Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-09-1996 Council PacketAGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1996, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL 1 . Penny Steele, County Commissioner 2. CONSENT AGENDA XXOv s % APPROVAL OF MINUTES • 3. Regular Meeting of August 26, 1996 PARK COMMISSION COMMENfS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS * ^ PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 4. ^'2151 John & Joanne Hurd, 2795 Casco Point Road - Variances - Resolution <^5. #2155 Nancy Krause & Don Handlin, 3860 North Shore Drive - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Resolution 6. #2160 David Dotzenroth, 3225 Casco Circle - Variances - Resolution 7. #2161 James & Melissa Easley, 4105 Highwood Road - Variances - Resolution 8. #2164 Douglas J. Olson, 2601 West Lafayette Road - Variances - Resolution 9. #2166 Janet Kieman, 1491 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Resolution Ji 10. #2167 Allen & Judy Schefers, 2540 Casco Point Road - Conditional U.se Permit - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT >.<11. Order Feasibility Study - North Long Lake Area & Country Club Addition Sewer Hot Spots - Resolution 4.,^ fjM > CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 12. l ".i Planning Commission Vacancy v^l3. Appoiutment of Additional Election Judges - Resolution 14. Select Dates for Truth in Taxation Meeting 15. Adoption of Preliminary 1997 Budget and Tax Levy - Resolutions 16. Carbon Monoxide Alarm Response - Resolution i,;17. Resignation of John Gerhardson, Public Works Director djl8. Tax Forfeit Divided Parcel to be Released to Adjacent Property Owner - Resolution 19. Select Date and Time for Work Session to Review the Performance of the City Administrator i AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1996, 7:06 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT (*20.) LICENSES (•21.) BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVTNTS 09/09 09/10 09/10 09/16 09/17 09/23 Council meeting 7:00 p.m. PRIMARY ELECTION - No public meetings between 6 and 8:00 p.m. Last Day for Filing for Municipal Election - Filings Close at 5:00 p.m. Planning Commission 7:00 p.m. Highway 12 Mediation meeting 3:(X) p.m. Golden Valiey Council meeting 7:00 p.m. 1 i Public A ttendance Meeting D ate ^^P7T 9, F)9c, ^ C ouncil Planning commission Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information requested belo'v for our city records . i NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER A !.T^'C/VSCc 0-vc\L. 3. I c*-**:^ C!!t~_____^ 4. 5.. 6. 7.. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 09139S.4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUK'cji f/Fc-Ting DATE: September%,-^fi0- ^ ITEM Nof^ 9^ Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Admini^ator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administrator’s Report Item Description: Commissioner P'*nny Steele’s Appearance Before the Council Commissioner Penny Steel.-, who represents the Orono area on the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, has requested an opportunity to appear before the City Council to discuss issues that affect both the County and the City. This is an opportunity for the City Council to provide comments or ask questions regarding issues that affect the city. Possible issues to address with Commissioner Steele are as follows: 1.Indicate the importance of no further reductions in the recycling grants provided from the County to the cities. 2.Indicate the importance of ensuring adequate human services are provided to the residents of western Hennepin County communities. 3.Ask Commissioner Steele to discuss the County’s proposed 1997 budget and tax levy. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED No action required. 1 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 26,1996 The Council met on the above menMoned date with the following members preA^ Mayor Edward J Callahan Jr., Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Gabriel Jabbw^j. ® Charles Kelley, and JoEllen Hurr Representing Staff were Public Works Director JoW Gerhardson as Acting City Administrator, City Attorney Tom Radio. Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Zoning and Planning Administrator Michad Gaffron, City Engineer Shawn Gustafson, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. (#1) .«IM DANIELS, LAKE MLNNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION - 1997 BUDGET Tun Daniels, Cable Administrator, and Tim PatHn, Cable Commissioner, were present to discuss the past yearis activities and upcoming budget for 1997. Patrin reported that the activities for the year have revolved around four issues, 1) Telecomm**.iications Act, 2) right-of-way and easement rights, 3) merger, and 4) re- finnehising proposal. The Congressional legislation resulted in a major overhaul opening tdecommunications to the marketplace. This will allow cable, phone, and long distance to all use the telephone lines eliminating rate battles. The Commission will no longer regulate it. The right-of-way and easement use is being reviewed by cities. Daniels is of the belief that it will surface in the legislature in 1997 A franchise renew'al is occurring in 1997-98. A possible merger will free up funds for Triax, who has asked for an early renewal. This will allow the technology available in fiber optics and cable to be state of the art for Orono. Jabbour asked if bids were open and if the RFP procedure w ould be followed. Patnn said the Commission is open to it. Daniels said the franchises are non-exclusive and were looking at opening it up to others. The new north studio location was negotiated with Triax. The cable commission took over the access area relieving Triax of running the studio. Daniels and Patrin feel the cable commission is capable of a better performance. A new location for the studio is to be announced soon. Patrin said the budget for 1997 is similar to 1996 with small increases in franchise fees. The fee of $49.20 is a result of the north studio and growth in subscriptions. The operating expenses are up because of the employment of a person for the studio. There are also legislative fees The budget shows an overall increase of 2% and is being submitted to the Council for approval. TI MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 26. 1996 (#1 - Lake Miimetoirica Communications Commission - Continued) Hurr a^ed for an explanation for the increase in wages. Daniels said the 3% covers administrator, studio manager, secretary, and production assistant. Hurr also questioned the travel expense. The amount is incurred due to the large amount of traveling by Daniels in promoting the cable commission, includes legislative trips, and other related expenses, such as meals It was also noted the expenditures include an amount for two audits. The commission reviews the finances yearly, as well as the firochise fees for Triax, and allows funds for a future audit. Callahan informed the public that the cable commission was not funded by taxes but by firanchise fees. The information presented w as for information only and no decisions are made by the Council as to money spent by the cable commission. Kelley asked if the increase in franchise fees for 1996-97 were fi-om new households or reductions from franchisers. Patrin said the money is onI>’ an estimate but docs not go down, noting the amount is 5% of gross. Danieb said the cable commission enjoyed growth this year. Kelley added that the audit is also to ensure that the commission gets the 5%. Jabbour, who is the Council representative to the cable commission, asked to suggest another person to aid in representation due to his lack of time for involvement. Moorse is in possession of an applicant for such a spot. Hurr said the representative must be fi^om the Council, and Jabbour noted the ability to have an alternate Daniels said that along with the Council representative, an alternate can be chosen. The alternate can fill the representative seat when needed and have full voting power. J^bour moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the 1997 budget for the cable commission. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Jabbour thanked Patrin for his work as the Orono representative. Goetten noted that the Council will look at filling the alternate spot. (*M) CONSENT AGENDA Agenda items #5 and 7 were added to the Consent Agenda. Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cmr COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 26« 1996 APPROVAL OF MINUTES (•#3) REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 12,1996 Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of August 12, 1996. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS The Park Commission was not represented. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission Chair Dale Lindquist had no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#4) «150 KENT AND SUSAN SWANSON, 3229B CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3753 The applicants were present. Mabusth reported that this property provides access to two adjoining properties The proposal is for variances for hardcover in the 0-75' and 75-250' setback zones, lakeshore setback, and average lakeshore setback for the construction of two small additions. One addition is 27 s f to the lakeside consisting of a single-story bay addition located in the 0- 75' setback. The applicants propose the removal of a 3' wide deck at 103 s.f. This improvement would result in 76 s f reduction of structural coverage. The other addition is located outside of the 0-75' setback area. It is a single story addition to the kitchen to expand the dining room area. There would be no reduction in hardcover as improvements will be located over existing hardcover. The additions are located 30' and 40+’ in front of the average lakeshore setback. Mabusth said the applicants are in the process of reviewing their financial ability to complete the additions. Applicants may only proceed with one improvement. Mabusth noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance application. The only member voting against the proposal was Peterson, who historically has voted on principle against proposals encroaching the average lakeshore setback. Peterson did say that there was no visual impact for neighboring properties.i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 26, 1996 (#4 - <#2150 Kent and S-isan Swanson - Continued) Goetten asked the ^plicants which of the proposals they will construct Susan Swanson asked that both of the additions be approved. Swanson noted one will allow room for a dining room table Two access doors are now located next to each other, and it is the applicants desire to clear up a traffic pattern problem. Swanson added that the additions will not increase the hardcover on the property. J^bour moved, Hurr seconded, to approve Resolution #3753. