lakeshore deck to remain? Applicant's attorney has suggested a 5-year amortization regarding removal of the lakeshore deck. If applicant was not asking for variances to add structure in the 0-75' zone, absent other issues an #2238 May 14, 1997 Page 4 amortization might be attractive. However, this is a variance request to add to the bulk of structure in a non-conforming location and the lakeshore deck is an obvious and relevant immediate trade-off in the opinion of staff. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Approve hardcover variance in 75-250' zone subject to the proposed removals, with exploration of the possibility of removing the loop driveway in 0-75' zone, or at least defining its maximum allowed width in the 0-75' so it doesn't expand... Approve deck enclosure only per conditions similar to those under which it was approved in 1995: a. The deck and screen porch shall not extend pa.st the southerly wall of the house. The stairway may be in addition to the 8' x 24' deck and shall be located at the north end of the deck, and shall not e.xceed 4' in width, and shall be only of the length necessary’ to accommodate the stairway and landing. b. This approval allows excavation in the 0-75' zone only in the amounts to accommodate construction of the deck and screen porch. c. The proposed low boulder walls between house and lake are specifically not approved, and shall not be constructed. d. Prior to footing inspection, applicant shall remove the grade-level wood patio 3' X 8' portion that extends outside the existing deck footprint. Applicant shall further remove the small accessory building located at the southeast side of the property, and shall remove the 120 s.f. detached deck structure located at the lakeshore. prior to footing inspection. Applicant shall remove gravel from the driveway areas to be made non-hardcover, and shall topdress and revegetate ti'tse areas by seeding or sodding, such work to be substantially completed prior to final inspection of the additions. Applicant to obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage and an after-the-fact building permit prior to reconstructing the deck enclosure. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation or with additional or revised conditions. 2. Recommend partial approval. 3. Recommend denial. 4. Table for further information. 5. Other. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S366C0 _________________ ^ j ______ f- ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) _ _ Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address / ^ Property Identification Number fP.I.D.) (0 ^ - II ------—------------- Attach legal description to application if ^t included on required survey. Date Pmpcm- Acquired__------------7 / ^ ^ ------------- I (do)«do n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. PreseniTiseim property: residential -----pother (specify). Zoning District: (month/year) . ri„,g* J u Address: I uCcJL Phone fhome) ^/*7 ^/1_____ c.--vs>o>^ Phone(work)_Jl2?3Li3i^___ City: (3.'qa.«j3_________Zip: C OW?^ER (if different than applicant) Name______ ____________ Phone(homeX Phone (work)_ Address:_ City:Zip: OF HtyST _ . /vu CL^ i V* r!e-> r I I I I -------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Setback; ___Lot Width Front Side y Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage y Average Lakeshore Other (specify) como’iance with Zoning Code requirements;_JDj!wJj!Neji_5s —gt .<vN«vtui. (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the foUnwinp information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in ordgr for vour application to be considered conipletet (h 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form Cenified Propeny Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V4" x IT for reproduction. . . . • • • j Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes m existmg grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVz” x 11" for reproduction.^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8V^ 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 ymir variance application is nnf complete if the above information has not been include^ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE . u r. The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonmg 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^afyi correct to the best of his/her knowledge.iie^a^ Applicant ’s Signature ^-^>^/^.-;^^x^^^^^^<i^^ OWNER’S SIGNA’i uivr. .-v The owner hereby acknowledges and agreesthis application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, crnsultants, agents. Commission members, and Council Date wllLLjr Viitv-r -------j -----------> » w members for purposes^y^^g?^^u^^^^tion of this requ^j.^ Owner ’s Signature Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plannin g Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each naonth. 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 ^angements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 0?>. •• • •• , , *• . •. • 1 * . ••* ■* . •. - . •-. 1? . * A * * • • • 1 •• •« • 1 •’'■ V.» .* . •I I • T^" ■-f'*' .* * . • » ; i-i ii* . t *1. • • ^-'•1 R 1 4 • ' f . • « ___ i » , w • V fe ^ • •. *■ • ■ • •• • • * ii • •ft • Id : • • f Iff) RUN DATE 07/16/95 6ATCH 504 PROP AODR GMNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP AODR OWCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR f . 36 06-117-23 13 0005 01200 TONKANA RD NZLFREO PERPER A HXFE NXLFRED PERPER 1200 TONKANA RO LONG LAKE Itl 5535A 36 06-117-23 13 0016 01205 TONKANA RO THOMAS H SMITH A HXFE THOMAS H SMITH 1205 TONKANA RO LONO LAKE m 55356 36 06-117-23 42 0004 01365 TONKANA RO G A J PUTNAM GALE L PUTNAM 1365 TONKANA ROAD NAYZATA MN 55391 • * • HEmEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OlOIERS LIST 38 08-117-23 13 0006 01180 TONKANA RD R E EN6E6RETS0N ET AL RICHARD E ENGEBRETSON 1180 TONKANA RD LONG LAKE Ttl 55356 38 08-117-23 42 0001 01220 TONKANA RO F E GUTTORMSON/C J 6 0NI6HT F E GUTTORMSON/C J B DMXGHT 1220 TONKANA RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 504 00007 REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PAGE 10 36 06-117-23 IS 0007 01160 TONKANA RD R K HOLLAND t E SULLIVAN RANDY HOLLANO/ERIC SULLIVAN 1160 TONKANA RO LONG LAKE 55356 38 08-117-23 42 0003 03366 NORTH SHORE OR STATE OF MXTMESOTA STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPT NAT'L RESOURCES 500 UFAYETTE RO ST PAUL MN 55155 -J I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, tO THE BEST OF MY KN0HLE06E AND BELIEF. DATE r • 1 VA>J' **: ^ V I ^ ;, ‘v,. L - / • •I . msr. ^'v^w: '}&i r MH-^m lu: m^'-'^-t'^'A Ill m^' m:mm i<\.'m' i:\. Z^m U . ;* :3: M.dt pm t of Lor. 9. AuUinor'^ Suhrlivision flumb^'r : ftinriesoLd, lyiny South».*rly of a luie parallel will easterly at right angles from a lir.t 4jesc» ibed as at a point on the Easterly lino of County Hoad No. feet Southeasterly along said Easterly Im** i rnm i the North line of Lot 10. said auditor’s SJbJi.iSi easterly M3.2 feet to a point distant luul.29 f«* •males ^rum the North line of said tot 10; thence eauorly on the OAtenslon of the I asi-Jesr riuod I* Maxwell’s Day. and there terminating. • : (leniites iron marker fuuiid Searings shown are based upon an .issumpd d.iium. Tins survny intends to show Uie |jour*'iartes of the properly, the location of an cxisiirri liou «• »inP tiofi of all existing “liardcover ** ihe*nun. *l due?^ show any ot‘ier Inproveraents nr en* rt; i*.h.‘neM s. ; • ffi) V. X ■ 1 y u 4 . I* I /*« '4V. t. ‘ ^ .5 El if .K / J t e • ••• i t•» I.« FRPD (SiUTTORMSOH HAlU)COVER CALCULAX*tM^VUKK5iliii SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 25-S0«: EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _______ Length Width X X X B. Garage 6RA\jfU C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk orW£*2 COf^ci’^^ fC X X E. Patio/Dcck 7. . . . / F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric • X X X X X X 6' G. Other a./. L TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -J- 3 .X 100 = PROPOSED HARDCOVLI: IN ZONE A. House __________ X Length • • Width X X • X B. Garage f/if’’ ? Z So C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X ss E. Patio/Deck 7. to X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in zone A _______________•r B X 100 - • to to •• ' 14 • .7 • • •/-7-77 ----- SOO-IOOO' '797 I* 'N, 5^ S.F. S.F. S.FM b s.i^v .V ^ ■ s. - , f'r\ •s F' )36'So sFj t; txS.I’^- O’ "W l.y s.i%- 10 s.i;v S.F. V. /o3 '.'J/ S.F. -18 y 7 / y 4 oo 'LL. .s.r*. SM-. A u i to 77/ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 9(^0 S.F. 2830 S.F. S.F. ll£-S.F. S.F. 4C S.F. •#«S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • I S.F. 4815 S.F.An •? r. 7^% t f f.l!.]* t ■J! I ji II :i' i •s ,»*• t Ji•i i F/?e:d 6[0'^o\ihksoh HARDC0VE»-€ALCULAT10iN WOKlv^^ * SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) O-TSy 75-250’ 25-50 ^ ' V ^ ' X/y- ‘-r 7—^7 / A 500-1000' EXTSTTNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___________770 S.T-. Length Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage «RAV6:u C. Driveway S.F. ra ijti'f D. Sidewalk __ OTHfR COficf^nE__ / X X X X X y > y' (? s-.p- f^.€\ Soo ^ f; , 70 S.F. •' . p . .' S.F. E. Paiio/Dcck • • X X ss - . 7^cr S.F. /?o 'j ii > «• • -V *“*» S.F. y 1.' F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric .X .X X S.F. .S'. I*, rt • •. ; S.F. '<.J i .•• I f G. Other //A'/ V /O X • T' \ : .F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____ B .X 100 L /A 3S 17S3 S.F. ^ , .f3. 0S/> ~S.F. B F K9 GITYofORONO ill RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 6 1 1’ ^ ESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISIONS 16 (C, J, & L) FILE NO. 2049 WHEREAS, Fred Guttormson and Chic Dwight (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1229 Tonkawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows; That part of Lot 9, Auditor ’s Subdivision No. 217, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying southerly of a line parallel witli and 125 feet southeasterly at right angles from a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the easterly line of County Road No. 135 distant 1141.25 feet southeasterly along said easterly line from its intersection with the noi th line of Lot 10, said Auditor's Subdivision; thence northeasterly 143.2 feet to a point distant 1004.29 feet south at right angles from the north line of said Lot 10; thence continuing northeasterly on the extension of the last-deseribed line to the shore of Maxwell ’s Bay, and there terminating (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to tlic City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) to allow construction of a screen porch and replacement of an existing deck within the 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone where no structures are normally allowed; and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L), to allow hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone where no hardcover is normally allowed; and a variance to Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J) to allow excavation and retaining wall construction within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where grading, filling and excavating is normally not allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 1 Page 1 of 7 GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L NO. 8 611 1. 2. 3. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2049. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakcshorc Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 21, 1995 and recommended partial approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A.The existing 8' x 24' deck and 4' x 6' stairway (216 s.f. total) arc in poor condition and need to be replaced. Since there are existing doors opening to this second level deck, it would be appropriate to replace the deck in kind to preserve a substantial right of the property owner. Construction of a new 8' X 24' deck plus a stairway at the north end of the new deck will result in no new encroachment of the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. B.Construction of an 8' x 24' screen porch directly below the proposed deck will have minimal visual impact as viewed from the lake, due to partially being below grade and due to existing screening along the shoreline. Further, the existing and proposed deck constitutes hardcover under the City's hardcover policies and therefore no new hardcover results from the screen porch addition. C.Neither the deck nor screen porch will have an impact on neighboring properties' views of the lake. D.E-xcavation along the south wall of the existing residence to allow installation of walkout doors to replace existing windows is minor in nature, involving the removal of only 4 cubic yards of material ranging in depth from 0-3' along a small portion of the foundation wall. The excavation is necessary in order to allow access via the proposed patio doors. The visual impact of the additional facade opened up to lakeview is very minor. Page 2 of 7 I .N'Tk _______'is CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 6 11 ^ 4. 5. Replacement of the existing 8' x 24’ deck and relocation of the stairway to the north end of the deck will result in an overall structural hardcover increase of less than 10 s.f. in the 0-75 ’ zone. Further, structural hardcover on the property can be reduced significantly by removing the 120 s.f. non- conforming deck structure at the lakeshore. Further, 0-75 ’ hardcover has been reduced by removal of two sheds and a remaining small shed approximately 10-15 s.f. should also be removed from that zone. F.Other hardcover in the 0-75' zone includes a circular gravel driveway, an addition to sidewalk and walls adjacent to the house. Applicants have recently removed an 8 ’ gravel driveway leading to the lake which constituted approximately 800 s.f. of hard surface. That is a positive improvement to tlie property, although that area has not been revegetated and should be. Further, the portion of grade-level wood patio extending outside the footprint of the existing deck, i.e. 24 s.f. of wood patio, is unnecessary and should be removed. G.The removal of the detached 120 s.f. deck structure near the lakeshore and concurrent removals of other structural and non-structural hardcover, are an improvement to the property. H.No adequate justification has been presented to support granting a variance for construction of low boulder walls between the house and the shoreline. 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 wel are of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply general’y 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 convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a a Page 3 of 7 ■-= —A— • CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 6 11 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) to allow construction of an 8' x 24' screen porch and reconstruction of the existing 8' x 24' deck plus stairway structure; and grants variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to allow construction of said structures which constitute hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone where no hardcover is normally allowed; and grants a variance to Sections 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J) to allow excavation in the 0-75' zone where excavation is normally not allowed, to accommodate said screen porch and additionally to allow alteration of grades to accommodate a walkout door on the southeast facade of the residence, subject to the following conditions: 1.The deck and screen porch shall not extend past the southerly wall of the house. The said stairway may be in addition to the 8' x 24' deck and shall be located at the north end of said deck, and shall not exceed 4' in width, and shall be only of the length necessary to accommodate said stairway and landing. 2.This approval allows excavation of fill in the 0-75' zone only in the amounts to accommodate construction of the deck and screen porch, in addition to approximately 4 cubic yards of removal at the southeast wall of the house to allow access to the proposed walkout doors, including the necessary retaining wall adjacent to the front stoop. 3.The proposed low boulder walls between house and lake are specifically not approved, and shall not be constructed. Page 4 of 7 CITYofORONO MM 5*Ff:sHO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 6 11 4. 6. 7. Prior to fooling inspection, property owner shall remove the grade-level wood patio 3 ’ X 8' portion that extends outside the existing deck footprint. Applicants shall further remove the small accessory building located at the southeast side of the property, and shall remove the 120 s.f. detached deck structure located at the lakeshore, prior to footing inspection. Further, appliceuits shall topdress and re vegetate the area of the previously removed 8' x 100' gravel driveway by topdressing and seeding or sodding, such work to be substantially completed prior to final inspection of the additions. 5, Final hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall not exceed 2,645 s.f. as follows: House - 770 s.f Attached deck and screen porch including stairway - 232 s.f Loop driveway - 1,530 s.f Sidewalks, etc. -113 s.f Total - 2,645 s.f In the 75-250' zone, hardcover shall not exceed the existing 900 s.f of structural hardcover including house and shed, plus 3,979 s.f of non-structural hardcover including driveways, sidewalks, etc. for a total of 4,879 s.f or 36.4% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. Property owners are advised that any future proposals to add hardcover on the property will likely not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover to result in no net hardcover increase. 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 (October 9,1996). 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. Page 5 of 7 Sll CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. a 11 8. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of October, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Property Owner (s) STAI E OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of October, 1995 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 6 of 7 GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Ofono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 Fred Guttormson 1220 Tonkawa Orono, Minnesota 55356 Re: Work Without Building Permit Dear Mr. Guttormson: It has come to the attention of this department that you have recently enclosed the area under the deck on the lakeside of your home. On October 9,1995 the City Council conditionally approved variances to allow this addition; however, the resolutions were not signed and the variance expired. A building permit was not issued and the conditions of the variance were not followed. The structure also does not meet the requirements of the building code in respect to foundation construction. Therefore the City must require you to remove the structure as soon as possible. Your failure to contact the City with a removal schedule before March 17,1997 will result in legal action. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official LO/ch cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Bruce L. Vang, Field Inspector Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planner/Zoning Administrator Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 J cmroFORONo INSPECTION NOTICE |yj DATE TIME PERMIT NO._______ ADDRESS yQ^C> CALLED IN SCHEDULED completed T^^^VACuJA• OWNER F/UflO -------------------- TELEPHONE NO.__________ CONTR. i. JiJ i DESCRIPTION o.c 1 8 § 2 01 FOOTmO 02 FRAMING 03 INSULATION oAWAaeo. 05 FINAL 07 DEMO-SITE 07 DEMO-FINAL 09PLUMBINQRI 10 PLUMBING FINAL OWNER/CONTRACTOR TO MEET YOU: COMMENTS:______ ti mechanical Rl 13 mechanical FUAL 24/25 WOOD BURNER/FIREPLACE 12 WATER HOOK4JP 14 SEWER HOOK-UO 27 SEPTIC MAINT. 15 SEPTIC INSTAU. 23 SEPTIC FINAL 18 EXCAV/QRAOINQ/FILUNa 18 lATESHORE/WETlANOS 34 TREE REMOVAL 17 SITE INSPECTION 06 PROGRESS 21 COMPLAINT 22FOLLOW4IP 35 HARO COVER REMOVAL 36 FOUNDATION REMOVAL Ct^O\)P^ or 0: 0 u. U j 1 CL(A^ I5p.VlAa<■ ^ V)~ fn lor \}g<ricuA/:pHL t to ::o o Uj cc U j Q O D fc WORK SATISFACTORY; PROCEED C CORRECT WORK & PROCEED D CORRECT WORK, CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING O CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN INSPECTOR WILL RETURN HOURS. “ PROJECT COMPLETE C ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ________temporary ________PERMANENT O STOr ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR a INSPECTION REOUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS. C PHOTO TAKEN □ QTATION ISSUED Call for the next Inspection 24 hours in advance.473 “735Z Owner/Contractor on sltcrTT v \__________• Inspector Whitt Copy/lnsptclof^ Flit Ctfiary Copy/SHt NoUct TO:Michael P. Gaffiron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator FROM:Bruce L. Vang, Building Inspector DATE:August 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Variance Request - 1220 Tonkawa The existing deck at 1220 Tonkawa is quite old, rotting, and poorly built in the first place. The building department could not allow thi> deck to be used as a roof for the proposed screen porch. Is a new roof to be built under existing deck or perhaps to replace existing deck? New footings and foundation for proposed porch must be continuous 42” deep footings to replace present post footings under deck. The existing house foundation adjoining the proposed porch must be replaced at 42” deep when earth cover is removed along wall. i 1 1 ^Hi ... • — ----- r ^ 1 1 \ ■-----------------------------in t - ^yoK v//(Tk:3 MINUTES OF THE KEGULAR meeting held on OCTOBER 9,199a PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS There was no Planning CorarrJsaon report. PUBLIC COM>IENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT «044 GEORGE OLSON. 