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#5) #2156 MICHAEL & THERESA EASTMAN7LAKEVIEW GOLF, 4520 WEST BRANCH ROAD/405 NORTH ARM DRIVE - SUBDIVISION OF LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - RESOLUTION #3754 Hurt moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3754, granting a subdivision of a lot line rearramiement for Michael and Theresa Eastman of4520 West Branch Road and Lakeview Golf Course, 405 North Arm Drive. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2158 JOHN O’SULLIVAN/GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH PROPERTY, 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD - REZONING - ORDINANCE #149,2ND SERIES Applicants, Jolin O'Sullivan. Erwin Smith, and Dan Clausen, representative of the church, were present. Gaflfron reported that the request by O’Sullivan is for rezoning of the Grace Baptist Church property. A public hearing relating to the rezoning was held during the Planning Commission meeting on .August 19, 1996. Due to a time constraint with the p»«rchase offer, the applicants asked that the Council hear the issue at this meeting. Gaffron continued in reporting that the property is a 1.7 acre parcel located in the LRIC, 1/2 acre residential zone, and is requeste^i to be rezoned to the B5, Limited Neighborhood Business District. The property is located north of the intersection of CoRds 15 and 19 near Navarre Lane. The property is surrounded by LRIC zoning to the north and B1 commercial to the southwest and southeast. The proposal within the B-5 zoning is for a 2-story light retail and office building and may include a bank with drive-up lanes, parking areas, and a stormwater holding pond. The request is also for the rezoning of a portion of Navarre Lane between the O'Sullivan site currently under construction and the church property. This portion will eventually be the subject of a vacction request. MINIITES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 26, 1996 (H6 - #2158 John O'SulHvan/Grace Baptist Church Property - Rezoning - Continued) Gafllron informed the Council that the Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning and recommended approval by a vote of 6/0. Noted in their conditions and reasoning was the concern for the property in its present distressed condition and vacancy. The Planning Commission recommended rezoning without performance of a comprehensive study of the Navarre area because of the church condition and its location being surrounded by commercial on two sides. They also thought the B-5 zoning matched the proposed uses and noted the overwhelming support being given by the resideitts and businesses in the surrounding area. The Commissioners saw this development as being a possible catalyst for improving the Navarre area. Gaffron noted that the Planning Commission also saw the need to change wording within the B-S zoning list of allow ed uses They asked that the B*5 zoning be amended to eliminate some of the uses they see as inappropriate to the times. Gaflfron noted the petitions and letters of approval within the information packets. The Council was asked to take formal action for either adoption, denial, or tabling, and to direct Staff whether to proceed with amending the B-5 code Callahan asked O'Sullivan for his comments. O'Sullivan reported that he was invdved in the B>5 selection for the property He read the zoning codes and saw the B-5 as the best fit for the property and neighborhood. Two public tent meetings were then held. People living within 600' of the property as well as a 6 square block area were notified of the meetings The meetings were attended by 80 people. O'Sullivan said there were no objections voiced to the proposal O'Sullivan also noted that Planning Commission Chair Peterson and two other Commissioners attended at least one meeting. Peterson was said to have stated at the meeting that the Commission does not take rezoning lightly. O'Sullivan noted that Peterson made the motion for approval at the Planning Commission meeting commenting that the proposed use was the best fit for the site. O'Sullivan also reported that he contacted 80% of the businesses in the community. All of those contacted gav'e their support of the proposal and signed a petition. O'Sullivan also said he has received support of the City Staff. He reported that in meetings with Shawn Gustafson, City Engineer, and a County engineer, no red flags were thrown regarding access e.xcept that they not be too close to the comer. O'Sullivan noted a letter from Gustafson dated March 12 that states it appears the use is good and feasible from an engineering standpoint. Gustafson confirmed stating this in the tetter. O'Sullivan asked the Council to endorse the rezoning. He noted the number of fetters received favoring the proposal and related some of the comments received. Dan Clausen added that he would like to see the property sold noting that O'Sullivan has been the first developer with both a good plan and finances to back it up. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 26, 1996 (#6 - #2158 John O'Sullivan/Grace Baptist Church Property - Rezon'mg - Continued) Erwin Smith commented that he has alot of money invested in the area and would like to see the proposed development blend in with what has already been accomplished there. Callahan noted the comments and letters received. During public comments, Robyti Hallonquist, 3324 Navarre Lane, gave her strong support for a daytime business conducive in hours and securit>’ tvith that of the nei^borhood. She voiced her trust in O'Sullivan. Hallonquist said she has spoken with many of the neighbors and heard unanimous support. The only concern has been for increased traffic to Olive Avenue and Navarre Lane. The president of the local Re-Max Realty Office said O'Sullivan's would be an excellent business addition to the area He noted when people who move out of the area are asked, they note the lack of shopping in the area, adding that a retail addition would be wen received Jabbour asked O'Sullivan and Staff to comment about the concern by the Planning Commission for amendment of the B-5 zoning code Gaffron said Staff would need direction to proceed with an amendment. It would then go through the Planning Commission as a separate process on behalf of the City. Gaflron said it would not be tied to the application. Goetten added that it does not need to be tied to the application. Jabbour asked O'Sullivan how the proposal would be affected if Navarre Lane was kept open for a bike trail. O'Sullivan commented that he had set aside an area on one end of the site for a bike trail Jabbour asked what would occur if the Council decided not to vacate Navarre Lane. 0'Sulli\'an said the easements would have to be relocated. Jabbour noted that there was the possibility of no easement or vacation. O'Sullivan said he prefers the vacation but if he was unable to use it, the development would not be ruined. He did say he would ask for a driveway over it and a trail would be less of a concern. Callahan reported that the issues brought forward by Jabbour were not appropriate to the rezoning issue itself regarding the vacation of Navarre Lane and amerulment of the B-5 language. Jabbour agreed. These issues would be considered during the land use application Callahan said the particular proposal is a commitment to the parcel and b^ond the particular proposal. Hurr stated that the rezoning does not involve O'Sullivan only. She asked that the residents understand what is shown is what is on a proposal. Permission for proposals are based on what is in the code. Hurr said she is opposed to the rezoning noting the traffic in the area is a problem. Hurr questioned Staffs position regarding the proposal and rezorung. L . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 26,1996 (#6 - #2158 John O’Sullivan/Grace Baptist Church Property’ - Rezoning - Continued) Gaf&on noted it is Staffs position that a comprehensive study of the Navarre area should be completed before reacting to a particular proposal. Gaflfiron said he did not think the proposal was bad but there were many site issues to resolve. In the scheme of the comprehensive plan, Gaffron said the proposed rezoning does fit in He noted that two sides of the property were commercial, and the Comprehensive Plan map indicates the property may also be planned commercial. Absent a comprehensive study, Gaflron said there was a proposal before the City which requires review and a conclusion to be drawn. Gafiron said he is taking a neutral position on the rezoning. Hurr noted that the City was requested in September of 1995 to look at rezoning of another property in Navarre for an auto detail company. Hurt said Staff, at that time, indicated the City would not consider spot zoning nor did the City’ do spot zoning. Hurr said the City should be consistent and treat each applicant enually. Goetten responded that that particular application further south on Shadywood Road included two lots, one residential and one commercial There was no problem with the one commercial lot The second lot was asked to be considered for rezoning to commercial for a future addition Jabbour added that the applicant was looking at a vision for the future but did not make a formal request for rezoning. The applicant was only stating a philosophy. Jabbour commented that the comprehensive plan might indeed suggest the property be commercial and was actually planned to be commercial, though not zoned commercial. He asked Gaffron to clarify the position on this and the comprehensive plan taking precedence over the zoning ordinance Gaflron displayed an enlargement of the comprehensive plan map while noting the danger of doing so. The map of the property under discussion appears to be included in the area of commercial properties. Gaffron said it could be argued whether it was in or out of that particular area. In excerpts from the comprehensive plan, the language talks generally about Navarre, not specifically by properties. The need for cross roads, adequate to serve retail and office, appropriateness in or near the Navarre area, and with the map itself, suggests Navarre is considered a commercial area. The fact of being adjacent to two commercial properties may also iud reaching a conclusion. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 26, 1996 (#6 - #2158 John O’Sullivan/Grace Baptist Church Property - Rezoning - Continued) Callahan said he was at this point still undecided whether the property should be rezoned. He noted that the piece of property does fit in with the commercial area. Although an application is before the Council from a particular person to zone it commercial, Callahan said that applicant could change his mind away from the development. Once the property is changed to commercial, it would then open the church property to other options, and Callahan said the Council needs to consider that fact Callahan said it was also a fact that the proposal is not necessarily what will occur on the site Callahan said another consideration must also be the impact of such rezoning and building on the area If the Council is to look at a project having such impact, Callahan said they may also need to consider all of Navarre's business area and not just this particular property. If the rezoning does occur, Callahan said it would be convenient Callahan noted, if the property is rezoned, it would be easier to imagine that there would be alot of pressure to change other areas as well; thus, the need to look at all of Navarre Callahan also voiced concern in rezoning to B5 with the Planning Commission recommending changes be made to the language of that zoning. Callahan noted, in spite of his noted concerns, that the property is a natural for rezoning. Since the project remains and if a study of Navarre is conducted, Callahan said this area should be included in the B-5. Kelley said he was in favor of moving forw ard on the rezoning of the property now. Regardless of O’Sullivan's application, Kelley said he sees the B5 as a great use for the property. Goetten reported that she has spent a great deal of time thinking over the rezoning, reviewing the comprehensive plan, and discussing the issue with Gaffron. In response to Hurr's comment from past minutes on the concern over spot zoning, Goetten said she did not find it so compelling with all the other commercial areas surrounding the proposed site. Goetten noted the people in the area look upon the property as a conduit between the commercial and residential, and she agrees with that assessment Goetten said she was in support of the rezoning and voting on it at this meeting She felt a B-5 amendment could be reviewed at another time. Goetten noted that the church property has been vacant for a long time, this is the first viable proposal for that property, and the community is in support of it. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 26, 1996 (#6 - #2158 John O Sullivan/Grace Baptist Church Property - Rezoning - Continued) Jabbour said he believes Gaffron's remarks concern the property possibly being considered commercial under the comprehensive plan, which he feels overrides the ordinance Jabbour noted receipt of a letter from a person in the community \\ ho would like to see the Navarre area similar to that found in Wayzata and Excelsior He does not agree with that philosophy. He noted how owner occupied businesses take pride in their area, monitor it, and invest in the future, which is why Jabbour feels that O'Sullivan is doing so Jabbour said, while the area can be studied, the fact remains that very few steps have been taken to move this area forward adding that a critical mass of people are needed for this to happen Having 4-5 businesses as owner occupied helps fulfill this vision according to Jabbour He added that the B-5 was a good use of the property and complies with the purpose of protecting the neighborhood Jabbour said he was in favor of rezoning. He reminded the Council of the reason the property has been kept residential, as Orono is difficult to deal with regarding rezoning and urged the Council not to be afraid of the next proposal looking at rezoning Hurr reported that the comprehensive plan also talks of housing tor this particular site, which would allow for 6 units in 3 duplexes Hurr noted that Orono is lacking affordable housing. Callahan responded that no one has proposed such housing for the site. Jabbour added that he would like to see a clinic and drug store, but no one is here to provide for that. O'Sullivan noted that a person first has to buy the property, but that was the reason B5 was selected as there is no problem with the uses listed in the B5, neither were they offensive O'Sullivan commented that he saw his proposal as the best fit for the community. If he does not follow through with the proposal, O'Sullivan noted that any other developer would have to follow the code O’Sullivan said he felt the reason the property has remained residential for so long is because of the church building being there. He asked Gafffon to display the zoning map, exhibit D, and noted how the church faces the Amoco station across the street. O'Sullivan said he could not imagine it as residential property. He believes a church fits in a residential neighborhood Once that church building is gone, O'Sullivan said the property presents a clean line from the commercial to the residential. He also added that he does not believe other neighboring property owners will in turn ask to be rezoned Callahan responded that he did not agree. Regarding the B5, Callahan said it was only a suggestion that the B5 be amended. Since the issue is basically the consideration of rezoning for this property to commercial, Callahan said he was inclined to vote in support of it. He asked the other Council Members if the zoning should be studied if businesses in the area desire a change. He noted the lack of results from the last study but felt it was a good time to revisit the issue. Callahan added that if this property ’s development has an effect, U w ould behoove the Council to see if a flow can be getterated to benefit all. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 26, 1996 (#6 -U2\5S John O'Sullivan/Grace Baptist Church Property - Rezoning - Continued) Goctten noted that a rezoning requires a 4/5th majority vote She noted that the Council would be putting faith in the person before us, but it is considered Orono's downtown area, and Goctten feels she should support and trust what O'Sullivan is planning to accomplish as it will impact the whole area Callahan responded that the rezoning to commercial is not dependent on O'Sullivan Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the rezoning of the Grace Baptist Church Property at 2380 Shad>wood Road to B5, Ordinance #149, 2nd Series. V'ote; Ayes 4, Nays 1, Hurr. City Attorney Radio asked to comment on the Council's statement of trust. He noted that the property is now rezoned B5 commercial, and if the B5 was to be considered for amendment, the Council should proceed post haste He reasoned that the Council should not be in the middle of the amendment during the re\aew of the building permit application Callahan noted this would involve a comprehensive review of the zoning for expansion and language as drawn attention to by the Planning Commission. Jabbour asked that all persons in the area be notified. Hurr asked that all of the requirements of the particular zone be reviewed noting the large number of variances allowed on the current O'Sullivan development. If this property as a vacant piece of land still requires a number of variances, Hurr said that it may be that the code is not correct Callahan responded that the description in the zones also refers to other areas such as Hwy 12 and may have merit. He noted a particular area in that zone also needs to be reviewed. Gaffron said he has identified three tasks: 1) defining the appropriate .aws in B5, 2) setback and hardcover requirements in B5 and other zones, and 3) studying the Navarre area, both vacant and developed parcels, and what it should be. Gaffron said the issue of uses could be on the September agenda but the study would require more time. Hurr said she was concerned with precedent setting of allowing variances on raw land, noting it would then be difficult to hold development along Hwy 12 to the code requirements. Gaffion informed the Council that the B5 square footage is a minimum of 20,000 s.f The property in question at 1.7 acres is larger than that minimum. MINUTES Oh THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 26, 1996 (#6 - #2158 John O'SuHivan/Grace Baptist Church Property - Rezoning - Continued) Callahan asked that Staff look at the Navarre area as a starting point. Gafifron asked whether a B-5 amendment public hearing should be held at the Planning Commission's September meeting Callahan asked that the B5 be reviewed first Hurt noted that the Council can look at the B5 without the other zones and then make comparisons. Mabusth noted Radio's precaution She said part of the comprehensive study would involve review of the whole zoning Callahan commented that the desire was to upgrade Navarre, and the time to propose studying the issue is now. Gafffon said he would outline where ,ne issues are at the next CoutKil meeting, and the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing to discuss the changes to the B5 at their September 19 meeting. (*#7) #2163 LARRY & SIL\RON GEHL, 1825 CONCORDIA STREET- VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3755 Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3755, granting lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback variances to Larry and Sharon Gehl at 1825 Concordia Street for the construction of a second story deck addition located less than 75' from Lake Mirmetonka and encroaching the average lakeshore setback Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Goetten reported on attending a meeting regarding land use study for the Met Council. She said the committee will be the conduit between the Met Council and cities in relating decisions made by the Met Council on development re-development, and land use. Hurr said she is working on a committee for the League of Minnesota Cities, whose job is to evaluate the Met Council Kelley s^d he w ould like to see the members of the Met Council as elected officials. Hurr agreed. Callahan did not agree voicing concern for accountability. Jabbour said he spoke with Mayor Tod Olson of Long Lake regarding a Watershed meeting dealing with plans to handle the watershed regionally. Jabbour said he informed Olson that a letter or document should be sent to the Met Council indicating Long Lake's agreement for sewering. Callahan said it was determined that the sewer capacity w ould handle the amount of sewer units available so permission from Long Lake was not necessary He added that the sewer agreement would need to be amended. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 26,1996 (Mayor/Council Report - Continued) Kelley reported on a meeting regarding Hwy 12/Co Rd 6 attended by two Planning Commissioners and three Council Members, along with John Shardlow. It was recommended that the area be left as B-6 zoning with a PUD as a backdrop for retail development This gives the City the ability’ to more closely monitor retail not covered by the B-6 zoning. Callahan said the committee also decided on the location of Kelley Parkway for extension to establish the north boundary line. Hurr asked if the road would be at the City's expense Callahan said the road would only be dedicated. A language change in the B-6 zoning ordinance was also considered This modification pertains to the CUP to disallow restaurants with drive-thru windows. Jabbour noted that Mark Engebretsoti has obtained a permit from the MCWD for the ice arena. ENGINEER REPORT Gustafson had no report. He said he is filling in for Cook who is on vacation. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#«) ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESIGNATION OF STEVE PETERSON AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Callahan moved, Hurr seconded, to accept the resignation of Steve Peterson as Ouurman of the Planning Commission effective August 26,1996, and to ratify any action taken at the last Planning Commission meeting as well as tonight and ratify Peterson's authority to act in intermediary time period granting approval of actions taken. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Callahan tabled filling the vacancy on the Planning Commission to the next Council meeting. The current list of applicants will be reviewed and were given for information only. No requests for applications were taken. (H9) COUNCIL SALARY ADJUSTMENT - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT #150, 2ND SERIES Hurr moved, Callahan seconded, to adopt Ordinance Amendment #150, 2nd Series, increasing the salary of the Mayor to $4,200 per year and increasing the salary of each Council Member to $3,500 per year effective 1/1/97. Kelley was informed that the last adjustment occurred in 1987. Goetten said she believed it occurred prior to 1986. Vote: Ayes 5. Nays 0. 12 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITT' COl^NCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 26,1996 (#I0| SCHEDULING OF A WORK SESSION TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL 1997 SEWER PROJECTS A Work Session was scheduled to discuss potential 1997 sewer projects for Tuesday, September 3, 19% at 8 00 a m. (#11) TELECOMMUNICATION TOW ER MORATORIUM - ORDINANCE #151, 2ND SERIES Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Ordinance #151, 2nd Series, placing a 120 day moratorium on the granting of any authority relating to the siting of wireless commutations ftcUities and structures in the City of Orono. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstain I, Hurr. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT City Attorney Tom Radio introduced himself as a temporary replacement, along with Kevin Staunton, for Tom Barrett, while he is on sabbatical. Radio has attended meetings in the past. Radio extended his appreciation to the City and Council fc^ their support of his firm. City Attorney Radio requested an Executive Session. (•#12) LICENSES There were no license applications. (•#13) BILLS Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Callahan adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 8:57 p.m. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M Hallin, City Clerk COij-i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Ssp DATE: Au^OKcjij^ ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building &. Zonine Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2151 John and Janice Hurd, 2795 Casco Point Road - Variances - Resolution Zoning District:LR-IC Adjusted lot area * 31,447.5 s.f. or .72 acres (1,680 s.f. of Casco Point Road excluded from lot area), refer to Exhibit L Application: Planning Commission reviewed the variance application at their July and August meetings. Applicants have proposed the razing of the existing residence and construction of a new residence at their lakeshore property. The lot meets the area and width standards of the LR-IC zoning district. The improvement plan does involve a variance to the average lakeshore setback and a hardcover variance within the 250-500' setback area. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1.Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B) - Review of lot standards. A. Area Required = 21,780 s.f. Existing = 31,447.5 s.f. exclusive of road right-of-way B.Lot width Required = 100' At shoreline = 109.8' At 75' setback = 107' 2.Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage. Total lot area = 31,447.5 s.f. Allowed = 4,717 s.f. or 15% Proposed = 3,772.33 s.f. or 11.9%* No variance required. ♦Grade level screen porch = 210 s.f.; main level deck = 408 s.f.; house/garage = 2,768.33 s.f.; boathouse = 400 s.f. 3.Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback variance. Please refer to Exhibits I and M. Variances must be addressed from average lakeshore setback line determined by Code rather than agreed upon setback line of applicant and neighbors. i Request for Cdimcil Action continued page 2 August 30, 1996 Zoning File #2151 John and Janice Hurd, 2795 Casco Point Road Allowed = O' Existing = 24* (lower level principal structure addition plus upper level decks) Proposed = a. ir bay addition (7' from agreed upon lakeshore setback line) b. Lower level screen porch = IT (13' from agreed upon lakeshore setback line) c. Main level deck = 20' (15 from agreed upon lakeshore setback line) Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Hardcover variances. A. 0-75' setback area = 8,227.5 s.f. Allowed = 0 s.f. Existing = 400 s.f. or 4.8% B.75-250’ setback area = 15,750 s.f. Allowed = 3,937.5 s.f. or 25% Proposed = 3,292.8 s.f. or 20.09% (original proposal = 3,943.3 s.f. or 25.0367%) Adjusted for hardcover in the 0-75' setback area = 3,692.83 s.f. or 23.4% No variance required. C.250-500' setback area = 9,150 s.f Adjusted area = 7,470 s.f (excludes 1,680 s.f Casco Point Road right-of-way) Allowed = 2,241 s.f or 30% Proposed = 2,912.7 s.f or 38.9% (original proposal = 3,414 s.f or 45.7%) Variance = 671.7 s.f or 8.9% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners' List D-1-2 Hardship Statements E-1-2 Neighbors' Acknowledgement Forms F-1 Grundeen Letter-July 15th Meeting F-2 Grundeen Letter-August 19th Meeting Request for Council Action continued page 3 August 30, 1996 Zoning File #2151 John and Janice Hurd. 2795 Casco Point Road G-1 G-2 H ■ I . J K L M N O P Q Erickson Letter-July 15th Meeting Erickson Letter-August 19th Meeting Theilmann Letter-7/8/96 Topographic Map Locating Agreed Upon Lakeshore Setback Line by Applicant and Neighbors Hardcover ln\entory 75-250V250-500' Setback Area Hardcover Plan Existing Improvement/Survey Proposed Improvement/Survey Elevations Lower Floor Plan Main Level Floor Plan Upper Level Floor Plan Review of Application The subject property meets the required area and width standanls of the LR-IC zoning district. Structural coverage is not an issue, proposed at 11.9%. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback area does not exceed the allowed 25% even with the inclusion of the boathouse area adjusted at 23.4%. The exclusion of the 20' Casco Point Road corridor has had an impact on hardcover projections within the 250-500 ’ setback area. Hardcover in the original proposal was proposed at 45.7% and has now been reduced at 38.9%. The original proposal for redevelopment of the property presented to the Planning Commission at their July meeting w’as tabled because of the intensity and number of variances sought by applic.mts. The neighbors had also submitted written objection to the proposed encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line. (Review Exhibit F-1, G-1 and H). The existing residence. Exhibit L, is located approximately 24' in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The encroaching portion of the principal structure consists of a lower level principal structure addition with tw'o levels of upper decks. Mr. Theilmann, review Exhibit 1, owner of residence identified as "D", has concern with the leapfrog effect of the average lakeshore setback line. Theilmann noted that the Grundeen residence. Exhibit 1, house designation C, would be rebuilt some day and that if the Hurd residence was installed 20' in front of the average lakeshore setback line, this would have a major impact on Theilmann's lakeshore views. The houses along this stretch of shoreline are all located along a high bank and overlook grassed lakeshore yards at an average depth of 175'. Planning Commission members noted the new residence is more massive and would have more of an impact on the adjacent residences. Request for Council Action continued page 4 August 30, 1996 Zoning File #2151 John and Janice Hurd, 2795 Casco Point Road At the July meeting the neighbors were asked to meet with the applicant to discuss their concerns and define an acceptable setback line from the lakeshore, although certain members cautioned that there was no guarantee that a setback variance would be granted to the average lakeshore setback line. Planning Commission members also noted concern with the 20' x 20’ boathouse located within lakeshore protected area. Staff has consistently raised the issue of the removal of boathouse structures where applicants propose additional hardcover improvements in the 0-75' setback areas. Members may recall the recent Woodhouse application that would have resulted in increases in hardcover in the 0- 75' setback area if the boathouse and attached deck w^ere not removed. The Woodhouse boathouse was also in disrepair and needed major structural improvements. Staff raised the issue as to whether the Hurd boathouse should be removed because of excesses in the 250-500' setback area. As directed, the applicants did meet with the three neighbors to develop a plan for the relocation of the new residence. Refer to Exhibits 1 and M, they have agreed that the setback line defined by the Erickson house. Exhibit I, designation "B", and Theilmann house. Exhibit I, designation "D", would determine the lakeshore setback line. Refer to Exhibit M, the proposed three story bay addition will encroach that agreed upon line by 7'. The main level deck would encroach the agreed upon line by 15' and the lower level screen porch by 13'. Please note all three neighbors have approved this encroachment. Refer to Exhibits F-2 and G-2, the Grundeens and Ericksons have submitted letters in support of the revised plan. Mr. Theilmann did not submit his approval in writing but appeared at the August Planning Commission meeting to voice his approval of the revised plan. Refer to Section 3 above (pertinent ordinance facts). The .