2775 SSADWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE{*§3) resolution ff3610 to the existing residence. Ayes 5, Nays 0. ,049 CmC DWIGHT/FRED GIITTORMSON, 12,.0 TONK.LWA ROAD - vSu^CE - RESOLUTION ^36.1 The applicants were present. T” •*variances for a numoer of p J „ u,,:m a screened porch below the deck area, on the lekeshore a walkout door, end construct low boulder S*; SSS-t" ■ Z. tb. ‘ residence and 34' from the deck. ^ « r.«y,Vvv of Aueust 21, 1995, the applicant received a partial During Pla^ng ^or^suon r^w screeaed'porch under the deck and deck replacernent recommenttoon for a^ amending past the south wail of the and Stan'S. The ^PPt ^ retaining walls to allow a window to residence. Excavau „_„„..nded The Planning Commission did not recotmnend t, Slween Jdeck and shoreline as there was no jusufication or h^dslup small accessory budding on the southeast pado below the . ■ gravel driveway tvas recommended to be top dressed action of the |;n‘pUcant 4 also asked to remove the deck by the Sfe'cXn ^^nolS St the DNR recommended denial of the deck and screened ptmh bS^on the fact that the property ,s non^nrorrmng. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL iMEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 9,1995 (#4 . #2049 Chic Dwight/Fred Guttormson - Continued) Gaffron said Staflf does not totally agree wth the recommendation of the Planning Commission as it is felt the new screen porch located so near the shoretoe would only increase the bulk structure of the property within 75' of the shore. Staff is also concerned that the approval of the excavation to create a walkout would possibly be precedent setting. Callahan asked the applicant if he had reviewed and approved the recommendation made. Guttormson said the main reason the propert>' was purchased was because of the deck by the lake. He noted it is located near the end of the point and is panially hidden from view It is his main concern that this lakeshore deck remain. Guttormson said he w^as willing to eliminate the gravel road, had no problem with changing the staus from the front to the back of the deck, would remove the small shed, although :t :s not ver>' visible, and noted that the 10*xl0' shed had already been removed, as weU as the center section ot the driveway, which was sodded. He is willing to proceed wth the recomme^auons if the lakeshore deck can remain. The applicant said it was their intention to perfom upkeep on the property. The rip rap has been found to be eroding and needs to be reconstructed in order to save trees. Chic Dwight commented that neighbors present at the Planning Commission meeting were not riven the opportunity to comment on the application. She said they were in favor of the proposed projects. Goetten responded that she also was present at the meeting and felt their inability to speak was unintentional, an oversight, and apologized for the applicam’s feeling of mistreatment. Hurr asked Gaffron if the Staff had concerns with approval of the walkout. Gaflfron said the City has generally not approved major excavation in shoreline areas for properties high in elevation when the purpose is only to produce a basement walkout. This application, according to Gaffron, was considered minor in companson at 2 to 2- L of cut He noted that the area was more than likely filled in when the house was built and is not in its natural state but was probably flat and built up to accommodate the spUt-entry style home. The appUcanl said the area where they are asking for excavation for the walkout is on the east end and receives very Uttle fight. Their purpose is to gain more fight into the lower level of the home \vith the walkout door. Kellev asked and received confirmation that there is an entrance to the inside of the residence from the screened porch. Kelley asked if there were anv hardships for the requested variances. The applicant said their desire was to improve on the aesthetics of the home, to gain the e.xtra fight iirto the lower level, and to repair the deck. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 9,1995 (#4 - #2049 Chic Dwight/Fred Guttorrason - Continued) Jabbour inquired what the applicant would be allowed to repair on the deck if the recommendation was not approved, noting that the current raiUng does not mert co^. Gaffion said boards could be replaced without a vanance. The quesnon is at what level of replacement a variance is needed. If a deck is totaUy removed, it would requne a variance to rebuild it. The City would likely approve a vanance required to manttam the safety of an e.xisting deck. Jabbour asked if ihe change from a window to a walkout door requires a vanance. Gaffron said the variance, as well as a conditional use permit, is required because of the excavation. Hurr said she was concerned with the deck’s encroachment on the lakeshore. The applicant noted that if the deck was asked to be removed, he would not P'’oceed vnth the othc* proposed projects. Hurr said, ev'en if the applicant would not proceed with th other improvements, she could not support the lakeshore deck remaining. Hurr was m support of the other recommended projeas; though, she did voice some concern of the excavation. Goetten said she was also concerned with setting a precedent by aUow^g excavation for a walkout and would not support it. She emphasized the majority of the home being within the 0-75’ zone. Goenen said she would support the screened porch and deck not the deck at the lakeside. removal and 99^^. of what the City would like removed. Jabbour said he would not support the boulder walls unless they were to stabiUze the ground. He did support the walkout. Kellev asked abouc the condition of the deck at the lakeside. Gaffron said h« " hut nm on it The appUcant said it was in good shape. Kelley asked Ga»on how much repair could be done to this deck. Gaffron said structural repairs could be allowed UD to aTalue of 50% of the value at the time the deck became nonconforming, probably uf 1975 He was not aware if the deck was there at that time nor whether its value had been estabUshed The applicant said the house was built m 1970. KeUey asked if a gradi^plan had been presented at that time. Ganron said probably not. The apphcant said he has the original plans. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING WTT.P ON OCTOBER 9,1995 - #2049 Chic Dwight/Fred Guttormson - Continued) KeU.ys.id he would support the walkout, and supported and the Planning Commission with the lakeshore neck remaining if the dnveway was removed The appUcant noted that 1000 s.f. ofhardcover has already been removed on the property. Hurt said she was not m “ondSr.Hs was situation wtth the historic value of Norenberg, Jabbour moved. KeUey llkeswHKk remains In the Callahan moved. Goetten seconded, to approve Application «(M9. Res^ution #3611 ^A^lltiS Commission recommendation. Vote: Ayes 4. Nays 1. KeUey. (.«) #2051 MIKE HILBELINK, 2760 WATERT03VN ROAD - RO.AD NAME approval 0. rnci «20<S RON RANTZ7AUTOGRAFS, INC. 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD - SffiRC^ SHE PLAN REVIEW - RESOLUTION #3612 The applicant was not present. will be made aware of this minor change. Jabbour moved. Goetten seconded, to “PP™« 0, Abstain 1, Callahan, who was unaware of the proposal. (.#7) #2060 L raart Onprten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3613 granting a lot area Ji?^w*to Tim Feyo and Karen FuUer-Feyo for propei cy located at 4055 Elm Street. Ayes 5, Nays 0. * 4 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21,1995 (#9 - #204^James & Joann Jundt - Continued)/ Mabusth said\e septic is non-conforming, and h is being questioned what affect the apartment woulahave on the septic. Mabusth said it is a good id« to ask , inspections. Petei^n agreed that the goal is not to allow the septic to Crawford noted that this property was considered a hot spot for sewering at one time, and the applicant has been dealing with this issue throughout all the applications. Schroeder added that th\city cannot allow more people to reside on the pro^rty septic can handle. He is itiTavor of inspections; and if the system fails. Schroder said that would affect the conditional^use permit. The property has tu o separat^eptic units, one for the main residence and one for the accessory stmetures. The septi^nits do not meet the separation requirements. \ P Peterson commented that normal in^i^ons p^r every two years. This property, according to Peterson, should be insp^ted more often. Schroder moved, Lindquist seconded, fo^pproval of a studio within the oversized accessoo' structure, subject to conditio^ oNhe CW ™th “^°CTei^t^ momhs to show its ca^ility, •" handling the increased usage. A charge will be incurred by the applicant for ^ra inspeihion time. Gaffron remarked tnai me earnest^tc lu. ......r- 1996 It is Staffs sense that the s^tic is not runnmg out onto the ground, but noted the 3 seoaration is not met. It is possible that the system may,not be able to hantUe the usable wastes during this period of time. If this is found to be twe, the septic would need to be pumped out on a regular basU! /There were no public cornments. Ayes 6, Nays 0. Mabusth commented X an is»e hee m^ed Crawforda ^thatTasS Staff. Ah of the eanh around tV^el diS^n the wmemK process ^ ^ conmented thanlie elms were deteriorated, and tree roots were (Mending into the tunnel. p j^f the tunned encroaches the 0-75' setback. An amended appUcauon w^ be commg before the Planning-eotuinissionon this issue and is not pm oitbls.aRpbcanmn. #2049 FRED GUTTORMSON AhO) CHIC DWIGHT, 1220 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:25-9:48 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. k i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION meeting held on august 21,1995 (#10 - #2049 Fred Guttorrason & Chic Dwight - Continued) The applicants were present. Gaffron reported the application was to replace an e.xisting deck, along with the construction of a screened porch under the deck. A wdkout area would also be excavated jS-om what is now a split entry area. The existing deck is in poor condition. Replacement would be done of the total foundation as footings have been found to depths less than me frost line. This would aU occur within the 0-75' setback area and require hardcover^d average lakeshore setback variances. The residence is 42' from the lake, and the x2 deck would be located 34’ from the lake. Drainage on the property comes from the mature trees toward the proposed, screen porch area. It is questioned whether this could be flattened out, retaining walls alx)ut 1' in height be constructed, or ground cover established to aid the drainage. A letter from the DNR was read into the minutes recommending denial of the apphe^on based on the existing house being within 75* of the lake and proposed porch wd d^k increasing the nonconformity of the house. The porch and deck would also be withm me 37.5' shore impaa zone. Gaffron noted that the hardcover would be at 8.48»/o, resulting in a minimum increase in the hardcover from existing. It would, however, lend more permanency. Two buildings have been removed as well as an 8’ gravel driveway locat^ in the 0-75' zone, which has not been revegetated. New gravel has been placed for the loop driveway lakeside. Peterson said the application has several issues. He felt the fiUing on the top dr«sing down to the lake should meet approval. The accessory structure to the south should be removed It was felt the retaining walls would create problems and not solve any. The applicant said she has seeded three times and erosion has washed it out. It is so shaded that sod will not grow and thought a waU would help. It is the applicant s desire to keep the propert>' natural. Peterson felt the sliding doors would meet his approval but found the deck and screened porch were issues needing discussion. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21,1995 (#10 - #2049 Fred Guttormson & Chic Dwight - Continued) Lindquist asked v^y the deck and porch would be beyond the house. The applicant said there was surface hardcover there already. Lindquist said the desire of the Planning Commission is to remove as much hardcover in the 0-75' zone as possible. It was noted that there is a 1x6* patio extention leading from the patio doors. Lindquist said the deck could be replaced but the extension removed. The deck should not extend beyond the house. GafiBron asked the Commission if approval were given for the walkout, would this be setting a precedent by allowing a change to the grade. The applicant said her purpose was to gain light into the lower level of the home and modernize it. The applicant said it appears the grade was put in when the home was built and not originally there. Peterson said he saw a problem with the bench by the dock and asked applicant if they would be willing to eliminate the accessory structure to gain the deck. The applicant said about 1000 s.f. of hardcover has been removed and felt they were being sensitive to that issue. The applicant said the property was purchased in part because of the deck structure by the lake. Peterson said it would not be allowed today. The applicant said she would be willing to remove the shed by the lake. Lindquist asked if the deck could be 8' instead of 8'6". Schroeder said the structural coverage should not exceed the amount on the property as it exists now. He suggested the driveway extension and outhouse-size shed be removed as mediation for the deck. Any additional hardcover in the loop driveway that is unnecessary was also asked to be removed. The applicant said this was required to turnaround noting the inability to park on Tonkawa. Berg said she used the loop area in which to turn around. Peterson said the applicant should be concerned with the problems being created by beavers gnawing on the trees. Major erosion problems could occur in the future due to the loss of these trees. Peterson asked if the issue is altering the lakeshore if the grading is changed. Gaffron said it would be a conditional use but Staff saw no need for this to be done and would not recommend approval for this or boulder walls. Smith asked what could be done to maintain the shoreline. Gafifron said the boulder wall would help erosion from coming to the house and rip-rap could be done to prevent shore erosion. A Watershed District permit could be obtained to rip rap. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#10 - #2049 Fred Guttormson & Chic Dwight - Continued) There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve replacement of the deck and porch in the existing footprint, not to exceed the footprint. Approval was recommerided for the grade cut to allow a window or walkout door as proposed on the south^t side. No boulder walls would be allowed. Removal of the concrete slab on the east side, removal of the existing accessory structure to the south, removal of the old access boat ramp and resodding of same, and removal of the dock at the shoreline to mclude the bench-deck area were recommended. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #2050 WILLIAM TOLES, 3165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:48-10:12 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was present. Gaffion reported the application is for hardcover and average lakeshore setback vari^ces to construct a pool on the lake side of the property, which was purchased by the applic^t in July of 1995. The pool would create a 15' average lakeshore encroachment but would have no visual impact. A net decrease in the hardcover would result in the 75-250’ zone from 33.1% to 32.6%. ■ Gaffron compared the application to a 1988 variance approval, the hardcover square footage of which was allowed at that time, today, is now exce^ed. There conMues to be no hardcover in the 0-75' zone. The 75-250' zone was approved m 1988 for 29.5 A but exists at 33.1%, and is proposed at 32.6%. The 250-500' zone was approved m 1988 for 24.1%, exists in 1995 at 20.4% and proposes no change. The two surveys from 1988 and 1995 each use a sUghtly different base lot area for each zone What Gaffron thinks happened is the driveway portion was eliminated but ro^ beds that are in place were not looked at and the overhangs were Usted separately The 1988 circular driveway has been changed with not as much loop and the garage addmon built The applicant will take out the rock and plastic to be replaced with hard surface. The 1390 s f. of land in base area calculation change and 400 s.f of concrete patio would be in exchange for the pool. When the pool is built, there would be no hardcover within 115' of the lake In looking at the hardcover as a percentage of the entire lot, there w« 21 7% before and as approved, in 1988, now existing at 22.1%, and proposed at 21.8/o. M PHONE NO. STATE OF ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN SSIO^ueno 772-7910 August 21,1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Fred Guttormson and Chic Dwight Variance Application, Lake Minnetonka (27-133) City of Orono, Hennepin County Dear Ms. Mabusth: We have reviewed the above-referenced lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance proposal (received August 8, 1995) 1220 Tonkawa Road (City #2049) and we recommend denial of the proposal for the following reasons: 1.The existing house is within the 75' setback from the Ordinary High Water level (OHW) of Lake Minnetonka and does not conform with the shoreland standards adopted by the City of Orono. The proposed screened porch and deck are unacceptable because they will increase the nonconformity of the house. 2.The proposed screened porch and deck are within the 37.5' shore Impact zone of Lake Minnetonka. According to State Shoreland Standards, only water oriented accessory structures should be placed within the shore impact zone. 3.There are reasonable alternatives available to placing the screened porch and deck within the shore Impact zone of Lake Minnetonka. An examination of the plat Indicates that sites for screen porches and decks exist which are outside on the 75' setback to Lake Minnetonka. 4.Hardship must be demonstrated to justify receiving a variance. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites: The proposed use is reasonable. B.It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to "functional and aesthetic concerns" and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth August 21,1995 Page 2 C.The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar topography. If the problem is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered unique. D. E. The problem must not be created by the landowner. The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. In accordance with the city ordinance, the Department should be advised of the action taken on this request within 10 days of final action. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these variances. Should you have any questions please contact me at 772- 7910. Sincerely, . Joe Richter Hydrologist c:City of Orono shoreland file Ed Pick, Shoreland Hydrologist Dale Homuth, Regional Hydrologist 44”fr .!t» : ••; •- •• ^ .i»• . ? '. I .1 I • • * — ' • ■' , A.- • •' * • ' «____________t _____________ ; . •* *•• t ♦ ♦’ . »fl'-o «• • * •• i i ’ 'J' "■* ■ ’ * ••■••: • . . I. • W-6- I.-;.. ' V^ ' •': 19yir\ riL. VkVt.* / K li uM K i T f UOON Bi;. -i * T f. Q iM >A» a>i t'/A ti >V I o«# ..• 'I'i' fr .'.. p • . s' • ■.'•• ■ • J... •' •• •I ■ •. ^ -5\ , 'I . »| . :• FVBU»cc..,v ..iJ... •■>r 11 • • ®'" I ■■;■'■■■»»M4U :• '*•• • • I I /Mi ' ; I a i'*l C TUU *‘ fQCAM m m m 9 m> • • •i '. y^. O 7*-o r ItUTTc^ t8*-o- 1$ JZ -I zzrrn^lji —I'L ^ • SL ^.9 3 2. - i . ftV •<»V*— s rit 1 •"ofV'/rtri"% '_] a 1 L ... t------1 ft - c.-_____________________________ ^ •-0* t *t f5 •. •* • •. \ H--7 -4 i'' ud \'1U oo4 0<?c 1^^ Pc5o(\'i omU / O^PcTC) - r »i«ii I ■—«.»—• - ^i-f . *.: i..^.•**.. ..*.w^.. J.. » . •,.• • •• • •... .• • •/•••.; / f f • I • » ; > *v r> . ,w------— M*»m <» • av4?i«- ^AC’f- O rL tr*l^QO'ciA OJ^'^Vn Opci- 1 \a 00 ‘ I (fi h «<io* \/»%uu U^Oolck UU^^o ^ O \30o“icnv^aA:i^ OQcro A i • I • li j fj f6 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 15,1997 SUBJECT : #2241, Kyle Hunt and Partners on behalf of Cheryl and Gar>' Costley 1185 West Femdale Road Zoning District: LRl-A, One Family Lakeshore Residential Distriwt (2 acres) Lot Size:38,634 sq. ft. (.887 acres) Application:The applicant is requesting lot area, sideyard, hardcover, and lakeshore setback variances as follows: a.To allow for additions to an existing residence on a lot that is 38.634 sq. ft. or .887 acres where 2 acres are required. b.To reduce a sideyard from 30' to 19.1' to add another stall to a double garage. c.To allow a 14' X 24' exercise room to be built under an existing deck which would encroach approximately 4' in the required 75' setback from the shoreline. d. To allow for an increase in hardcover in the 75'-250' setback area from 25% to 25.5% or 137.5 sq. ft. where 25% is allowed, Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.23, LR-1 A, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, Subd. 6, Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements Section 10.22, Lakeshore Set Back Regulations, Subd. land Subd.2, Lakeshore Hardcover m4], Kyle Hum 1185 West Ferndale Road Variances S/19/97 page-1 r Analysis LOT AREA AND YARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 87,120 sq. ft. (2 acres) 200 feet 50 feet 30 feet 50 feet Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside 38,634 (.887 acres) 200 feet 245 ft. from Ferndale Rd. 47' on west; 19.1 proposed from east 71' from shoreline The lot does not meet the minimum lot size requirements. The lot further does not meet the 75' minimum from the shoreline. The proposed garage expansion would reduce the side yard from HARDCOVER Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'10,648 sq. ft.192 sq. ft. (1.8%) None 233 sq. ft. (2.2%) None 75'-250'27,986 sq. ft.6,931 sq. ft. (24.8%) 6,996.5 sq. ft. (25%) 7,134 sq.ft. (25.5%) 137.5 sq.ft. (.5%) 250'-500'21,032 sq.ft.101 sq.ft. (0.5%) 6,309.6 sq. ft. (30%) 101 sq. ft. (0.5%) None Statement of Hardship The applicant has indicated that there is no basement in the dwelling because of the high water table elevation. Additionally, no more living space can be added to the structure without exceeding the eight limit. H224I, Kyle Hunt 1185 H'esi Ferndale Road Variances 5/19/97 page-2 1 The building pad for the lot is limited by the lot v,idth south of the pond and the required side yard setbacks which reduces the building pad to approximately 92 feet in width where a lot with 200 feet width and 60 ft. in side yards would have a building pad 140 ft. wide. The property is further limited by the location of a well in the yard. The Building Code requires that no construction be within 3' of the well. The propert>' does not have drive^\'ay access off of Femdale Road West. The property is reached by driving across the adjacent property to the east. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. The propert}' in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The propertj’ can continue to be used as a residence. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is created by the relationship of the existing residence to the side lot lines and shoreline, the location of a well on the property, the existing height of the structure and no basement. The architect has concluded that the best plan to accommodate an exercise room is to go under an existing deck. 3. The variance, if granted, w ill not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will not alter change the character of the neighborhood. Both residences on either side of the subject property are approximately 12' to 15' from the property line, The proposed exercise room will be under an existing deck. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic considerations are not a factor with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not an issue. 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 wh^. U224I. Kyle Hunt 1185 IVest Ferndale Road Variances 5/19/97 page-3 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. the affected person's land is located. The variances are for additions to a residence. Residences are permitted uses in this zoning district. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question we peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The special conditions applying to this residence are the following: 1 . The building pad lot width is reduced by the pond, welt, and lot width. 2. Due to the high water table there is no basement. 3. The driveway access to this lot is through the sideyard across the adjacent property which determines influences the location of the garage and turnaround. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Some of the properties in the vicinity are substandard for lot area, lot width, and side yards. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant will need to provide testimony regarding the necessity of the third garage stall and the exercise room in order to preserve and enjoy their property right. The granting of the proposed variance w'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 additions to the residence would not impair health, safety, or morals. It may impact the comfort of the neighbors to have the side yard reduced to allow the third stall. U224I, Kyle Hunt 1185 tt'esl Ferndale Road Variances 5/19/97 page~4 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The variance is not merely a convenience to the applicant given the limitations of the building pad created by the location of the driveway, the well, and the pond. Staff Recommendation To advise the applicant to reduce the number of variances by reducing the size of the exercise room which may eliminate the lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variances. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Hardship Statement Description of Request Letter asking for Early consideration by City Council Survey Building Pad Hardcover Calculations Floor Plans Acknowledgement Form U224I, Kyle Hunt 1185 West Ferndale Road Variances 5/19/97 page-5 Application # I Date Received "^4/Z^ Amount Paid /} i t CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 r - ($50.00 per each additional variance) -i-L, Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) // Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ttftg VifeST fT£g440ALe. 1^A.P - MaJ. ^^3 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Vi ‘ . 8 f? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propert}- Acquired 2.1^^ __________________ (month/year) I ^^^(do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; ^ residential ___mother (specify) __________________ Zoning District: LR ^ lA_________________^____________________________ APPLICANT Viy j*. liiiJT ^ JtOODgpo^AJgD Phone (w( WAy ' City;______WAy City; ^ra gMA,___________Zip: zi'i • OWNER (if different than applicant) Name £*»ggHL ^ C AHHres<;:fr>fiU\ RatkSKlCV^ * City: TkACItfg Phone fliome ) Phone (work ) 3^ c * 3^ Z 2. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^0 Describe request in detail: ^________________________ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ (attach additional sheets if necessary) • .• . —•»/», Lot Width Hardcoyer Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side ^ Rear OJ2- Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ---------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. ^ Completed Application Form 3.. . % 4. Certified Property OwTiers List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). bsuc. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required* In addition^ provide •ontf’i[l)’copy 8!4" x 11" for reproduction.* • • ' Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, providexme (1) copy SYi” x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/S" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital statu?) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) ofapplicarit(s) if not current owner(s). 7. tyA. ' 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 Tequested by City stafff.- .' *' • . « , ‘ . * • I 5. 6. 8. > t » mm The Applicant pnd Property Owner must sign this applica’tiPn'.' Please remember that vour variance afjp1ic?ation i.s 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 fhe best of his/her knowledge. V Applicant’s Signature -Hu w... —- Date V^g/97 OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entiy' onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation jnd v^^ication of this request. DateOwner's Signature Applicant must have all submittals into the 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 1 Cosdey Residence 1185 West Fcmdale Road HARDSHfp f4QiO1 I ». . 7 ■■ •'J L tr ,^ < The existing home was construaed on piles in 1981. It is crawl space type construrtion that is near the water table elevation thus not allowing for a basement like most homes have in the area. The existing home is also built within the city’s height restrictions, thus not allowing additional living space to be built above the existing living space. Based on these facts any additions that one may wish to pursue will have to enlarge the footprint of the struaure. In reviewing the existing floor plan layout the obvious area to add space with the least impaa on the current layout and structure is to add space under the existing deck at the southeast corner of the house. As for the garage, we would like to be able to conform to the city’s hardcover ordinance and not have to ask for a variance if we can prove, and the city will agree to. an exchange of hardcover from one location to another. "1. i Coscley Residence 1185 West Femdale Road h • t » i! DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The owner would like to add a 14’ x 24’ exercise room under an existing deck that is within the 75 ’ lake setback (a corner of the structure is within the setback by about 4’, but is not beyond the average lakeshore setback line of the two neighbors). The owner would like also to add a 3rd stall to the garage with no living structure above. This structure meets setback requirements, however it would require that the hardcover (existing be reduced by 137 sq. ft. which the owner would be willing to do in possibly a couple of different ways. S3 • ^ u a ri #f» r ■! u S £ K yle Hunt dr Partners 9\'^1 INCORPORATED \HK< May 6,1997 CV'^'' Elizabeth Van Zomeren. A.I.C.P.% City Planner, City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN. 55323 Re: Gary and Cheryl Cpstley Residence 1185 West Femdale Dear Elizabeth, We would like to request that if this variance is granted by the Planning Commission that it be signed and forwarded to the City Council and put on their agenda for their May 27, 1997 meeting. Thank you for your help and consideration Please call me if you have any questions. A Kylep. Hum, President Kyle r^unt ^Partners, Incorporated S300 Edinborough Way • Suite 21 ^ Edina, Minnesota 55435 PHONE 612.897.3555. F.AOilMlLE 612.896.1192 i BUI PFRS LICE.NSE NUMBER: 0001967 AN EQLWL OPPORTUNm' BUILDING COMP.XNT i *7 Aft 29 13:47:29 FASURW21M\00S\*218600S SUNVEY CQMPUTEiM (GEORGE Si •OQK: 4lt HCL n (•o-at) i iMr mtn Mi «mr ---------,Tjr^-"- •I tfw um If M 7. IN7 ikmm IM I70M >■ SCHOCLL * MAOSON. INC. Nto •«.!«• CUCNT: KYLE HUNT & PARTNERS r I.OCATIOW; • ORONO, MINNESOTA S.H.I. PROJECT NO. 93186-009 L*7Q.10 V Z'/ \ \ ✓\ \ \ \ \ < \\ \ \ \ PLANTED. \ APEA , fJpO*^ \LANDSCAPE --------- ■- -195^ V -1 A / l\-/i )ri rm __ ^D^> \/j pROPoseo / / / ^ STA}f><; \ WISTINC / ^ \ P.<> X^^ting -/\\ \ ^|ECK WOOD- TENCE \ ( ^ \ EXISTING . ^ \ brick .I yy / ' O' ^ ■><,>%/■/ \ Ui ^ HARDCOVERiiiALCULATIOiN WORKiiHLET ' SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) W5V 75-250’ 250-500* SJ' 500-1000’ EYTSTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ LengA Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A l^Z - B JO,■f X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ ^ Length Widdi X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X s=: ss D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 7-7,-^ - B X 100 197- 19 L 23 'ZtO Z33 z.z 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. 10, k>Ht S.F Ag 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. f:. r •v A- B A B \ '1 HARDCOVER CALCULA SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ WORKSHEET 250-500 ’500*11 EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House___________ Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other Lq->^5^j>£ TOTAL H.ARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B X 100 y PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Length Width X X X ss iss B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - A - B 2.1.xlOO-r 370 4Z2-1 3>07 o 6S3 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /O S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. r c • OV<? S.F. S F. 370 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. I'L S.F. S.F. Xl.98(> S.F. ?0 ^ a -'i \ j- . •/•% H A B i 4 A B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSfit^: SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-250’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___________ X _____________ B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other Length X X X X X X X X X X X X 500-1000* TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE (0/ I 0 1 + B 7-1,05L X 100 =0,S 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. % t;- ■ A B PROPOSED HARDCOVTR IN ZONE A. House _____________ Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic Or Fabric G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE WidLh LQi 10 i S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 101 •r B 03L X 100 = Z-1.03Z. A B Ls f 'W) } Li p r, 4 ©tifefs.Ml9 PL>H ^ MKMiSMniOMIMMBMlMiVl^k * »■ CQSTi^iry - HnMB^tff.asaaaL»tf © i --------T 1 COSTLEY H( «IM «MT mu», MfUfA. ■C. —WMOWMIY. WWMWai WVM». 01414 04 04**-* I I sait* I I /^T\ i»«jit.c>i»4c^ ^it.ivr'ic^N p_<3c^^1 f•- J * >t . 1.' uu-------VI iiA 5i5£«*«- M> 04oMLu #«Mr ••o. »i^r fwoPiu^ ’)3»'SW5r''*‘ © *=i?4*<gM9«MM .»«» 04 cos¥i • • ■ V. c L ;.r^v3^ IMM4I BY HOMB IMl nUMMAI MlMtA. SSlSSS-H^\.mmm mi •• • • • ♦ \ H I n) D ./'?! Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form b!^ I (we) Gfonyilal't^______of [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ntM %J. _____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. Property Owner Date Property Date 1 (we) /T\A-oy [print name(s)] of >ibe)to [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at yjjg«;ui«r also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date 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. I i i -I \L- To:Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:May 16,1997 Subject:#2239 Jim Waters/LGA Investment Group, 1181 Wildhurst Trail - Sketch Plan Review for Proposed 7-Lot Subdivision Zoning District: LR-IB Total Area = 8.5 ac. ± Application: Applicant has filed a sketch plan for a seven lot subdivision of two parcels comprising approximately 8.5 acres located within the LR-IB zoning district. The purpose of the review is to consider the seven lot plan that includes two cul-de-sac roads. Planning Commission should review the pertinent sections of the Subdivision and Zoning Codes to determine whether the subdivision conforms to requirements of the Code, as well as to the City's park plans for the area. The following ordinances are pertinent to the review; Pertinent Ordinances 1. 2. 3. Section 11.10, Subdivisions 6,7 and 8 - Purpose of sketch plan review. Section 10.24 - LR-IB zoning district standards. Section 10.56 (Shoreland Regulations) - Specific sections are as follows: A. Subdivision 16 (G) - Steep slopes. B. Subdivision 16 (J) - Topographic alterations/grading and filling. C. Subdivision 16 (K) (1-5) - Stormwater management. D. Subdivision 16 (L) - Hardcover limitations. E. Subu.'v ’ ,ion 18 (A-D) - Subdivision/platting provisions. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - Application Location Map, including Park Properties Applicant ’s Sketch of Proposed Subdivision Sewer As-Built and Sketch Letter from City Engineer Tom Kellogg 5/15/97 Staff sketches of park access concepts for discussion Review of Proposed Plan The proposal incorporates not only the 7-acre Soskin property east of Garden Lane but includes the Sollner 1.5 acre lot to the west. Access to the subdivision is proposed via Tonkaview Lane and the #2239 - Sketch Plan May 16, 1997 Page 2 existing Garden Lane right-of-way dedicated in 1921. Staff has reviewed the proposed location of the access and finds no problem with sight distance. Garden Lane was dedicated at a 60' width. The two propose road extensions meet the code required minimum 50' width and 100' diameter cul-de- sas. All lots have conforming access. Lot 2 and possibly Lots 5 and 6 will require lot width variances due their cul-de-sac orientation. All lots meet the minimum 1 acre requirement as shown, although this does not account for any stormwater or other easements w hich might be needed. The proposed access from Tonkaview eliminates a number of problems inherent in past proposals that attempted to access from Wildhurst Trail. The topography favors access to Tonkaview. Review Comments 1.Drainage/Grading Plan. Referring to Exhibit A, there are two major drainageways within the property. There is a major ravine that intersects the north end of the property, in proposed Lot 2. The City will require a drainage easement over this ravine, encompassing approximately the northerly 2/3 of Lot 2. Per Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (A) (2), "For properties served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least one-half acre of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and both municipal sewer and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area." In the final plat. Lot 2 must be assured of Vi acre d»" contiguous building site to the east of the ravine and the access drive must not encroach the ravine area. A major portion of this property drains to the south and east through proposed Lots 7 and 6 to a less dramatic ravine area that drains under Wildhurst Trail and eventually to the lake. There is concern about erosion on the east side of Wildhurst Trail due to stormwater flows, and the neighboring property owner west of Wildhurst has, with the City's blessing, constructed a minimal ponding area to reduce the flow rates which were threatening his driveway access. Both drainageways have a high potential for erosion. The City Engineer is recommending that a majority of the drainage to the southerly ravine be diverted to the north. The City will require storm water ponding to control the runoff rates as well as provide for runoff quality enhancement. Because the site topography does not lend itself to ponding meeting NURP criteria, off-site ponding dowTistream has been called for in the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Plan which is presently being prepared. This off-site ponding vvill likely occur downstream near Wildhurst Trail and be constructed by the City, and the developer should be responsible for reimbursement of these costs. On-site grading and drainage plans must be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review at the time the preliminary plan is submitted to the City. Grading 1 4r 22^ I ■Kul^ •tLiii'f-" May 17, 1997 To:Mayor of Orono City Council Members Planning Commission Members From Mary and Bradley Bowman 1165 West Femdale Road We welcome our new neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Gary Costley, at 1185 West Femdale Road. They have kindly given us an opportunity to review their proposed remodeling plans which are on the agenda for your review. From our perspective, we have no objections to the addition of an exercise room on tlie lake side of the existing home. Though it will slightly impact our views, we feel it would be a nice amenity for them. Our concern is the proposed new garage. Though it seems a side setback variance has not been requested, it is our understanding that the current zoning requires that any new structure or addition must be within 30 feet of the side yard property line unless a hardship can be proven. The plans we have seen show a distance of only 19 feet between the new garage and the side property line. We strongly believe that it is important to maintain the appropriate distances between the homes along the lake in our area. A third garage would again be a nice amenity but we fail to see how a hardship exists. The owners of a new home recently completed just a few doors away were required to conform to the appropriate setbacks. Therefore, we would like to go on record as objecting to the granting of such a significant variance #2239 - Sketch Plan May 16, 1997 Page 3 2. 3. 3. 