^^etback variance to be granted is defined by the Orono Code. If approved as proposed, the setback variances will be granted to the average lakeshore setback line as defined in Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B). In the Planning Commission memo for the August meeting, staft had asked Commission members to consider total hardcover on the property as applicant proposed an 8.9% excess in the 250-500’ setback area. The property is allowed a total of 6,178.5 s.f. of hardcover improvements as follows: 75-250' setback area allowed 3,937.5 s.f. 250-500' setback area allowed 2,241 s.f. Total = 6,178.5 s.f. Applicants propose a total of 6,605.5 s.f. with an excess of 427 s.f. L Request for Council Action continued pages August 30, 1996 Zoning File #2151 John and Janice Hurd, 2795 Casco Point Road Planning Commission members u'ere asked to consider reductions in either proposed or existing improvements to offset the 427 s.f. excess of total hardcover on the property. Planning Commission members accepted the hardcover as proposed in the revised plan based on the unique findings or hardships set forth by applicant and as noted by members at both the July and August meetings as follows: A.Residence structures along this section of lakeshore are located 175+' from shoreline restricting placement of structure on property. B. C. The majority of residences are located to the east or street side of property. The boathouse at 400 s.f. in area is in excellent condition and has been maintained by owners. Both neighbors on adjacent properties have asked that the structure remain because of its attractiveness. D.The higher elevations at the residential construction line eliminates any view impact by the single storj' boathouse at the lakeside. E.Placement in approximate footprint of existing residence will eliminate need to remove trees and the further excavation into the higher elevation. The majority of runoff from the developed site will drain towards lakeshore over the extensive 180' of grassed yard. F.The property is located on the point of the shoreline and as a result of the angle of the shoreline, the structure is located further from the shoreline than the neighboring houses. G.The homeowners, receiving most impact by new improvements, have approved the redevelopment plan for the property. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval (4 ayes, 1 nay) of the Hurd variance application as amended for the August meeting based on the unique findings and hardships set forth above. Approval was conditioned on applicants providing an amended survey with building permit application locating the Theilmann residence to confirm the agreed upon lakeshore setback line by neighbors. In my discussions with Mr. Hurd, he has advised that he would attempt to provide the updated survey for the Council meeting. The denial of the application was from Chairman Peterson who has consistently voted against any encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line. \ Request for Council Action continued page 6 August 30,1996 Zoning File #2151 John and Janice Hurd, 2795 Casco Point Road The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission’s recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the approval resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B) AND 2 FILE NO. 2l5t WHEREAS, John D. Hurd and Janice L. Zehringer-Hurd (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 2795 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 129 and that part of Lot 130 lying Southerly of a line drawn median with the Northerly and Southerly lines of said Lot 130. together with that part of Lakeshore Avenue \ acaied and of the tract of land between said vacated as'enue and the shore of Lake Minnetonka, as designated and defined in the instrument of dedication on the plat of SPRING PARK, lying between the Westerly extension of said median line and the Westerly extension of the Southerly line of said Lot 129, all in SPRING PARK. For purposes of this surv'ey, said median line has been assumed to be a line 130 to the midpoint of the Westerly line of said lot 130. (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (B^ and 2 to permit construction of a new residence to be located 11' in front of the average lakeshore setback line and a main level deck at 20’ in front of the average lakeshore setback line where no such encroachment is allowed and a hardcover variance within the 250-500’ setback area proposed at 2,912.7 s.f. or 38.9% where the Code would allow 30%. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2151. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 21,780 s.f. or .5 acres in area. The property consists of 31,447.5 s.f. or .72 acres. Page 1 of 5 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 15, 1996 and August 19, 19% and recommended approval of the variances as amended based upon the following findings and hardships: A. Residence structures along this section of lakeshore are located 175+' from shoreline restricting placement of structure on property. The majority of residences are located to the east or street side of property. B. C. The boathouse at 400 s.f. in area is in excellent condition and has been maintained by owners. Both neighbors on adjacent properties have asked that the structure remain because of its attractiveness. D. The higher elevations at the residential construction line eliminates any negative impact on lakeshore views by the single story boathouse at the lakeside. E. 4. F. G. Placement in approximate footprint of existing residence will eliminate need to remove trees and further excavation into the higher elevations to the east. The majority of runoff from the developed site will drain towards lakeshore over the extensive 180' of grassed yard. The property is located on the point of the shoreline and as a result of the angle of the shoreline, the structure is located further from the shoreline than the neighboring houses. The homeowners, receiving most impact from new construction, have approved the redevelopment plan for the property. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a Page 2 of 5 demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the communitj'. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a setback variance of 11’ for the principal structure and 20’ for the main level open deck to the average lakeshorc setback line and grants a hardcover variance of 671.7 s.f or 8.9% to permit construction of a new residence on the property located at 2795 Casco Point Road, subject to the following conditions: 1.Prior to the razing of the existing residence and detached garage, applicant's contractor shall obtain a demolition permit from the City of Orono. Applicant or applicant’s contractor shall be responsible for installing erosion control until groundcover is restored on property. 2.Applicants shall provide an updated survey locating all proposed improvements. The updated survey must be submitted with the building permit application along with adjusted hardcover inventory forms. The survey shall include the Theilmann residence located at 2799 Casco Point Road in order to confirm approved lakeshore setback line for principal structure. 3.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 9, 1997). Page 3 of 5 i 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undereigned j^plicants 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 thb 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 September, 1996. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of September, 1996 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 4 of 5 r • r? • ■ p 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Pubi ic within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 CT' '.f Ir Application # X' ^ ^______ Date Received C - X/ - Amount Paid A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) m » Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ® ^ 1^1 (no change from original application) ^ Variance for non-conforming structures $k /00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) f. :•••• Vi \ ; PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address .~i^ ^ ^ • ^9 1 V \ J i J5UC/\gufC5a ^ I -1 —, , . ^----------------------- — Propert)- Identification Number (P T-D.t - 11 H ^ J Anach legal description to appUcation if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired S / 9 / * 9 • (month/year) I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: i^-'^sidential ___^other (specify) Zoning District: _____________________________ PPLICANT ^ Crvl^ Name ^vcuAvbo —---------— --------------------- AHHrP«;v vA<i4^ ^.T City:^^>2x0 Zip: Phone fhomei ^ 37 • ^ o “TT Phone fwt)rki ”137- •a'es'o OWNER (if different than applicant) Name*^FoUrv 4- ct—Vi Address: aH Q ~R<\._____ City.AOc^ Phone (home) H*1 h 9 Phone (work) ^ ^ 9 - S3'2. Q •rja^Ch-______Zip: 55 31/ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: V>CU^------------------— (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARI. NCES 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 property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary) i REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the aPPlKatlOn d^adlint datg HI ftrdgr for your application to he considered complete; 1. 