4. plans submitted with the formal application must include existing and proposed 2* contours. The plans must also include the following; Erosion control. Building pad locations and elevations. Temporar>' erosion control during construction. Designated Wetlands. There are no designated City or NWI-mapped wetlands within the property. The major ravine and drainageway at the northern portion of the property is not designated on the City's wetland inventorv' maps. Utilities. This property is within the MUSA and sanitary sewer is available from either Tonkaview Lane or Wildhurst Trail. Water supply will be provided by individual private wells. Referring to Exhibit D, sanitary sewer will have to be extended approximately 300' north along Wildhurst if that route is used, which is probable since the sewer in Tonkaview would likely have to be lowered to serve Lots 2, 5 and 6. The developer will bear the cost of sewer installation in addition to a per unit sewer connection charge ($7,445/unit per 1997 fee schedule) since the property has not been previously assessed for sewer Easements. The proposed road locations eliminate past concerns regarding the steepness of access to Wildhurst which would have required extensive excavation. The drainage and grading plans must address how drainage will be directed, providing storm sewer where necessary. In the original Heathercroft plat (of which the Soskin property is existing Lot 2), the subject property was platted with 10' drainage and utility easements along all exterior lot lines. The City will ask for a dedication of drainage and utility easements at 5' width along all internal lot lines and 10' along the proposed road right-of-way. The City will ask for drainage easements over all retention areas, drainageways and storm sewers. Private vs Public Roads. The Orono Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of private roads in the rural area to serve new development. In the urban area (1 acre and 1/2 acre zones) all new roads are generally expected to be public. The City does not generally encourage the development of public road cul-de-sacs due to maintenance requirements, but in this case it is staffs recommendation that both cul-de-sac roads be accepted as public upon completion. The basis for public roads here is two-fold: 1) The development is in a sewered urban area, and the cul-de-sacs are not unusually lengthy; and 2) The City needs to retain public access to the newly acquired park areas along the Garden Lane right-of-way. The new road will also have the potential to serve Lot 70, Tonkaview Gardens, which is directly south of proposed Lot 7. It has not been determined how or whether that parcel would be assessed for the road extension which would serve it, or whether sewer would be #2239 - Sketch Plan May 16, 1997 Page 4 extended within Garden Lane at the time of construction to serve Lot 70 (or which direction that sewer would come from). Planning Commission should discuss this as part of the sketch plan review. 5.Park Impacts. This proposal forces the issue of providing access to the new Saga Hill park/open space areas. The sketch plan proposal suggests a vacation of Garden Lane with portions accruing to Lots 1,2 and 3. In Lot 2, the vacation would remove from possible park inclusion the northwesterly rim of the ravine. The City has no intent to vacate any portion of Garden Lane near the ravine, and the City must maintain access to the park areas via Garden Lane. Based on these factors, approval of a northerly cul-de-sac as proposed is questionable. There may be some rationale for a cul-de-sac that defines the end of the residential property with a continuation of the road to a future potential City parking lot further north serving the park. Or, there may be no need for such a cul-de-sac if the City's future parking lot acts as a turn­ around for emergency and maintenance vehicles. Exhibit G suggests some alternatives for park access and road dedication. Also, remember that the Hennessey lot (Lot 63 just north of the ravine) cannot be left landlocked. And, if there is no need for a cul-de-sac within Garden Lane, is there any reason to bring the Sollner lot into this subdivision, other than to serve it with road and utilities? 6.Park Dedication. This sketch plan application will be forwarded to the Park Commission for review at their next meeting. Given the location of the park area, it is possible Park Commission will want land dedication rather than collecting a fee as part of this subdivision. The developer will need to know what land is to be dedicated. Land in the area of the northerly ravine is the most likely candidate for dedication. Please review the City Engineer's letter of May 15 (Exhibit E) Summary af Issues for i>iscussion Planning Commission should provide applicant with general direction regarding the following issues: Road system configuration, need for cul-de-sacs. Public vs. private roads. Whether Sollner property needs to be part of plat. Future access to Lots 63 and 70. Whether lot width variances noted are acceptable. Whether vacation of Garden Lane will be considered Address any issues or concerns raised by City Engineer. Address any other issues raised by staff or applicant. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1 f / (O' - ' '- 'i r -r: '.. ; • . ' - J Application # ^ ^ 3 / iDate Reccive<r V/;? i'/9~7 Amount Paid *?-6~0 . e-< A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION /yu IfC^O PROPERTY LOCATION ^ Site address II kJt /M Z/tA,/ S Property Identification Number (PID) See Attached Please check one - Property____abstract or _____torrer P. Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name Jim Waters, Vice President LGA Investment Group, Inc. Address City__ 10700 Old County Road 13. //150 Pho-.e(home) 938-3657 P1 ymou t h__________________ZipPhone (work) 595-95 1 1 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name A-A/LctlJi /ff Address Aoo ______________ City jj\A^ Zip^V^Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) See Attached Phone (home) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District A R- /a Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units__O Other (specify)_________ PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision f^r Ne ' Building Sites O Existing Units ^ New Units / Total Units Number of Building Sites J_____Units per /• AcresProposed Gross Density __ Minimum Lot Size ^3,560 Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use (check) 5ingle Farr.ily Residential _________Other (specify)_________ ' M. cC"^ o r':?^ W C:...: „ ..;N Application #2 Area Zoning MUSA PID Land Owner 7 Acres LR-IB 1 Ac. min.Yes 0711723230025 Arnold & Renee Soskin -( \__ ? -^50 “ § aSS Ok I * 5:3 ’ll* *3^§ **R 3 V * * 2f 5 ogfr i i|siiVi -y z ►S o to o 2 o > >T) 3) 10 (O vl m (0 Hsmz H D Z Oc TJ Zo o zn:o s r“ O •DmX -o:d8mo O Ozo ■0 SH o (0 P m ® ni z H O X > ^ 33 m 0 2i rn >zm CO Hm ’1 ANITARY P t (17)N(a) •30.01 n 10 ot ilL w (7) 44IGHV1EW rA •* (73) i 5TJ ?>. • 9 9 »\* 9 m- » N** 1 « !• :9 jl i 9 : 9 1 «•••-.' • • t a ; *7 t If •^;-t; '•.4»i *1 i"'VrjRT 9 • i'f a* 9 ! 10 9 r,\» j 1 9 •••••'• • IU..La < f a -"u-------------8 z y 'B- i ; •»»: ; **' • w *«» 3'’'- -----J32----- (S) no •• (34)R ____ U (35)R 0 «no 1 r BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ©612 6361311 05/15/97 g :02/03 N0:061 ^ J Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & \ Associates Engineers & Architects ""wK/v-Wi OttoCi 8i«n*»ltiin t*| • ju'.rpti I M •M nvixi 1*1 • lf«h.tt.ir lirfocr. Pf .f.irmw C,„. ^.y . U,u„..«f .><.( Vcumu M I > . h-f<, A MA .fJ„,| rr • Su\.v> M ht»;il«i C k-A Woioi «;i:iivviil..nt'. M.5SV...U A PI .l-r.inA. C j'J-m. Pf • B„nk.i PIai Ia ,,, i j . W r„w.f Pt . Ujv.il <1 lAtvol.) rr .kcrutc !»«>.« A iA .Mj.kA Pt . V.CI.P.I T «..ucm,inn PC • Vrt k Pf . »i-nooth P A,.iir.-,.ri ft . M.«t u tinm Pt . r- rc i \ • r knf.rn.T-* Otfurt NT P.»ui. Pi.« heMr; .inn Nt CIOuJ • Mtl^uyn Wi May 15. 1997 Mr. Michael P. Oaffron Assistant Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Garden Lane Site Sketch Plan File No. 139-2239 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the sketch plan prepared for Jim Waters on the proposed Garden Lane Site, a seven-lot subdivision of Lot 2. Block 1, Heatliercroft and Lot 90, Tonkaview Gardens, located we.si of Wildhuist Trail in the west half of Section 7. There are several issues that need to be addressed relative to engineering matters and included with the plan. 1. UtlUtles: A sanitary sewer will need to be extended north along WildhuiM Trail approximately .310 feet to the adjoining lot line between Lots 5 tuid 6 and then westerly and northerly to the end of the northerly cul-de-sac. Sewer service can be provided from Tonkaview Lone. However, 200 feet of existing sewer must be replaced at greater depths. Plans and specificuiions .should be prepared for the sanitary .sewer and street recon.struclicn ot eitlier Tonkaview Lane or Wildhurst Trail, with us-buili plans provided to the City upon completion. As this sanitary sewer and street will be owned and maintained by the City, wc recommend that the design, bidding and cunsuuction be done by the City with assessments levied to the development. Please note there is no municipal water service available for this area. Each lot wiH be required to be served by a well. 2, Streets! The propo.sed street locution appears acceptable. There should be some provision to provide street access to the City Park north of the development. This could be done by providing a driveway to the Park from the cul-de-sac, constructing the cul-dc-sac within the Park, or eliminating the cul-dc-sac and creating a parking/tumiiround urea within the Park property. The easterly cul-de-suu should drain west to a storm sewer line whicit would run westerly and northerly to the end of the cul-dc-sac. Drainage could be routed to the ravine on Lot 2. Plans .should be prepared for the street and stonn sewer con.struction. 3. Grading: A grading, drainage and c»x>sion control plan should be prepared that shows both the existing and proposed contours, building pad locations and elevations, and erosion control measures to b« used during construction. 4. Drainage: There are two major drainage ways running through the property. One is located at the northern end of the site which drains northeasterly through Lot 2. The other is located at the southern end of the site which drains easterly through Lots 6 and 7. We recommend that the majority of the drainage from the site be directed to north. The north ravine gradient is half o.s steep as the south ravine which will allow more options to handle the storm water runoff. .Some type of stormwater retention and/or flow reduction structure (or other type of improvement) should be installed within this ravine. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113*3898 ■ 612*636*4600 BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ©612 6361311 05/15/97 11:49 g :03/03 ‘NO:061 1.: Mr. Michatl P. Gqffron City of Orono Pagr May 15,1997 Due to the existing topography on the site, it is unlikely that a NURP pond can be constructed. The City’s Comprehensive Storm Water Plan, which is presently being prepared, identifies the need for a regional stormwater pond at the downstream end of the north ravine. This pond will likely need to be constructed by the City. This development should be responsible for reimbursing the City for a portion of the cost of the regiomd pond. Final plans should be submitted to the Minne.sota DNR and Minnehaha Creek Watershed Di.strict for their review and approval 5. Easements: Drainage and utility ca.sements should he provided 5 feet w ide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway righl«of«ways. Drainage easements should he provided across all drainage ways and ponding ureas. 6. FlnancUil Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepure on estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the required financial guarantee, unless the improvements will be done by the City. Flea.se contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappu, City of Orono k F-l i I 1 1 F : •• % t>iSc-ws?^e>AJ J i«» • - *> \ , %■' /7. To:Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:May 16,1997 Subject:#2240 Jim Waters/LGA Investment Group, XXXX Wildhurst Trail - Sketch Plan Review for Proposed 17-Lot Subdivision Zoning District:LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre, sewered (13 ac.+) RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered (IS ac. ±) Total Area = 28 ac. ± Application: Applicant has filed a sketch plan for a seventeen lot subdivision involving 8 tax parcels comprising approximately 1 S acres located within the RR-IB zoning district and 13 acres in the LR-IB district. The purpose of the review is to consider the seventeen lot plan that includes a long cul-de-sac road, a short cul-de-sac extension, and a private driveway to serve 4 lots. Planning Commission should review the pertinent sections of the Subdivision and Zoning Codes to determine whether the subdivision conforms to requirements of the Code, as well as to the City's park plans for the area. The following ordinances are pertinent to the review: Pertinent Ordinances 1. 2. 3. 4. Section 11.10, Subdivisions 6,7 and 8 - Purpose of sketch plan review. Section 10.24 - LR-IB zoning district standards. Section 10.28 - RR-IB zoning district standards Section 10.56 (Shoreland Regulations) - Specific sections are as follows: A. Subdivision 16 (G) - Steep slopes. B. Subdivision 16 (J) - Topographic alterations/grading and filling. C. Subdivision 16 (K) (1 -5) - Stormwater management. D. Subdivision 16 (L) - Hardcover limitations. E. Subdivision 18 (A-D) - Subdivision/platting provisions. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - Application Location Map, Including Park Properties Applicant's Sketch of Proposed Subdivision ^2.^ Sewer City Engineer Tom Kellogg Letter 5/15/97 MUSA, Zoning & Shoreland Boundary Maps #2240 - Sketch Plan May 16, 1997 Page 2 Overview of Proposed Plan Applicant has accumulated a group of 8 individual parcels located at the north end of Wildhurst Trail and north of the newly acquired Saga Hill park properties. The parcels comprise a total of approximately 28 acres of land, most of which is north-facing wooded slopes. These are typically steep slopes, ranging from 15-25%. Preliminary indication is that there are no bluffs. Topography is a primary limiting factor in the design of any subdivision of this property. The property is partly within the MUSA and partly outside it (Exhibit F). The MUSA boundary matches the zoning district boundary in this area. Municipal sewer exists at the north end of Wildhurst Trail; however, the properties ouLside the MUSA are not cuurently eligible for provision with sewer. Sewer is critical to the development, however, since the steep slopes will undoubtedly prohibit septic systems on most of the site. The development would require private wells. Zoning of the site is a mix of 1-acre and 2-acre zoned parcels. This presents the need for a rezoning if the development goes forward, since applicants proposed plan (Concept Sketch 1) includes proposed lots of less than 2 acre area within the 2 acre zone. Concept Sketch 2 is a 16-lot concept that shows how the current zoning densities could be adhered to if necessary. Review Comments 1.Zoning. The zoning boundary in this area was apparently defined in 1975 when the zoning of a majority of the City was converted to 2-acre from the pre-existing 1 acre or 1-1/2 acre. At that time the properties to be included in or excluded from the possible sewered zone were defined. Staff has not found a record of the rationale for the boundary as defined. However, the 1980 Comprehensive Plan contains definitions of the MUSA boundary that specifically match the zoning boundary between the 1 and 2 acre zones in this area. Planning Commission must first determine whether it is appropriate to rezone the 15 acres currently zoned RR-IB to LR-IB. Possible rationales for such a rezoning might include: Conclusion that an increase in development density will not be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood - Conclusion that an increase in development density will provide needed additional tax base - Conclusion that an increase in development density will allow for creation of affordable housing or other housing types the City concludes are appropriate - Conclusion that an increase in development density will allow for clustering or other non-standard development methods that help preserve open space, perhaps via developer incentives through a Planned Residential Development (PRD). Note, 4 #2240 - Sketch Plan May 16,1997 Pages 2. 3. 4. however, that Orono’s current PRD ordinance (Section 10.32) does not allow for such density increases... Rezoning will require a concurrent amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. MUSA. As noted above, the MUSA boundary was established at the time the Comp Plan was adopted in 1980, based on 1975 zoning boundaries. The City has rarely revised the MUSA boundary since then, except to accomplish the retrofitting of existing neighborhoods with sewer where septic systems were failing. The notable exception is Sugar Woods, where the City allowed rezoning from 2-acre to I-acre adjacent to the Long Lake commercial district, primarily to preserve trees by avoiding clearcuts for mound-type septic systems, but also to avoid a potential annexation. Arguably, sewer could have been provided for a 2-acre development density. It has long been staffs contention that due to septic system limitations imposed by steep slopes, the applicant’s properties likely would require sewer in order to develop them, especially the Morgart 10-acre parcel (See Exhibit B). This will require a MUSA amendment. The City would have to gain Met Council approval for such an amendment. It is unclear at this time what difficulties this might entail. The Met Council has in the past taken a less than glowing view of Orono's rural residential development policies. A MUSA amendment that preser\es open space or provides affordable or life-cycle housing would likely receive a relatively warm reception. Sewer availability. Municipal sewer is available in Wildhurst Trail, and capacity for the proposed additional 17 units is available. The developer would bear the cost of sewer installation, any lift station upgrades that might be necessary, and pay a connection charge currently established at $7,445 per unit ($225 base unit charge, $4750 1970 LS-1 project charge, and $2470 LS # 10 Bypass charge). Credit for previously assessed units, if any, would be subtracted from this. Road layout. The proposal calls for a linear roadway extending 1800' westward from the end of Wildhurst Trail, ending in a cul-de-sac, w ith an additional 600' drivew ay serving homes on Lots 14-15-16-17 to allow standard walkouts rather than front-walkouts. The result is that Wildhurst becomes essentially a 4,000 ’ dead-end road, with a few side cul-de-sacs but with no secondary access. The subdivision code limits cul-de-sac lengths to 1,000' although there are quite a few in the rural area of 1200-1500' in length. From an emergency services standpoint, Wildhurst is already a potential problem, and the current proposal makes it significantly worse. The City has attempted to define alternative access possibilities for the Saga Hill area. The western end of the proposed road is strategically near a potential future connection to West Branch Road, although easements would be needed as well as a reconstruction of West Branch Road for this to be feasible. #2240 - Sketch Plan May 16,1997 Page 4 5. 6. 7. One possible option to consider is provision of an "emergency access" to the north. If some way could be developed to make this a functional passageway for emergency vehicles without having it become a public traveled roadway, the emergency access issue might be satisfied, although the assumed goal of providing a reasonable transportation grid is not furthered. Ultimately, the City must consider whether a future cormection of Wildhurst to West Branch is appropriate, both from safety and transportation perspectives. Note again that due to steep slojjes, access to Lots 14-17 is from a driveway rather than the road. While these lots all would have the necessary frontage widths on the road, their driveway entrances would be from the rear to allow for rear walkouts. Orientation of virtually all lots except Lots 12 and 13 is intended to provide for rear walkouts. Please also review the comments of the City Engineer in his letter of May 15. He raises a number of safety concerns due to the proposed design and location of the site. I.ot standards. The majority of the proposed lots not only meet the IR-IB 140' width standard but also appear to meet the 200 ’ RR-IB standard. Also, all lots in Concept Sketch ! meet the 1-acre area standard should rezoning be accomplished. The average proposed lot size is 62,100 sf or 1.43 acres. Note that Concept Sketch 2 shows how the 2-acre standard could be met with a 16-lot subdivision, the average lot size being 68,700 sf or 1.58 acres. The above figures represent a subdivision that requires a number of road design variances. If the road is brought into conformance as to curve radius, number of units served by a cul- de-sac or private driveway, etc. the lot sizes or number of lots may change (See Engineer's letter). Applicant should define whether any existing residential or accessory structures on the property are intended to remain, and ensure that those structures meet appropriate location standards. Grading. Per the Engineer's comments, grading, drainage, erosion control, street and storm sewer plans will have to be prepared by the applicant once a suitable layout for the site has been achieved. Access to adiacent/nearbv properties. The proposed layout provides some opportunities for access to adjacent properties, but raises questions about others: - The westerly cul-de-sac abuts the City park property, affording a potential opportunity for northerly access to the park. - The private driveway along the south side of Lots 15-16-17 could be extended southward in Garden Lane to serve the Hennessey property if the City does not find #2240 “ Sketch Plan May 16,1997 Page 5 another resolution to that access need. However, such a driveway extension would not only bisect the 'natural area' portion of the park, but would be extremely lengthy and from a public safety standpoint, is not an appropriate option. 8. Impact on park . By virtue of proximity, the proposed subdivision is not necessarily compatible with the adjacent open space park area. The driveway segment behind Lots 15- 16-17 places their access next to the natural area, rather than leaving a backyard-type buffer which is prevalent at virtually all other areas surrounding the park land. Placement of homes near the south lot lines as shown on Lots 1-14-15-16-17 does not tend to complement the park but rather diminishes its open-space character. 9. Private vs Public Roads . The Comprehensive Plan suggests that 'approximately 10' is the maximum number of homes that should be ser\ed from a private road in the rural area. Since this road would serve as many as 17 homes and will be sewered, staff recommends that the road be developed to public road standards and dedicated to the City as a public road. 10. Park dedication: Land or Fee. The standard park dedication is 8% of the land, or an equivalent cash contribution to the park fund, at the discretion of the Council with input from the Park Commission. Given the adjacency of this land to a City park, a land dedication may be appropriate. Staff recommends that this sketch plan be forwarded to the Park Commission for review and recommendation. 11. Riparian lots. It appears from the sketch plan that only 1 or 2 lots might be eligible for riparian access to Lake Minnetonka. Lot 9 and perhaps Lot 10 appear to abut the 929.4 contour which defines the shoreline. The City will not consider granting access to non­ riparian lots. Summary Planning Commission should address each of the eleven topics noted above, giving applicant direction where possible, and identifying any additional issues for discussion. Given the location and nature of this proposal, staff is recommending that this sketch plan application be forwarded not only to the Park Commission but also to the Council for comment. rS § . IT .K • *N A 7 r -^-w* «-'"V5.% • % •vi . \ ;-: 7 t Application if ^0 Date Received y/3 /"/ f 7 Amount Paid S~^ • A-' CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION TAC't^ P PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddress (aJ>1 AU.ooit<r TV/k'. ( j <^A ca^q Propert}' Identification Number (PID) See Attached Please check on- • Property____abstract or_____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name 3im Waters, Vice President LGA Investment Group, Inc. Aadress i u / u u i a ^ Citv Plymouth ^ounty IV< Zip 55441 Phone fwork) 5 9 5 - 9 5 1 1 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name • Address Phone fhomel Citv Zip Phone (work) (attach list if more than one)See Attached EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size + 2S*Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land 4-Acres Total, all parcels Present use (check)Re<:idential; no. of units / Other (specify) Present Zoning District R«-li3 PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) 1/ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites 1 Existing Units New Units __O----Total Units Proposed Gross Density 1 Units per | • t ^ Acres m Minimum Lot Size 43.560 Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Prnnncpd the fchecW Single Family Residential Other (specify) S. MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (>'Ou must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 GovL Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please anach a separate list cf any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature _______________________________________Date _______________________________________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicchie). 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 S350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class 1 & II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/Iot (Class III & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) ______ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class 111 Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) Totals B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineaI ft.; ______ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; . lin. ft. X .50 = $ lin. ft. X .50 = $ _____ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 ----------- ^^___ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub ________ _____ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub ---------- _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 ----------- ____ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x_____new lots ----------- C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) --------— _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $ 100.00 ---------— _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit ----------- The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council ngeess ary to process this appli cation and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by App to's Signature Date ___------------------------------------------ Owner's Signatu 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. 44^ C% h •h. // Ki .v y ;y ,- . ., ; . jw.j •^•=^ r'.-^T-.;. ;• y / - ^-7 t '-'J ■-‘■^ 1 t Application #1 Area Zonine MUSA PID Land Owner 5 Acres RR-IB 2 Ac. min.No 0711723220017 Bruce & Virve Van Sloun 8 Acres LR-IB 1 Ac. min.Yes 0711723220007 0711723220008 . 0711723230019 Barbara Sollner-Webb 10 Acres RR-IB 2 Ac. min.No 0711723210016 0711723211002 Harriet J. Morgart 5 Acres LR-IB 1 Ac. min.Yes 0711723210006 0711723210007 Bruce & Virve Van Sloun Barbara Solner-Webb Harriet J. Morgart 12809 Forest Meadow Drive, Minnetonka, MN 55305 17200 Melbourne Dr., Laurel, MD 20707 1003 Wildhurst Trait, Mound, MN 55364 MAY 15 '97 12:21 P.1/1 Qu ost Real Eftlate, Inc. Quest Development. Inc May 15.1997 Via Fax: 473-0510 Mr. Mika Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kalley Parkway P. C. Box 60 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron: Please be advised that we have fully executed contracts to purchase the parcels of land which are currently under consideration for development These are the parcels of land owned by: Harriet Morgart Barbara Sollner-Webb Bruce Van Sloun Arnold Soskin Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Very truly yours. QUEST DEVELOPMENT. INC. ■* V •' t Oaffies M. Waters C.0.0. JMW/lf 10700 Old County Road 15 • Suite 150 ♦ Plymouth. Mmnesota 55441 • Twl. 012-595-0511 • Fax 612-505-0512 I 1 1 JOHN W. HASSELBALCH BURNET REALTY Mr. Mike Gaffron Planning and Zoning City of Orono May 15,1997 r. L Dear Mr. Gaffron, I am writing you regarding ike VanSloun, Sollner-Wcfclj and Morgart Properties. Mr. Jim Waters / LGA Investment Group Inc. kas signed and perfected purckasc agreements witk tke aforementioned property owners. Tkese purckase agreements are in our possession as tke listing kroker. please call witk any questions. 315 EAST LAKE STREET, WAYZATA MN 5 j 391 OFFICE 476-3610 HOME 472-5514 i—/r \\''SJ >>sNi’ { / \ WIilV^Ul .1^1 :\ V 7F \ ::s!3«45siiiir<ssss9n V ■ /9}MM'/^ \ w4to!l \ , \ I \ ////jin V U / // / .h^tf / ,/f (J~( / } \ « to2 - g B O !t 38 si S • • ®® S o!9l^ ■ • • e- .>1 - I V tr^ 11If/i mil ill IIII ,1 //1 / / \i>ft W-i-f-i-mfun,tiA. ' ^ZZ • y y /^ii /I ■* «•*> : / ■ ^ 3 >?7'/ < %#s Ir 7 6^.31 JO*4V30*f » \ u «X/< ts 7/ir tJ a! •A ^ ^vN A/} V\ I / 7 v' ^ V \\''' \ \Vv ■^\\\W; ■ sM rr »WK-!ta»3tl5l5S!!i?in-»^ 'X.I IMI / ^/' / \ \ -5 S ) I ) M I f -* ^ _y \li \ ri M m \»\\1\', N i^^^O'' I Y /Q)\ 5^^ w ^ \ \\ \\V'li'Sli\\'’' V, I!Ti 11.I B*SS'S!fp'> -KI rj ) / y^Hr^mw iimMy /7/' '/'/'/ /Fa/7 MimjZl AS«e>ii^!^) Sil Wi'MM ,j!p.' / m //. 6^0. HI 4 5* i /^ •M^ m I la V Sr / / ■' A /.' ‘i ^ ■ • D ^ J Bonestroo Rosene ■ Anderlik & |\ I Associates Engineers & Architects May 15.1997 Bonestroo. Roserre. Anoerhk And AssociAtes. Inc Is an AfftrmAtts^e Action BquAl Opporruntry Employer PnnctpAls Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderhk. PE • v.irvio L 5o''v<«J.r PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Thomas E Noyes. PE • Robert G Schunichi. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene. PE and Susan M Eberlm. C PA. Senior Consultants AssociAte Principals Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferie PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek, A IA • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R. Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE. L S • Robert F Koismiih Offices St Paul. Rochester. Wiiimar and St Cloud. MN • Mequon. Wl 1 6 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Building and 2^ning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 KiAV Re: Highview Site Sketch Plan File No. 139-2240 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the sketch plan prepared for Jim Waters on the proposed Garden Lane Site, a subdivision of PID Numbers 07-117-23-22-0008, 07-117-23-22-0007. 07-117-23-22-0017 and 07-117-23-21-0002, located south of County Road 151 in the northwest quarter of Section 7. There are several issues that need to be addressed relative to engineering matters and included with the plan. 1. Utilities: The current MUSA boundary includes Lots (8) and (7) and excludes Lots (17) and (2). It appears that including Lots (2) and (17) into the MUSA area would be a logical assumption from an engineering standpoint. The slopes in these areas would make it difficult to find two suitable septic sites on a two-acre lot A sanitary sewer will need to be extended north and west from Wildhurst Trail. Plans and specifications should be prepared for the sanitary sewer, with as-built plans provided to the City upon completion. Please note there is no municipal water service available for this area. Each lot will be required to be served by a well. 2. Streets: City code specifies a maximum length of 1000 feet and ten units on a cul-de-sac. All streets require a 30-MPH design speed and a 275-foot centerline radius. Neither of the two concept sketches meets these requirements. No more than two units may be served from a private driveway. Private streets serving three to seven units must be paved 24 feet wide, more than seven units require 28 feet Public streets serving three to ten units must be paved 28 feet wide, more than ten units require 32 feet. All streets require 50 feet of right-of-way. Due to the existing topography on the site it may be impossible to meet all of the code requirements. A shorter centerline radius could be mitigated by placing curve ahead warning signs at both ends of the curve. It may be possible to shorten the cul-de-sac or limit the number of units on the private driveway on sketch 1 by constricting another cul-de-sac south between lots 14 and 15. Or, construct a driveway within the Highview Lane right-of-way from Wildhurst Trail to lots 14 and 15. Public safety issue will need to be addressed. How will the fire department fight a fire in this area without hydrants? Where is the nearest water supply to fill tankers? From a safety and access standpoint, it would be very beneficial to make a street connection from West Branch Road (C.R. 151) to this development. 3. Grading: Once an acceptable concept sketch has been prepared, a grading, drainage and erosion control plan should be prepared that shows both the existing and proposed contours, building pad locations and elevations, and erosion control measures to be used during constmction. Plans should be prepared for the street and storm sewer construction. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 ■ 612-636-4600 1 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron City of Orono Page~2 ‘ May 15,1997 4. Drainage: The drainage from the site is primarily north, then east toward Forest Lake. The development will need to provide some type of storm water treatment prior to reaching the lake. This could be accomplished by constni *ting a storm water quality pond on the north side of Lot 12 (sketch 2). The City’s Comprehensive Storm Water 1 Ian, which is presently being prepared, identifies the need for regional storm water ponds at this location and north of Lot 2. The second pond will likely need to be constructed by the City. This development should be responsible for reimbursing the City for a portion of the cost of the regional pond north of Lot 2. Final plans should be submitted to the Minnesota DNR and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review and approval. 5. Easements: Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of-ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all d rainage ways and ponding areas. 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the required financial guarantee, unless the improvements will be done by the City. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLDC & ASS(XIATES, INC. h. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono I . J 1 fli * • '•<M 1 ' %.» • \ V ^ * I III r-i yv LAKE KATRINA ; «WZ«A v" J /^MOUJO <__ISsSS^^IF A\ t’" •" ti. y V^\____::> City of Orono, Minnesota tI«M north SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT Natural Environment (NO lakes pjdm Tributary Streams lake Ciassen 974.5'Painters Creek Dickey lake 905.5'Stubbs Bay Creek Fre.ich lake 930.5'long lake Creek lydiard lake 970.9'VVolsleld Creek lake Katrina Dickey lake Creek Wolsfcld lake (Medina) •- Recreational iJevclonment (RD) lakes OH\vk Ions lake 944.3' Mooney lake 900.0' Tahager lake 929.4' Hadley lake (Plymouth)9S1.4' General Develoonient (CD) lakes OHWl Forest lake 929.4' lake Minnetonka 929.4' 'mm DISTRICT BOUNDARY [] BASIN WETLANDS INCLUDED FLOODPLAINS ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 21,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, William Stoddard, and Lili McMillan. The following represented the City Staff: Assistant Zoning and Planning Administrator Michael Gaflfron, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jabbour and Council Member Goetten were present. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBUC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#1) 7:00 PJVL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE - 7:00-7:30 P.M. The AflBdavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Van Zomeren reported that the proposed telecommunications ordinance was amended from discussions held at the March Planning Commission Meeting. Antennas stm^res were deleted from the ordinance. The policy was codified to allow PCS on municipal water towers. This would limit the use to the two existing water towers, one ne^ the City offices and the other in Navarre. Van Zomeren said she understood that the maximum distance antennas may be located is 4 miles which is the distance between these two vkrater towers. She also noted that antennas can be co-located on the same tower. A manmum of three providers can co-locate on one tower with antennas placed at different hdghts. Van Zomeren indicated if problems oc ur due to these locations in the future, the issue can be revisited at that time. Antennas are further defined within the amendment specifying PCS, radio receivers, and ham radio antennas. The public service antenna description did not include PCS. Van Zomeren brought attention to the conditions noted on pages 3 and 4 of the memo regarding setbacks and color compatibility. She indicated the language o: the ordinance was reviewed with a consultant. Van Zomeren said drafts of the ordinance were faxed to interested parties. During public comments, Tom Alexander, attorney for Larkin, Hoffinan, and representing APT (American Portable Telecommurucations), reported having attended the prior meeting and reiterated what he saw to be the issues. He is of the belief the ordinance would restrict instead of expand the Telecommunications Act. He said the removal of the conditional use prohibits towers from bemg built by placement of antennas only on the two existing water towers. Alexander believes the restriction is illegal under the Telecommunications Act. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#1 - Telecommunications Ordinance - Continued) Alexander said the City could expect a challenge to their ordinance if the towers prove area inadequate due to structure capability, height, overcrowding, and coverage. This would result in the need for additional antenna sites to provide service. Alexander said he would provide the specific provisions in a follow-up comment letter. Lindquist later asked that this comment letter be sent in a timely manner. Alexander indicated another method could be to create incentives for the telecommunication companies to use the water towers. He suggested the antennas be a permitted use with administrative permission or subject to conditional use in different districts (industrial, commercial, etc.) and performance standards instead of prohibiting them altogether. He noted the minimum height required is 75’. It costs $150,000 to $250,000 to construct a tower which the companies will avoid if locations for antennas can be found on existing structures Alexander informed Lindquist that co-location can occur if the newest provider conducts an interference analysis. He indicated the horizontal separation between antennas must be 20-25'. He indicated his company prefers co-location whenever possible subject to a lease. He asked who the consultant was that assisted with the ordinance review. Van Zomeren reported the consultant was John Dubois. Van Zomeren reported that City Attorney Radio has indicated the ordinance is reasonable and provides for the City to be covered. He had noted that it is not clear what the FCC allows or disallows. Alexander argued that if the water towers are not suitable to the needs of the PCS, it would render the ordinance as prohibitive. Smith asked if the need for additional antenna locations from that allowed by the proposed ordinance currently exists or if the concern regards possible future needs. Alexander felt it affects the current condition and future. He noted the company is unaware of what sites will be used, but the restriction on the tower could possible place the service in jeopardy. Alexander said APT is currently in Phase 1 of implementation, and Orono is in Phase 2. He indicated the criteria that must be met includes 1) radio frequency, 2) coverage, 3) linkage with sites, i.e. leaseability, space availability, structural adequacy, and 4) land being buildabh* for antennas and towers. Lindquist noted that the law is ever-chan^ng regarding this new technology. Alexander responded that the 1996 Telecommunications Act provides for the needs. Cities are told to act quickly, moratoriums are allowed, but must be timely, and the service cannot be prohibited. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#1 - Telecommunications Ordinance - Continued) Dave Hagen and Ron Gunderson were present representing Sprint PCS. Hagen asked that Ws agreement with Alexander's comments be on the record regarding the City's violation of the Telecommunications Act. He said the ordinance would have the effect of prohibiting antennas. Hagen indicated his company has an interest in locating on the City's water tower on Kelley Paikway. He is concerned with the present zoning of RR-IB. The water tower is not currently in the B-1 zoning as required by the ordinance. Without the proper zoning, Hagen said they could not locate their antenna on this water. Approval also requires administrative approval. Hagen said he feels the City will be challenged r^arding their ordinance. Alexander also noted that if two antennas were on one tower and heavily used, two towers would be inadequate, and additional sites may be needed. He offered his assistance with drafting an ordinance and providing copies of other drafts. Lindquist indicated the City's needs are different from that of the PCS companies. Lindquist said he would like to see a response regarding the ordinance in writing from City Attorney Radio. Hawn questioned whether the 4-miIe separation is adequate to provide the service. Hagen and Alexander indicated the possibility and noted the requirements necessary. Snuth noted there are other water towers located in nearby communities that may service Orono as well. Hagen agreed. Alexander s^d they have not yet made that determination. Hagen sad he believes the reridents of Orono want this service. Schroeder noted the City is attempting to accommodate the need for settee. He indicated flexibility was important. Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to table the ordinance to allow the City consultant to respond to the questions raised regarding provision of reasonable service and receipt of written review by the City Attorney. Vote; Ayes 7, Nays 0. ACTION ITEMS (#2) #2201 GEORGE ADAMS, JAMES FIEGER, S.T. ROBB, JR, 570,580,590 AND 600 BIG ISLAND - VACATION OR USE OF UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF- WAY - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:30-7:47 P.M. The Applicants were present. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#2 - #2201 Adams, Fieger, Robb - Continued) George Adams reviewed the request for three residences to be on the same septic system. They had origmally proposed for vacation of portions of dedicated right-of-way. The application had been tabled and septic system redesigned to meet code as well as be contained within the Robb property. The applicants are requesting pemussion to run piping within the right-of-way to connect the Adams and Fieger residences to the septic system within the Robb property. Staff recommends approval with conditions as noted. The applicants are also in agreement with the resolution as drafted. During public comments, Don Henderson, Edina, owner of 560 Big Island, property located to the east of subject properties, said he was satisfied with the resolution. He asked if the location of the septic system would affect where a well and septic system is located on his dry buildable portion of his lot. Gafiron indicated that there must be a 75' separation between a well and any septic system. The applicant's septic system will be located 15' from the property line. There is no requirement for separation from one septic system to another. Gaf&on indicated a possibility of obtair^g a variance to allow the separation at 50'. Tom Robb commented that the applicants had provided Henderson's name to Staff for notification. Smith noted reference to seasonal use and use of septic system for "gray" water only. She asked if any limitations need to be addressed? Gafiron reviewed the scope and normal procedures followed for any septic system. Lindquist was of the opinion that these issues did not need to be addressed as part of this approval. Gaffion indicated any change to year-round use would require a CUP. The applicants will also be incumbent to provide the list of conditions to any future buyers of their properties. Mason Meyer, 660 Big Island, noted some neighboring properties will be constructing septic systems and questioned what effect the use of the right-of-way for piping will have on truck movement. Gaffion reported that a hold harmless agreement would be required which would have the applicants accept the risk for any damage for their piping in the right-of-way. He said he expects the piping to be laid at a depth and to the side limiting the risk. Meyer asked that the City review the engineering of the project. Gafiron said the piping could be located so as to minimize the risk of damage. Fieger said the piping would be protected with cement casing. Robb asked that they be notified by their ndghbors of any projects prior to their occurrence. Fieger noted that the right-of-way is filled with trees, and movement of traffic would likely occur over his property, fieger said he had no problem with this occurring and asked for prior notice as well. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21,1997 (#2 - #2201 Adams, Fiegcr, Robb - Continued) Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2201 permitting pnvate septic system connection through pipes within the City right-of-way including conditii 1-4 as noted. He noted any subsequent neighborhood projects may pose a risk to the pipes and cost of repairing damage would be at the expense of the ^plicants. Fieger asked if the City would render a recommendation regarding engineering. Schroeder said they could assist in this manner. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#3) #2205 ALLEN SCHEFFERS, 2540 CASCO POINT ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBUC HEARING 7;47-7:5« P.M. The y^plicant was present Van Zomeren reported that the application is for a conditional use permit to allow for excavation of a pond in a flood plain area to remain. Permits have already been obtained from the MCWD to excavate for a wildlife pond. The CUP from the City for the excavation was not obtained. The applicant has previously obtained a CUP for fill importation in excess of 100 cubic yards. The application had been tabled to allow for snow cover to melt to view the property and determine the effect of the encroachment on the right-of-way. Van Zomeren indicated the review has shown the pond to hold water. She reviewed the impact on the 100' right-of-way. The pond has resulted in an improvement in neighborhood drainage. Van Zomeren said Staff recommends approval with conditions: 1) the pond maintain a 3:1 slope for safety purposes; and 2) the pond be muntained without impact to the right-of-way. The applicant had no comments. There were no public comments. Smith asked that the Commission be consistent in their direction regarding a natu^ landscape for the pond. The applicant said he plans to enhance the pond by cleaning it up and deepening it. He said Ws plans call for sodding with grass to the edge of the pond. He also intends to add wildflowers, day lilies, and random rock. He presented a landscaping plan. Smith asked that the landscape include cattails, reeds, and prairie vegetation. She indicated the City would like ponds to have a natural look, not sculpted, and be conducive to wildlife. McMillan asked if the road was to be widened. Gappa said the road width is sufficient. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21. 1997 (#3 - #2205 Allen Scheffers - Continued) Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2205 with conditions 1 and 2 as noted. The applicant is to work with Staff regarding the creation of a natural looking pond. Vote; Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#4) #2214 CARMEN AND RICHARD KOZICKY* 2016 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:5S-8:24 P.M. The Applicant was present Van Zomeren reported that the application had been tabled to allow recalculation of the numbers. The applicant has submitted a revised she plan. She noted Staff met on site with applicant and the County. The County approves the location due to sight lines and curb cuts. The plan is considered an improvement. By switching locations of the porch and deck, they are now located outside of the average lakeshore setback. Steps are allowed whhin that setback. Van Zomeren noted that the adjoining properties have decks located ahead of the average lakeshore setback as well as more hardcover than that of the applicant. Van Zomeren indicated the proposal will result in a reduction of hardcover in the 0-75‘ setback. A structural coverage variance will be required. Allowed is 15% or 2058 s.f The residence exists at 1948 s f or 14.2%. The proposed structure is 2837 s.f or 20.67%. It was noted that the 3' overhang is consistent with the design of the residence but results in the need for a side yard variance. A hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback is also required. Van Zomeren said Staff recommends approval or amendment. She recognized the improvement to the driveway and the reduction in the average lakeshore setback. The applicant had no comments. There were no public comments. Hawn said she is concerned with the excess structural coverage. She suggested the garage dimensions be changed and pushed back on the lot. Kozicky noted a portion of the garage is for laundry room and entry improvement. It was clarified that while the family room and deck have been reduced in size, the deck had not been previously included in the calculations. A deck located 6' above grade should be included in the calculations. Schroeder asked how the structural coverage compares with other homes in the neighborhood. Van Zomeren said the property currently has the least amount of hardcover. The improvements would result in coverage similar to other homes. Acknowledgment letters signed by neighbors were noted. L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#4 - #2214 Canncn and Richard Kozicky - Continued) McMillan inquired if there would be room for storage in the garage. Kozicky said he allowed 8-9* for storage of lus machinery. Commissioners discussed the amount of structural coverage. It was noted that the applicant had revised his plans consistent with the direction given previously by the Commission. Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application #2214 with the notation that the Planning Commisson recommends no furthCT structural coverage be allowed on the property. Vote; Ayes 3. Lindquist, Stoddu^d, Schroeder; Nays 4, Hawn, Smith, Berg, McMillan. The applicant said he would revise the size of the garage. Stoddard suggested the garage be reduced by 6' in length. It was determined that the prevailing vote may request reconsideration of the application. Hawn moved, McMillan seconded, to reconsider the application. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Stoddard moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2214 subject to a 6' reduction in the size of the garage per the survey and accompanied by a drawing. The structural coverage would be reduced to 19.63%. No additional structural coverage would be allowed on the property. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 2, McMillan, Hawn. Dissenting voters felt a 4% structural coverage variance is too high for a substandard lot. (#5) #2217 JOHN THIMMESH, 1945 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBUC HEARING 8:25-8:37 P.M. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the applicant is requesting hardcover variance, structural coverage variance, and a rear yard variance to add a 18*x31' storage addition to the existing garage. The application was tabled at last month's meeting to enable the applicant to consider whether he would combine the two lots. He has agreed to do so. Information provided by the assessor indicates there would be no tax consequence by doing so. This enables the applicant to use the total lot coverage for calculations. • I minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#5 - #2217 John Thimmcsh - Continued) Discussion at the last meeting involved concern that a future homeowner may add blacktop. Existing hardcover in the 75-250’ setback is 26.15%. It is proposed at 29.40% for a 4.4% variance. Van Zomeren indicated the applicant would also like to maintain the shed. She noted the existing structural coverage is in conformance at 14.4%. The addition will increase the coverage to 16.91% requiring a 1.9% variance. Removal of the shed would reduce that figure to 15.5% Van Zomeren said no permit was required when the shed was built. The shed does encroach the rear and side yards. There is no impact on the neighboring property but it docs increase the hardcover. Van Zomeren ^d Staft' prefers that storager areas be consolidated in one location. A 3.3' rear yard variance is also required. Mr. Thimmcsh said he would prefer to keep the shed. He noted the shed's exterior matches that of the residence and is surrounded by a 6 ’ fence. It is used for pool equipment and is in a convenient location accortfiqg to Mrs. Thimmcsh Lindquist indicated the need to correct problems when the opportunity arises. There were no public comments. Van Zomeren suggested negotiating with the applicant regarding the 3.3' rear yard encroachment. Thimmesh indicated shortening the addition would result in a lack of proportion. Hawn, Schroeder, and Smith agreed that the structural coverage should be reduced by the removal of the shed. The applicant agreed to remove the shed. Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2217 with the condition that the shed be removed when the addition is completed. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#6) #2221 SVEN A. WASBERG AND ARLENE DECANDIA, 3115 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:37-8:58 P.M. The Applicant was present. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#6 - #2221-Sven Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the application is for a condition^ use permit and variances to remove an existing residence and construct a new residence. There is a lagoon on the property that is regulated by the Shoreland Ordinance. The CUP is necessary for excavation and fill within the 75' setback area. The building footprint is forward of the 75’ line. The lot docs not meet minimum standards for the LR-IB zoning district. The lot is .439 acres and 80’ wide. Hardcover currently exists at 32.73% in the 0-75’ setback where none is allowed. The existence of the property within the 0-75’ setback is a hardship. The 75-250’ setback allows for 25% hardcover. Existing hardcover is 46.8% and is proposed at 46.9% The 250-500’ setback hardcover meets the requirements. Van Zomeren indicated the average lakeshore setback is unusual due to the location of the adjacent residences. She noted that the property owner to the east had objected to the height of the proposed residence at the last Planning Commission meeting. The side yard setback exists at 1-1/2’ and will be imuntained at that distance. Van Zomeren reported that new information available has indicated the existing foundation will not support the design. A new foundation would result in the application being reviewed as new construction. While recognizing the hardship due to the lagoon. Van Zomeren said Staff has difficulty in recommending approval of the application. Mr. Wasberg said he has not yet received the soil test to substantiate that the existing fixindation will not support the structure. He reported that the hardcover will decrease with the new residence. Van Zomeren noted that the 6297 s.f of hardcover (32.97%) in the 0-75’ setback will only reduce to 6265 s.f or 32.75%. Schroeder indicated his support if the readence was built on the existing site due to the hardships of the property. Lindquist asked if he understood it was new construction. Schroeder said he did. Hawn noted the new structure would be two-stories. Wasberg said the residence would be 1-1/2 stories in the fi*ont. The applicant has owned the property for eight months and has resided in the residence to the west of the subject property for two years. There were no public comments. Lindquist indicated the proposed structure is too large for the small lot and would like the plan to be brought in conformance. Van Zomeren brought attention to Exhibit K, a letter from the architect. The second paragraph reports the need for a new foundation. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#6 - #2221-Sven Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia - Continued) Stoddard said he would support the application if the existing foundation were used. If not, he asked that the retidence be repositioned and made smaller. Wasberg said he would move the design back on the lot. He also indicated he informed the nei^bor that he would plant a row of trees between their properties. Berg indicated the applicant should be ab!e to move the proposed residence back behind the average lakeshore setback line. Lindquist suggested tabling the application to allow the residence to be redesigned for a smaller structure that could be placed further back on the property. Wasberg indicated he cannot pull the entire structure behind the 75' setback because he needs room to back a car out. Lindquist asked Wasberg to work ^mth his architect on the design. He also asked the applicant to attempt to eliminate the need for a side setback. Wasberg asked for direction on how big the structure may be. After discussion, the applicant was informed to limit the structure coverage to 1500 s.f Hawn suggested the structure be shifted so it lays perpendicular rather than parallel to the shoreline. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to table application #2221 for further review. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#7) #2221 JOSEPH VOCHKO, 2925 CASCO POINT ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 8:58-9:08 P.M. The Affidavii of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant v present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a request for an after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit for the construction of a retaining wall and stairway. Hardcover variance is required for the wall in the 0-75* setback and the CUP to alter the retaining wall. The wOTk was stopped in progress. Letters from and to the applicant are part of the package. The resolution would allow the applicam to place random boulders. The engineering consultant recommended the boulders with caution as there is concern of movement with boulders. The proposed stairway is adequate. The resolution would include conditions 1-5 as noted in the staff report. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#7 - #2221 Joseph Vochko - Continued) Mr. Vochko said the boulder wall was required for erosion control. He had thought the contractor had obtained the necessary permits. There had originally been a railroad tie wall. He did not wish to replace the same type of wall or block type as they would require geo-grid material. The boulders will follow the terrain of the hillside to produce a natural look for the purpose of stabilizing the hill. The applicant said he plans on adding low bushes. The Building Inspector and City Engineer came out to the site and ask<^ his ei^neering consultant to anchor any boulders that might require additional stabilization. There wc. e no public comments. Smith questioned whether the hill would still erode. Schroeder noted that engineers will generally not approve boulder walls. The applicant indicated that the hill as viewed by the Commissioners was not as plaimed as the work had been stopped in mid construction. He noted he plans on adding cedar chips and vegetation. Lindquist moved. Schroeder seconded, to approve the after-the-fact variance and CUP subject to conditions #1-5. Vote; Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#8) #2225 JOHN THEOBALD, 4101 HIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:08-9:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certiftcate of Mailing were noted The /^plicant was present along with architect, Stu Hoam. Gaftron reported that the application was a request for variance renewal for construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence. The variances previously granted and bang requested are for street setback (25* where 30' is required), west side setback (9.5' where 10 is required), and east side setback (6' where 10* is required). Lot area variance is required from the 1 acre minimum for the 8550 s.f property. The lot width is 46-50' where 140' is the standard. A variance to allow 75-250' hardcover of 1956 s.f or 40% is requested where 1220 s.f or 25% is normally allowed. There are no changes to the application. Gaffron indicated Staff is continuing to woik with the applicant regarding dr^nage on the property. Hoam indicated the previous resolution asked for a grading plan which the applicant still intends to provide. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#8 - #2225 John Theobald - Continued) Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the renewal variances. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#9) #2226 JOHN AND SUSANNE KOOB, 3065 JAMESTOWN ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 9:18-9:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the apphcant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 350’ long and 10’ high berm to mitigate noise and views from the schools and athletic fields. It would also allow the residence to be screened fix>m the concession stand and portable toilets. Van Zomeren said Staff recommmds approval subject to a 3:1 sloping of the berm. The berm will be landscaped with grass and trees. Due to the high volume of fill required, 3100 cubic yards, or 300 truckloads, it will take time to construct. The applicant has been asked to work out details with the homeowners association regarding the issue of the roadway. Koob indicated the school has granted permission for their fencing to be opened and have the trucks enter his property fi’om the school yard. Van Zomeren noted that annual reviews will be conducted until the completion of the berm in approximately 30 months. Koob had no additional comments Lindquist asked the applicant if he understood a renewal variance would be required if the work was not completed within the 30 months. Koob said he understood. McMillan asked what erosion control would take place during the construction period. The applicant said a bobcat would move the dirt in from the north. Lindquist asked that grass s^ be spread annually. McMillan noted there are nursery crops avtulable to stabilize berms. Koob agreed to this suggestion. Hawn asked if there would be a silt fence located at the bottom of the berm. Koob indicated the plan calls for a silt fence on the plan for erosion control. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2226 for a CUP for 30 months with annual reviews to construct the berm. The applicant is to work with Staff regarding landscaping and erosion control. A renewal variance would be required if the work was not completed within the 30 month time period. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#10) #2227 GARY E, TUCKER, 3460 IVY PLACE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:25-9:30 P.M. The AflBdavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren indicated the subject property is located on Casco Point in the LR-IC zoning district. The applicant is propoang to construct a new deck on the lak^de of the readence and an entry over the front door. The existing sidewalk will be modified. An average lakeshore setback, hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback area, and side yard setback variances are required. The deck will be accessed by stairs that ^ be located in fix>nt of the average lakeshore setback. Hardcover will increase 987 s.f in the 75-250* setback from 32.26% to 34.3%. Van Zomeren indicated Staff recommends approval of the application. She noted the side yard as the hardship. The structure is located in the average lakeshore setback and the deck will further encroach into the setback. Tucker reported that the sidewalk modification will allow the sidewalk to run to the front of the residence instead of the side. He indicated the slab located next to the house cannot be eliminated as there is foundation underneath the stoop due to an old wellhouse. There were no public comments. Stoddard inquired if the neighbors have voiced any <>i/*nion It was reported that the neighbors approved the proposed plan. McMillan moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application #2227. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#11) #2228 FRANK AND KATHLEEN ST. LAWRENCE, 253 CYGNET PLACE VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:30-9:33 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 APRIL 21. 1997 (#11 - #2228 Frank and Kathleen St. Lawrence - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the applicant is seeking a hardcover variance in the 75-250 ’ setback area and a front and side yard variance to building an addition to an existing residence. The property b located in the RR-IB zoning district. The subject properly is 1.07 acres and does not conform to the minimum lot size or front yard setback for this district. The existing structure is 41'from the front yard setback. The side yard setback is proposed at 16.4'. The existing structure is 31'. Van Zomeren noted that there are protected waterways to both the east and north restricting the amount of building pad on this property. The hardcover in the 75-250' setback exists at 20.9%. It is proposed to increase 174 s.f to 25.9%. Acknowledgment forms have been signed by the neighboring residents. Van Zomeren reported Staff recommending approval or amendment. The applicant indicated there is an asphalt apron located where the addition is planned. The apron will be removed and the garage stall will replace it. There were no public comments. Hawn moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the variances for Application #2228. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#12) #2229 CHARLES AND PAMELA SCHROEDER, 1925 WEST FARM ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Hawn moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2229 to th. May 19 meeting at the request of the applicant. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0 (Schroeder abstained from this item), (#13) #2230 GEORGINA HACKNEY, 2184 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:35-9:37 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is for side yard setback and hardcover varirjices to construct an addition to the kitchen and an improved stairway. The property does not conform to the minimum lot size requirements for the LR-IC zoning district nor meet the side yard or lot width requirements. The north side yard is proposed at 6.6' where 10' is required. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback is proposed to increase from 25.06% to 25.38% for a 0.38 variance. No changes are requested in the 250-500* setback. Van Zomeren indicated Staff recommends apf roval. The applicant had no conunents i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL21, 1997 (#13 - #2230 Georgina Hackney - Continued) There were no public comments. Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2230. Vote; Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#14) #2209 SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB, 700 SPRING HILL ROAD - VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 9:38 P.M.-12:24 A.M. Elizabeth Hawn abstained from the discussion. Gaifron brought attention to three additional items distributed at the meeting: 1) revised memo regarding the issues, 2) letter from Lee Frelich of the Univeraty of Minnesota regarding the Big Woods, and 3) letter from property owner Duncan D^on. He noted the exhibits as indicated in the memo. Gaffron rq>orted that the Medina City Council has conceptually approved their conditional use permit. The Planning Commission has reviewed the CUP/variance issues on three past occasions. The EAW comments have been received. The City's environmental consuhant is currently reviewing the EAW. The Orono City Council is also currently reviewing the EAW conunents and proposed responses and will take action in the near future on the need for an EIS. The EAW information is provided for Planning Commission information only. Gafiiron noted that the applicant's en^eer has responded to many items since the original Staff memo. The revised memo handed out tonight contiuns recommendations on most issues identified to date. Lindquist asked Gaffron review the Staff memo step by step. Representing the applicant were Jack Morrison, a founding club member. Attorney Tom Crosby of Fa^e Benson, and Project Manager and Superintendent Tim Johnson. Jack Morrison asked to clarify certain points. He indicated it was their desire to build the course and their belief that it is the best option for the property. He said it is unlikely that the property will be left undeveloped. He brought attention to the letter by property owner, Duncan Dayton, stating the golf course was the best use of the property. Dayton also stated in the letter he would not donate the property nor grant conservation easements over it. 15 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21. 1997 (#14 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) Morrison said they agree with the variance requirements as recommended r^arding the maintenance facility, changes to the course in the bluff area, changes for the golf cart path, and the 5; 1 mitigation of wetlands. He indicated 11 plans were reviewed for the course. It is their belief that compromises made to holes 7 and 11 are best for the Big Woods themselves. He noted that the 9th hole is a non>retuming hole. They reduced the length of the course by 400 yards. These changes benefited the Big Woods according to Morrison. He indicated that 50% of the Big Woods will be retained, much more than in some of the earliest layouts considered. Morrison noted the comment made in the letter fi’om Lee Frelich of the University of Minnesota regarding the Big Woods being less significant than Wolsfeld Woods and Wood Rill. He ensured that they will cooperate regarding a trail system south of Tamarack on the east side and along the golf course perimeter on Spring Hill Road. Morrison indicated the access has not yet been determined. It is their preference for the entry on Spring Hill Road, but they will acquiesce to an entry on 6th Avenue North if the City so chooses. Morrison said he is concerned with the timing of the project. He indicated in order to replant the large number of trees, it would be necessary to begin in June if not earlier. Tom Crosby noted the need to work out a few details. He indicated they were in agreement with the Staff recommendation with the exception of one or two points. Lindquist said he preferred comments be made on each point for the public present. Gafffon proceeded to review each of the issues as addressed in the 4/18/97 memo revision, noted as Exhibit A. The Commissioners were polled at the end of each issue to determine their agreement regarding the Staff recommendation. GafIfon reviewed the comments regarding (I) Zoning Conformity. He noted rezomng is not required but conversion back to a conference center use is unlikely noting there is no City sewer or water. Staff recommended if the golf course is approved, the easterly portion of the site currently zoned RR-lB-1 should be rezoned to RR-IB. Commissioners were polled 6/0 in favor of the recommendation. Schroeder noted the intention of the property to remain a golf course. Crosby indicated the restrictions to the seller regarding the use. Schroeder noted the golf course bylaws also state its intention. Gafffon reported Staff recommendation regarding (II) Legal Combination as stipulated in the memo. Conunissioners were polled 6/0 in favor of the legal combination of the individual tax parcels. 'a j MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21.1997 (#14 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) Gafifron reported Exhibits B and C detail the bluff impacts as noted under (HI) Environmentid Impacts, (A) Bluff Impact Variances. There will be less tree removal than previously planned, the cart path will be relocated, the visual impact will be nunimized by movement of the road more to the north and with screening. Gaflffon read the Staff recommendation with conditions 1-3 as iK>ted in the memo. Schroeder noted that the bluff was man-made. GafiBron stud the there was originally a blufflocated there, and it was enhanced by excavating the gravel pH. He informed Schroeder that plantings will stabilize the blufif from an erosion standpoint. Smith inquired about the construction of retaining walls. Tim Johnson said there will only be retaining walls on the tees in the bluff area. Excavating boulders will be used for retention to maintain the slope. Gaffron noted retmning walls will also be used with relocation of the driveway. Johnson said the partial retaining wall will be on the entrance road and made of a keystone type. Commisaoners polled 6/0 in favor of the Staff recommendation. Regarding (UIB) Wetland Impact Variances, Gaffron reviewed the applicants rationale for the proposed impacts to wetlands #5 and #12 based on the minimum fairway widths and lengths in providing playable golf. Johnson reiterated how the holes are played. Schroeder stated while filling is occurring, mitigation will also occur as well as creation of new wetlands, buffers, and an easement placed over portion of the Big Woods on hole #9 for drainage protection. The 5:1 mitigation replacement ratio will occur on site. Gaffron indicated a revised buffer width will meet the 26’ separation requirement. Council and MCWD approval is required. McMillan asked if wetland credits would be stipulated if the tnul was constructed. Gaffron said it was possible. The trail has not been laid out. He noted the trail may not be appropriate where wetlands are located. Morrison agreed to using part of the mitigation for a trail. He noted fill would be required within the right-of-way for hole #7 on Tamarack. Lindquist asked if the trail was placed along Spring Hill Road from Wood Rill to Wolsfeld Woods, whether it would be mitigated. Marshal Braman said the sequencing process would have to be followed showing the need for it. Safety reasons would have to be cited. This would include a 450 ’ strip along the road dependent on how it is constructed. Schroeder asked how much mitigation would be lost if trails were the goal. Braman said it woidd depend on the design but at a 2:1 mitigation ratio, he estimated it to be 9000 s.f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21. 1997 (#14 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Chib - Continued) McMillan said her intention is not to de»gn the trail but would like to see the credits stipulated. Morrison said they are wilting to do so. Smith inquired what the shoreline of the wetlands would look like. Braman said the southern wetlands will be a wetland/NURP pond combination. He noted the other wetlands have been drained previously. Weir structures will be built to retain water. He indicated there were a number of different types of wetlands. The DNR wetlands have cattails. Some have reed canary grass. When water is restored, the grass will be eliminated and cattails restored. Braman said nen^ created wetlands will have cattails and some lily pads. The edges will transition into a buffer of native prairie. It is their intention to use natural vegetation. Johnson said the grass will not be mowed to the water's edge. GaflQxm noted that proper erosion control methods will be required. The wetland impacts are subject to the MCWD and Corp of Engineer approval. The Commission were polled 6/0 in favor of Staffs recommendation as noted in the Staff memo. (mC) Big Woods - Lindquist read letters into the record. The letter from Lee Frelich of the University of Minnesota stated that the Big Woods portion in Orono is not primary (virgin) forest. He noted the species present of60-100 year old trees, 8-24" in diameter. The older trees present were found to be in poor condition. He concluded that the area was reforested about 80 years ago. There is evidence of minor canopy disturbance. The flora is low in diversity and abundance and similar to what is found in cattle land. Frelich said the primary forest is found in Wood Rill and Wolsfeld Woods. The letter from property owner, Duncan Dayton, reiterated his ownership and use of the land for a golf course versus development. Gaffron reiterated the discussion on site and in the memoranduin The applicant has attempted to liimt the impact. Comments from the EAW note the uniqueness of the property in its relationship to Wolsfeld and Wood Rill, though less significant than ehher. Ga^on indicated the City has limited control over the disposition of the land. GafiQ ’on said a CUP approval condition could be stipulated allowing no grading within the Big Woods, or the CUP could possibly be denied, if Plannin; Commission concludes that the Big Woods acreage must be preserved intact. Gaffron noted there apparently are a number of privalt; grains attempting to suggest or promote alternative uses for the site. He indicated, however, that if the golf course was found to be an inappropriate use, the expectation is that the land will be developed for residences. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#14 . #2209 Spring HiU Golf Club - Continued) Gafifron asked Commission to assess aU relevant information in reaching a conclusion regarding the Big Woods. Lindquist confirmed the Big Woods as being a sensitive issue. He asked for comments noting the information and letters recaved. Richard Kruger noted that all environmental agencies that nave made comments have noted the sensitive area. He asked that ai^ decision not be made in haste. Krueger believes an EIS should be considered and supported such a study. He asked whether the applicant had considered a nearby farmland for use as golf holes currently planned for the Big Woods area. Stoddard saw the issue of weighing the impact of a golf course with that of residential devdopment. He would like to see a further review of spring emergent v^etation. Stoddard noted he did not believe an EIS was necessary. Tom Crosby said he has scheduled a meeting with the DNR to discuss the letter from Frelich in order to gain some common ground. Chuck Plante said it sounds that a residential subdivision would automatically occur if the golf course was not constructed. He noted there is currently no proposal forward for a subdivision in the Big Woods, and it would have to follow the same process. Krueger was informed that the nurumum lot size for the property is 2 acres. Schroeder indicated an E AW would not be required for a subdivision that is less than 80 acres. While lot sizes would be considered, a subdivision itself could not be denied. Krueger asked if zoning could be changed. Schroeder noted it would require going through the rezoning process. Smith suggested a cluster housing with a park area nught save the Big Woods. She was informed that two-thirds of the Big Woods are in Medina with only IS acres in Orono. Crosby indicated that Medina requires 2 acres of "dry buildable" and with the types of soils present, S acres would probably be required for each lot in Medina. Gaffron noted if a proposal for subdivision was made north of CoRd 6, at best only 8% could be saved for park land considering the Park Dedication guidelines. A subdivision would be required to meet setbacks, wetland impacts, and other guidelines. He indicated any new tree ordinance the City adopts in the future will not affect this application. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#14 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) Mr. Alshouse, 1300 Willow Brook, said he shares the concerns of the nd^M)ors r^arding the Big Woods and wetlands. He said it is heavily forested, and he cannot sec across it past mid-May. He feds the flora and wildlife adapt to humans. Wlule he may like it to remain as it is, he said he expects change to occur. Alshouse said he prders a gdf course to houang and septic systems. He believes a golf course will maintain more of the woods than with houdng. South noted that a 4.6 acre parcel is the largest piece of contiguous treed area saved. She questioned whether there could be a plan that might save additional trees. Crosby indicated that the trees on the property connect to larger treed areas outnde of the property. Thn Johnson reported that several of the early plans had holes being closer in proximity. He said there are large strips of trees 20* to 100* between holes. Smith asked what maintenance would be performed on the trees. Johnson indicated dead branches will be removed as well as low branches that would affect play. (IDD) Gaffron highlighted the Alteration of Wildlife Habitat and Movement Corridors. No recommendation was made. (HIE-1 Drainage) Gaflron reported the City Engineer has reviewed the proposed improvements related to stormwater quantity and finds them acceptable fi'om an en^eering standpoint. He indicated an Orono Storm Water Management Plan is currently being prq>ared. Gaflron said the issues noted can be resolved. Conditions were placed on the Staff recommendation. McMillan commented on the irrigation pond whether it was for aesthetics and vdiether the water would be fresh or recycled. Concern was expressed over build up of nutrients. Braman stud while previous discussions have been held with the DNR, he has not passed on further information since their submission of EAW conunems. He said aesthetics is not the reason. Braman said permits have been discussed, and Ceil Strauss of the DNR had indicated she saw no problems. Braman said the salt count is low and should percolate into the soil. McMillan voiced concern if drainage easements are not secured for neighboring properties. She noted the DNR recommended easements over Spring Hill and Long Lake Roads. Gaffron indicated the property to the south is owned by the applicant. He said there should be no change in the rate of flow to show the need to create corridors. Gaffron said it would be appropriate for the City to obtain easements for areas impacted and a MCWD easement where needed. i 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#14 - #2209 Spring HiU Golf Club - Continued) Cro^ said they agreed to grant easements over property in Medina and would do the same with Orono. He indicated he also has discussed possible bacloip onto the Krueger property and plans on obtaining easements. Braman said the water flow rates would be maintained or lower indicating the water quality would be improved as it leaves the she. Commissioners agreed 6/0 in favor of Staff recommendation. (DIE - 2 'Wedands) Gafifiron indicated the applicant has met with Mr. Krueger regarding wetland #17 impoundment. They have agreed to construct a wdr that is changeable. Braman said the water level should be raised by 1'. As part of the developers agreement, if that does not occur, a stop block could be removed for a 75>80% flow maintenance. Krueger said he was satisfied if the conditions are written into the developers agreement. If the flow does not occur, Krueger does not want to have to go through a complicated review process but simply correct the problem. Gaffron said this could be done but would require MCWD approval. Comnusaoners were polled 6/0 in favor of Staff recommendation. (ni£-3) Water Quality - Gaffron reported that the City Engineer has reviewed the water quality assumptions used in the applicants report and has preliminarily indicated some concern with the total reliance on NURP ponds for water quality management. The concern is that nutrients in golf course runoff are soluble and may tend to not settle out but be discharged. One way to reduce this concern is through mowang and removal of clippings. The Engineer has also requested additional information regarding the types of turf grasses to be used. This information has been provided along with a proposed turf management program to reduce the amount of excess nutrients leaving the site. Gaffron indicated he has not reviewed this information with Marshal Braman. It also requires review through the MCWD process. Staff recommends withholding of approval on the water quality issue pending further recommendations from the City Engineer and MCWD approval. Commissioners agreed wth Staffs recommendation. (UlE-4) Hardcover Calculations - Gaffron Liuicated the calculations for the site are within the City hardcover ordinance. (HIF) Septic System - Ken Adolf of Schoell and Madson reported that another site is being considered for the septic system for the maintenance facility. The rest station and maintenance facility were originally planned to share a drainfleld. They will now be separated. This will result in a reduction to the size of drainfleld allowing it to fit east of the maintenance facility. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#14 . #2209 Spring HiU Golf Club - Continued) Gaffiron said the drainiteld area designated on the she plan is suitable for a single mound ^em. A secondary site will need to be located elsewhere outside that derignated area. Schroeder inquired about the septic system for the main chib house. Gafifron said the existing conference center septic system will be used and is adequate. Gafiron reported Staffs recommendation is for approval conditioned on receipt and Staff approval of the maintenance fiicility site evaluation plan. Commissioners agreed 6/0 in fhvor of the recommendation. (IDG) Ground Water - Gafiron indicated water ^pply is not anticipated to be a problem for the site. The existing well is 178* deep, cased down to 143'. An EAW comment requested the applicant be required to perform ground water modeling studies to predict the impact of the golf course's irrigation water iqipropriations on the local water supply. Gaffron felt it was appropriate to address this issue. Hydrolo^st, Ken Adolf reviewed the expected impact from the existing irrigation well on the south ride of the conference center. The analysis had assumed a 750 gpm radius, although the well is rated at only 500 gpm. The influence would be a radius of950', and no wells are located within that distance. He indicated a majority of neighboring wells are bed rock wdls A drift well is to be used for the irrigation system. The result is that there will be no influence between this well and other wells. Braman commented on the depth of the well. Hennepin County staff had noted a discrepancy in the reported well depth. While the well was drilled to a deeper levd, it was found that formations higher up were better and the well was grouted to make use of the shallower aquifers. Commissioners accepted applicants information as fulfilling the Staff recommendation. (UIU) Storage of Fueb and Agricultural Chemicals - Gafffon reported an above­ ground fuel storage system will be installed at the site meeting all pertinent code requirements. Class I and Class II chemicals will be stored in this secured building and labeled "caution" and "warning". These chemicals are used for plant protection, regulators, and chemicals typically used for golf courses. Schroeder inquired how much chemicals would be used or budgeted for use. Tim Johnson said their budget is $20,000"$40,000 per year. Commissioners agreed 6/0 with Staff recommendation subject to appropriate permits. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#14 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) (IV) Infrastructure/Comprehensive Planning: A Maintenance Facility Access Location - The access location has been moved northward 200-300* of t'i»e intersection. Staff recommends the revised location. Conumsaoners agreed 6/0 with Staff recommendatioa (IV-B) Clubhouse Access Location - Gai&on indicated the access to the chib house has been an issue of discussion. Staff recommends a new driveway access onto Spiing Hill Road subject to closure and removal of all current field entrances and driveways abutting the site on CoRd 6. Hennepin County agrees with this recommendation. The goal is to limit access on arterial roadways. Eleanor Winston, 765 Spring Hill Road, said she preferred access to be from CoRd 6 in order to preserve the quality of Spring Hill Road as a walkway. She also indicated there is a blind comer on North Stream Road that would present a ha^d with another road coming off of h. The road would also require improvements which would change the character of the road and that of East Long Lake Road. Winston asked where an access would be located on CoRd 6? Jack Morrison said they need the entrance as it b located and prefer Spring Hill Road for the access but are able to wind the driveway to CoRd 6. Commissioner Smith said she would prefer CoRd 6 as the access. She asked what the argument was tor use of Spring Hill Road. Greg Gappa said he met with Hennepin County representative, Dave Zetterstrom. The existing entrance on CoRd 6 would have to be moved to the west. He noted the road is coming upgrade and around a curve and would not be adequate for an entrance. Smith inquired if the shoulder could be used. Gappa said there was still a problem with sight distance. Schroeder noted the current entrance is poor. Gappa noted Hennepin County's opposition to the entrance on CoRd 6. They would like it to remain an arterial roadway with limited access. Smith argued that it would move additional traffic to roads that are not adequately built for traffic. Winston said the best option would then be across from North Stream. Gappa noted there is a valid reason for an off-set entrance due to the wetland. He indicated there would only be a few cars coming from the west. The few that use Long Lake Road would use it anyways. The majority of people will be coming from the east. Smith asked for additional comments regarding traffic. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#14 - #2209 Spring HUl Golf Club - Continued) Morrison noted the number of people that use Old Long Lake Road is small. Braman said the East Long Lake Road project showed a peak p.m. trafiSc count increase of 10 cars. The average daily traffic would increase SO vehicles per day. Winston said she frit people would learn how to use the short cut. Morrison said he thought people coming from the east would use Hwy ivi to CoRd 6. Braman indicated the base traffic on CoRd 6 showed an additional 163 cars per day. Mayor Jabbour indicated the facts under review are based on the business plan which indicates 185 members. He questioned if the club were to change, membership would rise, resulting in a more active club. This would indicate CoRd 6 for access versus Spring HiU Road. Staff was asked to remark about left hand turns for egress versus a left turn to egress Spring Hill Road. Cars would still be required to make a turn off and on CoRd 6. Giq>pa said the rationale would be limiting movement off and on CoRd 6. Sight distance was dso noted to be a problem. As a side note, Gappa noted that there is also a concern about sight distance on Tamarack. Elimination of the field driveway just east of Tamarack would greatly improve the sight distance. Winston said there would also be a safety issue regarding speed. She felt the entrance to Spring Hill Road would not create additiimal distraction. Gappa agreed that there would be problems with en 'ring on CoRd 6. Morrison said an enti ^ off of CoRd 6 would be limited to only a small change in me . r,':? o >t east or west due to the placement of the golf holes. In response to the corrnKmt about membership, Morrison said the facilities are designed for 185 members teG bylaws state 185 members. Lindquist noted a typical golf course has 300 members. Gafifron asked if the Staff recommendation should be sent forward to the Council. Schroed r said he would support the County recommendation. Smith said she was undecided but would prefer CoRd 6. Lindquist said he was also undecided but leans toward use of Spring Hill road. Stoddard, Berg, and McMillan agreed with Lindquist. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#14 - #2209 Spring HiU Golf Club - Continued) (IV - C) Spring Hill Road Condition - GaiXron reported the City Engineer has indicated that the condition of Spring Hill Road and East Long Lake Road warrant more than normal maintenance. He recommends Spring Hill Road be overlayed at the expense of the Spring Hill Golf Club. Staff recommends the overlay. Commissioners agreed 6/0 to the Staff recommendation. (TV-D) Intersection Upgrades - GaHron reported the City Engineer has indicated that Hennq>in County should determine whether intersection upgrades, including turn lanes, are ne^ed at the 6/Tamarack and 6/Hunter intersections as a result of this development. If so, the Engineer recommends those upgrades be assessed to the development. Staff is meeting with Hennepin County to review this issue. Gappa indicated a bypass lane was recommended by the County for 6/Spring Hill Road. He is in fevor of a turn lane at 6/Tamarack. Staff agreed with the recommendation made by the County. Council should determine who will pay for the turn lanes as a policy issue. Commissioners agreed 6/0 with Staff recommendation. (IV-E) Trail Syatem - Gaffron indicated no specific trail design has been created for Tamarack or Spring Hill Road. Lindquist suggested the Park Commission make this determination. Park Commission Vice Chair Susan Wilson reported the Commission is interested in pursuing a trail to connect Wood Rill and Wolsfeld Woods. She indicated the applicant is not interested in the trail going through the golf course but along the perimeter only. Wilson said she is meeting with representatives of Medina next week regarding the issue for a walking trail. She noted a bike trail is planned for Spring Hill Road and could be used as a connector to a walking trail. Wilson commented on two properties that may be subdivided in the future on the west side of Tamarack resulting in Park Dedication fees. She noted an option to make plans and wait until the property is developed or construct a trail when the road work is done. She said she would meet with Staff regarding the issue. Wilson noted the limitations to the amount in the Park Dedication Fund. Srhroeder inquired how Tamarack would be connected with Spring Hill Road. Wilson said she envisioned this to occur across CoRd 6. He was informed that the golf cart tunnel would not be used. Wilson noted there is a pattern of use as a walking trail on the property now. 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21. 1997 (#14 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) Smith suggested a combined use noting the Luce Line trail goes through the Wayzata County Chib. Morrison commented that the Luce Line does not cross the playing area as it would have to in this case. Morrison said they are willing to work together regarding a trail. Staff recommendations are pending. (IV-F) Utility Needs - No Staff recommendation. It was noted that the rite will not be provided with municipal sewer or water. (IV-G) Tunnd Under CoRd 6 - Gaf&on reported there are a number of issues regarding the tunnel. One issue is elevation. Another issue is City participation regarding partnership with responsibility of tunnel. Gaflfron said the City recommends the developer be re^)onriblc for maintenance. Gappa said the County will not have long term agreements wth private developers. He indicated the need for a developers agreonent. Hennepin County will conduct annual inspections. Schroeder inquired if the tunnel would be a concrete culvert. He was informed that it would be and built to required standards. The tunnel will be a 12'x8' rectangle. There are no Staff recommendations at this time. (V) Impact of Foregoing Alternative Site Uses GafTfon reported that the w f club use will not generate Park Dedication fees because it is not a subdivision. He said City Attorn^ Radio indicated there is no legislation by which to collect such a fee. Gafifon said a park fee could be requested on a voluntary baris. (V-A) The net developable acreage is 137 acres for a possible 55 lots, (V-B) The City share of the annual tax base for 55 homes is $82,000. The City portion of annual taxes received from Woodhill Country Club is $6,500. The City portion of annual taxes received from Wayzata County Club is $15,900. (V-C) While no park fee is charged because the golf club is not a subdivision, the park fee per lot based on 55 lots would be $362,000 or $6,600 per lot. This is a significant loss in potential park fees because of the proposed use. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#14 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) (VI) Other Impacts - A - Gaflron reviewed the archaeological/hbtorkal site evaluation as noted in the Staff memo. No recommendation is necessary. Two areas of pot^al archaeological importance, both historic habitation rites, will be investigated this spring. Braman said the investigation will start soon. One location is a tum-of-the-centuiy home found on the west ride. The other is a rock foundation, somewhat older in age, found on the east side. These rites will be re^stcred if found significant or otherwise be eliminated. If found significant, the process is to catalog the materials and then excav^e. (V1>B) Aesthetic impacts • 1) The architectund style of the proposed clubhouse is reridential in character. The existing conference center building will be remodeled. The design is relatively compatible with its rural residential setting. The maintenance building, while not architecturally compatible, will be screened from view. (Vl>B-2) Lighting - The intention of the applicant is for minimal lighting of the rite as necessary for safety and function. City codes require lighting be difiused or directed away from residential areas and streets. A lighting plan will be required. Staff's recommendation includes a lighting plan provided by applicant prior to issuance of building permit for Staff approval. Commissioners agreed 6/0 with Staff recommendation. (Vl-B-3) Preservation of Ope ’* Space - Gafiron reported that a tree policy by resolution was adopted in December, 1996. A depiction of the golf course has been provided but a final detailed plan is .'required. The views of the open space should be required to remain "available", i.e. not masked by tall fences or berms. Staff suggests a low opaque, possible a split-rail fencing for the golf cour.se if a fence is proposed. GafYiron said approval should be conditioned on limits being placed on the future use of visual barriers; none are proposed at this time. Tim Johnson said there will be vegetative barriers along the perimeter holes of the golf course; majority of which would be by holes #2 and #3 and the golf course perimeter, north of CoRd 6 to connect to the wooded areas, and along the maintenance facility. Trees will be removed from the areas around holes #5, 15, and 16. A holding nursery will be located by the clubhouse if the trees cannot be directly replanted. Lindquist asked if there was a specific plan for tree replacement and removal noting the applicant planned on marking all trees. Johnson said they normally locate the area that encompasses the location for the trees. Lindquist informed Johnson that a detailed plan would be required. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#14 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) (VI-C) Site Activity Impacts-l) Maintenance Activity - Gaffron noted the immediate impacts on the neighborhood of the maimenance building may include noise, vibration, odors, lights and activity by vehicles and equipment at differing hours that are generaUy not associated with a resdmtial neighboihood. The closest reridence is about 200* to the west. Staff recommends ^)proval subject to compliance with City's ordinances regardiitg noise, vibration, odors, lighting, etc. Commisaoners agreed with recominendation 6/0. (VI-C>2) Oubhouse Area Activity - Gaffron reiterated the clubhouse activities as noted in the memo. Circumstances where higher levels of activity might occur is also noted. Staff recommends approval be conditioned on the requirement of a new CUP if future changes in the level of activity at the site occur or if the course is converted to a public golf course. Berg inquired if dinners or banquets would be held. Morrison said sandwich-type offerings would be available. They don't envision use of the facilities by organizations. He was unable to answer whether a club member would be able to hold a function such as a wedding at the focility. The facility would be closed to lunches during the winter months. An indoor practice facility would be open during the winter. Tom Crosby said they would agree to a level of activity as prescribed by the City. Commissioners agreed with Staff recommendation 6/0. (VI-C-3) Seasonal Use - Schroeder inquired if cross country skiing would be allowed. Tim Johnson noted a problem with turf damage during the first and last snows as well as a liability issue. Morrison said they did not intend to allow the course be used for such activity. Staff recommends the applicant define the level of activity occurring in the winter months and what security measures wUi be taken. Commissioners agreed with recommendation 6/0. (Vl-D) Amenities - Gafiron reported amenities will include 4 guest rooms in additional to Utchen facilities and locker rooms. Parking will be provided for 125 cars; 60 stalls are required. A rest station with toilets and a concession stand is proposed north of CoRd 6 tunnel. Commissioners recommended screening of the concession stand to lessen the possibility of creating a public nuisance from CoRd 6. The site plan calls for remodeling of the current building wth some additions and replacements. These improvements must meet setbacks and go through the building permit process. • i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 (#14 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Chib - Continued) (Vl-E) Land Alteration CUP - The goal regarding the significant movement of earth is to avo4d transporting materials on or across area roadways. Most grading will be conducted the first year and then reseeded. Gaffron indicated Staff recommendations with conditions 1-6 as noted in the memo. Commissioners agreed 6/0 with Staff recommendation and conditions. Lindquist asked if there were any additional public comments. There were none at this time. Schroeder asked if the applicant considered a trail all along the perimeter to the north. Kruger noted there is currently a bridle path on the cast side to CoRd 6. Wilson questioned how it would connect. Schroeder suggested connecting back to the tunnel and making two tunnels in the same cut. Wilson indicated people would then walk out onto the golf course itself Morrison said it would be difficult to envision the use of the course with walkers on h. He also saw difficulty with the public using the concession stand. Braman said the slopes of the land at that point would not allow people to get back off the course onto the public roadway. Gaffi*on reported the MCWD review will begin once Planning Commission approval is granted. Gafifron asked for action and conclusions. Schroeder indicated the action and conclusions are as previously noted. Crosby asked that the approval be subject to the comments made. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the conditional use permit with recommendations as discussed and embodied whhin the document with the exception of specific recommendations regarding the entrance. Pending recommendations are as noted. Trail location to oe determined by Park Commission. Dounage easements on ponds and drainage ways will be required. The Krueger pond level resolution is required to be part of the developers agreement. Clubhouse access location. Spring Hill Road condition, and intersection upgrades will be deferred to council. Tunnel requirements will be determined by Staff and Hennepin County. Recommendation regarding Park Dedication fee is deferred to Council and Park Commission. Activity levels are to be listed out by the applicant. Bylaws of the golf club are to be submitted to the Council. Appropriate agencies approval is required, and all of the above is conditioned on successful completion of the EAW process. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#15) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF MARCH 24,1997 AND APRIL 14,1997 LiiMlquist noted the reappointment of Berg and himsdlf to the Commisson for a 3 -year term. (#16) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION The Coinmisi^ion members were invited to attend the Met Council Growth Strategy Meeting to be held May 14 at the Minnetonka Community Center. (#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MARCH 17,1997 MEETING Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the Minutes of the March 17,1997 Planning Commission Meeting Vote; Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#1S) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF APRIL 28,1997 AND MAY 12, 1997 April 28 - McMillan May 12 - Lindquist ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to adjourn at 12:28 a.m. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Dale Lindquist, Chair Person