1 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 Completed Application Form Certified Propert>’ Owners List of owners within ISO', 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 sur\'ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy iVi" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 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 ot this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that jyuiT yariange anniication is not complete if the above information.h.i|? nOt b^yn incIwdfiiL APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE , u ^ 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 re^w of this application, and certifies that the infonnation supplied is tr^and correct toi^j be^f his/her knowledge. J Date V-Applicant's Signature ^ / [‘OWNER'S SIGNATUILE/ ^ ... ki The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authonzes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultcujts. ag^ts.^di^ission members, and Council .•----------------J this request.Cltu^r in'- ''j-----y --------’ yi • members for purposes of investigation and v<nfiMU Owner's Slgnatur/^^y//>^^//f ^late Applicant must ^ave all submittals intc^yhe CiV'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 \ L._. 1 i f 1 - . ■:, ■-----jfn^ mr^i—I-----I, - I—I air |- i— T i i tvh • «i.- ^vT-•-ll-l ti< TT' ■'^f»,» RUN DATE 06/1V9A BATCH 511 0. iPROP ADOR QNNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODRPROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADOR GHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR % PROP ADOR OWER NANE TAXPAYER ‘ NAME/AOOR f HENNEPIN COUNTY PRCH’ERTY imT^HATXGN SYSTEM PROPERTY QNNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4354Cil PAGE SZ36 20-117-23 23 000702755 CASCO POINT RO 0 S t J BREITNER DAVID S A JANA BREITNER 2755 CASCO PT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 000900038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARKA/13/79 ST DEED 15A75A 38 20-117-23 23 001«00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARKA/13/79 ST DEED 1S475A : U/*38 20-117-23 23 001100038 ADDRESS UNASSIGICO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 154754 38 20-117-23 23 001202774 CASCO POINT RD KELLE M ET ALB C DOHNEY A K H OOII^Y 2774 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 001402797 CASCO POINT RD 9 J GRUNOEEN A J A GRUNDEEN RONALD J GRUNDEEN 2797 CASCO PT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0017 02795 CASCO POINT RO J D HURO/J L ZEHRINGER-HURO J 0 HURO/J L ZEHRINGER-HURO 2795 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0018 02773 CASCO POINT RD ELAINE E OLSON ELAINE ELLEN ERICKSON 2773 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0019 02745 CASCO POINT RD RAJ PUTNAM RICHARD A PUTNAM 2745 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 ... ij • . 4 •n 38 20-117-23 32 0014 02800 CASCO POINT RO THOMAS B KING THOMAS B KING 2600 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0018 02794 CASCO POINT RO LAURIE F QUINN LAURIE QUINTi 2794 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA m 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0019 02801 CASCO POINT RD P J HAUSER A R MASON HAUSER P J HAUSER A R MASON HAUSER 2601 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 !(■ / 38 20-117-23 32 0020 02799 CASCO POINT RD TOOD J THEILMANN TODD J THEILMANN 2799 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 511 00013 RUN DATE 0A/1V9ABATCH 5U;Lfi ■f . ■V"'r I'' • r ;■ 1 .r **- • HEJfCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI^SS^Ol PAGE SS 1^. I CERTIFY THAT THE FACl^ REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATim OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEItIkPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLED6E AND BELIEF DATE ^'2^*%by ^z/ -i ' % ; Dear City of Orono, We feel we have a beautiful lot and have lived in the existing home for over 5 years. We love the area and neighborhood. We have had many people out to address the many problems with the existing home. Al! of whom have advised us that new construction is the most cost effective way to address the problems of 3 different foundations and 5 poorly constructed additions. Our request for variances on the average lake shore setbacks are as follows: We wish to put the new home in basically the same position as the old one in order to take advantage of the beautiful view we have without disturbing any trees and to use the natural hill creating a walkout entry on the lowest level which our existing house now has. We have put much thought into what would look good on our lot and take advantage of views, angling the new house on the lot in order to keep views of the neighbors. Because of the configuration of the point and the angle of the shoreline our house is set back farther from the shoreline than the neighboring houses. We have worked with different builders and architects and finally came up with our dream home that we plan to spend the rest of our lives in. We feel that what we are asking for is reasonable and that the plan fits our property wonderfully and will look great from both the street and the lake. Hard cover; our existing hard cover parking/play area is located on the west side of Casco R. Rd. This is a very busy and often difficult road to back onto, and it is hazardous to place a play area so close to the street. We request additional hard cover for a turn around for our cars witch will double as a play area away from the street, this Improvement would make It safer for us to get cars out and create a much safer place for our and neighborhood children who play here. It would also improve the aesthetics of the property and provide a more pleasant atmosphere In the neighborhood. Respectively, Application # Date ReceiTed 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) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.(^y_- After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) j \ •• I ‘ • Kar>«----a \ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address _______________ 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. Present use of property: ___residential ___other (specify). Zoning District:_------------------------------------------------------ APPLICANT Name Phone (home). Phone ('vork)_ Address:City:.Zip:. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ____________________ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:,Zip:_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ISO. Describe request in detail: —fliE— (attach additional sheets if nt :essary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Aiea _ Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side lardcover Lot Coverage Rear ‘-''^Average Lakeshore Other (specify) IIARDSIIIP/DESCRIPTION of UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: -r-o TMts. ---- ^ i^0CA>-nu> -TV4^ -ra^ -rv»\s LeOL-rt.aO>. NVCS. V-H?<aA -T^ 3'^ Ml I . ■ - 1 ■■■---------------------------------------------------------- "ru<2.v,a So AS 7 ovoto <.i»v!_ oc=’ -rU\Jl \-VA«ocosJvij<l. \/AA.«A*-4Ca1. ^0/t 2_<UolS. . ~rwis '-«▼ JjWovjvjo we.v.P A'AOvivj’r Soo ) buosv Twvi.. Op=rr "rw>L_ *tv3Y2aJ A<l,0'Jvs»& ... r ^ V n /• • Ij 1: i:X , I I Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form * c^fjQi '2^~7~?S CT'i^^/ClD [print name(s)] (print address] p-^.eD have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^'dct VT. KfA, 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 confinn for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvemem plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner DateV \ Property Owner Date f ‘ A. Pi' t. • .V I (we) Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form 1 • I i J have reviewed .he plans for die proposed improvemen. or proposed use of *e property located !!f KV. also referred to as Land Use Appl.eauon No--------------■ project or use requires Council approval. Pr?Tperty O r’/.££ i .i \ Date Date ....T................*... ............................ T PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 15, 1996 AGENDA ITEM #2151 JOHN AND JANICE III RD. THE OWNERS OF 2795 CASCO POINT ROAD. TO; Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono PO Box 66 Cr>-stal Bay, MN. 55323 Tel. (612)473-7357 FROM: Ronald and Joy Grundeen 2797 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Tel (612)471-9133 SUBJECT: Avert^e lakeshore setback variance CONCERNS; The existing structure has an encroachment of approximately 15 feet on the lake side anct is approximately 26,5 feet in width. The depth of the house is approximately 38.7 feet on the South side facing 2797 Casco Point Road. The new structure would add to the encroachment, making it 24 feet on the lake side and with additional decking and a width of approximately 52.5 feet and extend to'vard the road on the South side, facing 2797 Casco Point Road, approximately 76 feet. REQUESl:Maintain the required setback that would apply to any new structure to preserve the view for all the adjoining residents and preserve the natural contour of the lake setting. 1 also feel that the proposed plan would diminish my lakeside view considerably, and affect the resale value of my property. Approval of this lakeshore setback variance would allow a future owner of my property to build closer to the lake and affect the adjoining property to the South at 2799 Casco Point Road. Sincerely^. Ron & Jov Grundeen ------ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 19,1996 AGENDA ITEM #2151 JOHN AND JANICE HURD. THE OWNERS OF 2795 CASCO POINT ROAD. 0 TO: Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono PO Bo.x 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 Tel. (612)473-7357 FROM: Ronald and Joy Gnindeen 2797 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN. 55391 Tel. (612) 471-9133 SUBJECT: Average lakeshore setback variance. CHANGES: We have reviewed the revised proposal for the new addition submitted by John and Janice Hurd for the new structure at 2795 Casco Point Road. We feel that this is an acceptable proposal and meets with our approval. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. on & Joy Grundeen C Jx(.C ^ AUG 13 1396 CLA! NE ERICKSON t/n^%r ^ j\)\." ^ *f. <«—C3„x-*»—♦'»—>— <_v-) (^ /^/!Lc>>_-.^ ^-j '-^•-fr^^'^-'^ ‘'^ "2-7 ‘r 5 <^' /?/ ^<<1 6- - / -^-€^1______ c» ^ *r '-^l. c-»-*—i£Z_..«_^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ /r-^ ^L g ^^ /V->—‘jh*-*- T-o------ J*___^ ::z-.yCc_^<r • «—^ <L^ <v. cAc^ : . <r:7C^ • r^'v —^<z—<0-1^—:^i ^1-<1 —cc V7.3 <r^-*----) ^ ■ X—^ ^-----—' £r:^£r-.z^> ____j?ricteon^2??(^ 2773 Casco Pt. Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 (612) 471-7882 ..aei.'M-iMa^^^ism- ?-. ? :r^ * •im SCalnx ^xicHuyn 2773 Caxay CPoini <z/^oaJ ni^j^2o£a, ^M^nn£U>ta 3539^ Ldcl^rri . jQ_-> AUG 1 9 OP c r I • H / * / __i July 8. 1996 H Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 , V RE:Land Use Application #2153 John and Janice Hurd 2795 Casco Point Rd. Variance Request I strongly oppose the above-captioned variance request of John and Janice Hurd scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission on July 15, 1996 for the following reasons: 1. The Lakeshore View Line and the 75-250’ setback area was established for a specific purpose - to protect all lakeshore land owners, to preserve their rightful enjoyment of viewing the lake and the natural contour of the lake setting. I will not approve of any request that would be to the detriment of existing land owners. 2. The variance request is not an add-on to an existing home, but rather a brand new construction in which the present land owners have specifically designed their new home for their own personal satisfaction with no regard for the setback requirements, or the boomerang effect it could have on the entire neighborhood. 3. The request for variance would add approximately 24 ’ to the encroachment, thus greatly reducing the view angles of homes located at 2797 Casco Point Road and 2799 Casco Point Road. 4. If the variance request is granted, what is to stop new and/or abutting land owners to continue to build new and larger dwellings closer and closer to the lakeshore and continue the neglect of the view line and the 75-250’ setback area. I request that the City of Orono enforce the existing View Line and the 75 - 250 ’ setback area. I request that any existing dwellings that are being replaced by new construction be contained within the existing View Lines and the 75 - 250 ’ setback area guidelines. I request that the City of Orono uphold its strong policy of protecting the natural contour of the lake setting along Casco Point and continue to bring new construction within the current lakeshore setback guidelines. Respectfully submitted. Todd Theilmann 2799 Casco Point Road Orono, MN 55391 Tel: (612)471-1125 b •V: V / / //'./>•'>,■■ Water 929.6 hL»1 02 '96 11:04 hM ATZJ 9015PT P.5-^?HARDCOVXR CALCULATION WOBKSHSET SETIIACK EUtNE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-ty FXIPTIWG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House (Aa X length ( A~> M -» (. 2. <t4)* 50(».t000' iud Width Yi. ( \X<\ ^A-< C \ B. Gai»ie C. Dmeway — ^ o ^X K — o Sidewalk \ xj c 3 K X X F.Pattn^6gk^( \ A$i \__wtuS X OHSTto lA R \A X < AU 00'> Landscape Umkrlaiii Dy Plastic ( ZAl^\ -¥( 7 6 ) -fr* ' (T) ® K X CSi ^ C. Other total hardcover in zone total property area in zone •3. 2 *t . 63 — B ts', iso-CO X 100 la’ll oo S.F. as S.F S F. S F ■~o-“S.F. S.F. S.F. U3 30 S.F. 7h4 »00 S.F. 3^-4.0fc> S.F Udi.QO 5 F AAl.OU S.F S.F S.F S.F 63 S.F. im.^ma.ao S.F. PpixwiAFn iiardcovk R m .WHL < « 2tf0- soo’) * .S F. A.H<m.xe Ltfifth \ X Widlh *- o —S.F. X -- 4-*S.F. X #X O —S.F. D.Garage Driveway ^22lrx%^ ^ C''X c»Lx ii'i .S.F. V ak ^ ^ ^ ^ # C94f » xito) *- C ft- X I '*• Q. X ^3Zioa.5^t sst.oo S.F. t . X \ A(b 00 S.F. D.Sidewalk X a \\*^ TS-S.F. 1 C* W ^ ( so if X «IStlOO S.F. E. \^^V4 PaliU'Deik X ■a — o — S.F. S.F. F.Uutdscape X X — O— — o— S.F. S.F. Oitderlatn By Plastic Odter X X .- o—_ S.F. X .S.F. Cf. UABrt/'nVCD IM 7nWF S.F. IUl<^L. nc^rvi^v W ^ I-IX - total property area T>tzz ys - IN ZONE B *». JSO „ X 100 •^•>«o oo S.F. A C8 % 4S'7.*7S aa («’T- 1 li A B A B 1 n • I iiiiuiiiiiiiiiim i Sep REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^9$s DATE: September 4rl996 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: ^2155 Nancy Krause and Dan Handlin/Cit>' of Orono, 3860 North Shore Drive - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, Vz Acre Application: Request for approval of a subdivision of Cily-owned ta.x forfeit land to allow conveyance of a 2,000 s.f portion of the Cit> property to the County for sale to the adjacent property owner. The piupose of *his process is to accommodate the applicants’ existing driveway. List of Exhibits A - Resolution Approving Subdivision B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 8/26/96 C - Memo and Exhibits of 8/15/96 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of August 15. Council conceptually reviewed this request on May 13 and advised the property owner that the City would be willing to convey a portion of the City-owned property back to the County, for purchase by an adjacent property owner. The applicants are the only adjacent property owners. The intent of the proposal is to place applicants' existing driveway within their prop>erty ooundaries. By acquiring the additional 20' X 100' parcel, applicants will only have to do minimal revisions to their driveway to place it within their property boundary. Planning Commission Recommendation At their August 19 meeting. Planning Commission recommended approval on a vote of 6 to 0, subject to applicants reconstructing their driveway within 60 days of final appicval, and that the applicants continue to bear the costs of sur\ey and legal work on this project. Technically, applicants should be provided 60 days from their actual date of acquisition of the parcel from the County, which would presumably be sometime within the next few months. i i 0 Request for Couricil Action continued Page 2 September 4, 1996 Zoning File it 2155 Nancy Krause and Dan Handlin, 3860 North Shore Drive Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement per the attached resolution. Upon approval of the lot line rearrangement, the City will proceed with the paperwork necessary to convey the parcel to the County for purchase by the applicants. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the attached resolution approving the subdivision of a lot line uarrangement. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by___, seconded by___, to adopt Resolution No. approving a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for Nancy Krause and Dan Handlin and the Citv of Orono at 3860 North Shore Drive. Vote: aves, navs. i A RESOLUTION APPROVING A METES AND BOUNDS St^BDIVISION OF A LOT LLNE REARRANGEMENT FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT AND ADJACENT TO 3860 NORTH SHORE DRIVE FILE NO. 2155 WHEREAS, the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WH^^REAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a lot line rearranpement by Nancy Krause and Dan Handlin and the City of Orono (hereinafter "the subdividers") of properties legally described as Lots 20, 21 and 22, Block 7, and Lot 23, Block 7, all in Crystal Bay View, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed all requirements of the City for a metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for division and combination purposes resulting in the relocation of the common boundary between said Lots 20-22 and Lot 23. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for Nancy Krause and Dan Handlin and the City of Orono as shown on the Certificate of Survey by Ronald J. Swenson dated June 17, 1996, revised June 27, 1996, and attached to this resolution, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. Applicants shall sign the above noted survey where indicated and shall provide a 1 " = 200' copy to the City. Upon City Council approval of this subdivision, the City will take the necessary steps to convey Parcel A as shown on the above referenced survey, to Hennepin County for sale to the adjacent property owner. Page 1 of 2 Upon purchase of said Parcel A, applicants Krause and Handlin shall legally combine for tax purposes their existing Lots 20-22 and Parcel A per the proposed legal descriptions in the above noted survey. Within 60 days of the dite of purchase of Parcel A, applicants Handlin and Krause shall relocate the driveway serving their residence at 3860 North Shore Drive to a location within their property boundaries, eliminating any driveway encroachment onto the City parcel. Parcel B, as defined on the above noted survey. The aforesaid division shown on the attached Certificate of Survey shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Recorder’s Office on or before March 9, 1997 together with a certified original copy of this resolution. The approval granted by this resolutio*' shall expire if the division has not been filed by the date specified above. In ?h.. event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnes ;ta this 9th day September, 1996. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor 'fhe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of September, 1996 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 2 of 2 n c>< To:Cha ’r Peterson and Oono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. GafTron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:August 15, 1996 Subject:#2155 Nancy Krause/Don Handlin and CiW of Orono, 3860 North Shore Drive - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 Acre Application: Request for approval of a subdivision of City-owned tax forfeit land to allow' conveyance of a 2,000 s.f. poition of the City property to the County, for sale to the adjacent property owner. The purpose of this process is to accommodate the applicants' existing driveway. List of Exhibits A - Application B C D E F G H I J Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Ron Moorse Memo 5/13/96 with Survey Council Minutes 5/13/96 John Gerhardson Memo 12/18/95 Applicants ’ Letter of Request 11/20/95 with Agreement Sketch: Relationship to Sewer Locations Topography Background Please review the May 13th "Request for Council Action" memo. Briefly, in 1995 the applicants purchased the property at 3860 North Shore Driv At the time of the purchase, tliey were informed by the selleis that the drive .vay serving t e property is non-conforrning in that it extends into the adjacent property which is owned by le City. The adjacent City parcel is tax forfeit land acquired by the City for drainage and initary sewer purposes. The City parcel includes a wetland and has a sanitary sewer line f .versing it. Because the non-conforming driveway created a cloud r i the property title, the sellers placed $3,000 in escrow to enable the driv way issue to be re jived, by either allowing applicants to construct a new driveway totally within their proper! , or finding a way to make the current driveway conforming by acquiring an easement from tie City or acquiring land from the City. Zoning File #2155 August 15, 1996 Page 2 May 13th Cit}' Council Review On May 13th the City Council considered three issues: 1. Should the driveway be allowed to remain in its current location? 2. 3. Should the City help solve the driveway problem by allowing the acquisition of City property? Is the negative impact on applicants' property caused by relocating the driveway substantial enough to merit the City assisting in resolving the driveway non ­ conformity? Council considered the hardship statements by the applicants and the possible concerns about setting a precedent of selling City land for private purposes. Council concluded that in this case it would be appropriate to allow applicants to acquire a portion of the City parcel to bring their existing driveway into conformance, subject to four specific conditions: 1. 2. 3. The portion of the parcel to be reconveyed should be minimized (it has been reduced from 25' x 100' to 20' x 100'). The width of the driveway, particularly at its two ends, be reduced as much as possible (applicants will be relocating the driveway slightly further west to eliminate any encroachment outside of the adjusted lot boundary). Applicants will bear the cost of any survey and legal work required related to a division of the City parcel and a lot line rearrangement. 4. Applicant will follow through with a lot line rearrangement process to add the parcel to his existing parce’. Council voted 5 to 0 to allow the acqaLituii; ...nder these conditions (please review the May 8th memo and the May 13th Council minutes). Discussion The process for transfer of this 20' x 100' parcel to the applicants includes the City reconveying this portion of the tax forfeit parcel to the County, then the County puts it up for sale to an adjacent property owner, of which the applicant is the only one. Zoning FUe #2155 August 15, 1996 Page 3 Note that the City has sewer lines along the east boundary of Lot 23, and has a 40' x 40' sewer easement which extends 10 ’ into the parcel to be transferred. However, that 40 ’ x 40 ’ easement is no longer needed for Lift Station #10 which was relocated some years ago. No additional easements would be necessary for this property. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision of a lot line rearrangement subject to the following conditions: 1.Within 60 days of Council approval, applicants shall reconstruct their driveway so that no portions of it encroach onto the portions of Lot 23 outside of the 20 ’ X 100 ’ parcel. 2. Applicants shall bear the cost of any survey and legal work associated with the division of the City parcel and this lot line rearrangement. Upon approval of the lot line rearrangement, the City will proceed with paperwork necessary to convey the parcel to the County for purchase by the applicants. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval as presented. 2.Table for further information. 3. 4. Recommend denial, stating reasons Other. .'V • / “ vO i i OP'/n-Zl 33 00^ AppUcaticn # ^ ^ Date Receired 7 - 3 - 9G Amount Paid 3^0 ’ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION mf>fL PROPERTY LOCATION ^ ^ - Siteaddress DdL _________ ‘4J ’ 'sLi^ Property Identification Number (PID) QT - IH - 33 qj So Please check one - Propertj’____abstract or_____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name___ / OiN Address 5S-*^ Dfc SLL _______Phone (home) Li'^ ZipPhone (work) ^H*-| OWTVER (if different than applicant) Name ______ Address Cit\-Zip Phone (iiome) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Ta.\ Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Diy Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of urals Other (specify)______ PROPOSAL _____Division for Ta.x Purposes )/ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) _________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites _________Existing Units _________New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ City of Orono P.O. Bdk 66 Cmtal Bay. m SS323 (612)473-7B7 07/08/% UN) US APPUCRTION _ _ II 350.00 12155 Nancy Kraus* 1 I 0.00 SUBTOTAL TAX TOTAL SALE AESIVED CHANS O£RKI03 TRAI6I 1889 12:43:51 350.00 0.00 350.00 0.00 350.00 350.00 0.00 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 Sun ey. Certified Prtperty Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Cent^348-3271). \ ..... 5. As an add^n^Hi^Q^this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature ________________________________________ D^te---------------------------------------— 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 ______________________________________— ---------- I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) S250.00 X Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class 111 & all non-residcntial) _____ Final Plat Application (Class 111) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing; Subdivision only $75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 Totals _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $______ _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; lin. ft. x .50 =» $-------- Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed 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 appliont hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to prwess this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. /j //J Applicant's Sianature --------7--------/ ■ 'Date Owner’s Signatun Date and Council If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authonzed agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN DATE OA/25/96BATCH 501PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AODR CMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR OlflER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFOmATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LISTSB 06-117-23 33 0001 03820 CHERRY AVE CARL A BECK ETAL MRS CHRISTINA BECK 3820 CHERRY AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED R R EN6LUN0 ET AL TRUSTEES K M NEVERS 9700 PORTLAND AVE S §324 BLOOMINGTON MN 55420 38 08-117-23 33 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGTCD R R ENGLUND ET AL TRUSTEES K M NEVERS 9700 PORTLAND AVE S §324 BLOOMINGTON MN 55420 38 08-117-23 33 0040 03843 CHERRY AVE ROBERT J ANDERSON ROBERT J ANDERSON 3843 CHERRY AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0045 03883 CHERRY AVE PAUL E I MARY J TAYLOR PAUL TAYLOR 3883 CHERRY AVE HOUHD MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0050 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D M ENGLUND ETAL COL 3 MRS D M ENGLUND 5101 SPRING ROCK COURT FAIRFAX VA 22032 38 08-117-23 33 000203826 CHERRY AVE R I E HANSONRICHARD E I ELIZABETH HATCON 3826 CHERRY AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSK^D R R ENGLUND ET AL TRUSTEES K M NEVERS 9700 PORTLAND AVE S §324 BLOOMINGTON MN 55420 38 08-117-23 33 0C38 03833 CHERRY AVE HENT4EPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156753 38 08-117-23 33 0043 03860 CHERRY AVE D M ENGLUND ETAL COL t MRS D M ENGLUND 5101 SPRING ROCK CT FAIRFAX VA 22032 38 08-117-23 33 0048 03898 NORTH SHORE DR ROGER GRANNING § HIFE ROGER GRANNING 3898 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0053 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156754 REPORT NO. PI4S54dl PAGE I38 08-117-23 33 0003u3838 CHERRY AVE MARIA E AMPLATZ MARIA E AMPLATZ 3838 CHERRY AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0008 03860 CHERRY AVE R R ENGLUND ET AL TRUSTEES K M NEVERS 9700 PORTLAND AVE S §324 BLOOMINGTON MN 55420 38 06-117-23 33 0039 03833 CHERRY AVE HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156753 38 08-117-23 33 0044 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D M ENGLUND ETAL COL I HRS D M ENGLUND 5101 SPRING ROCK CT FAIRFAX VA 22032 At V,,. b[U. 38 08-117-23 33 0049 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D M ENGLUND ETAL COL A MRS D M ENGLUND 5101 SPRING ROCK CT FAIRFAX VA 22032 1."' y V 1.I V > \ 38 08-117-23 33 0054 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156754 K . 0 ■ RUN DATE M/25/94BATCH 501PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OlfCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OtlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INTt^HATIOH SYSTEM PROPERTY 0»tCRS LISTS8 06-117-25 35 0055 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARKA/15/79 ST DEED 15675A 56 08-117-25 55 0059 05820 NORTH SHORE OR DEBRA L CULLEN DEBRA L CULLEN 5820 NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA MN 55591 58 08-117-25 55 0087 05885 CHERRY AVE PAUL E I MARY J TAYLOR PAUL TAYLOR 5885 CHERRY AVE HOUND MN 55564 58 08-117-25 55 0090 00058 ADDRESS PENDING SAM ENGLUND STEVEN A MARGARET ENGLUND 5420 MINNEHAHA AVE S MPLS m 55406 58 17-117-25 22 0001 05845 NORTH SHORE DR LOREN R FRITZ ETAL LOREN FRITZ 5845 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55564 58 17-117-25 22 0006 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LYm A FAITH CHRISTINE LYNN A FAITH CHRISTINE 3925 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55564 58 08-117-25 55 005600058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK4/15/79 ST DEED 156754 58 08-117-25 55 0 ^^0 05860 NORTH SHORE DR NANCY E KRAUSE D M HANDLIN JR A N E KRAUSE 5860 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55564 58 08-117-25 55 0088 05852 CHERRY AVE ALLAN C A TERRI L LARSON ALLAN C A TERRI L LARSON 58S2 CHERRY AVE MOUND MN 55564 58 08-117-25 54 0060 05818 NORTH SHORE DR E D JOHNSON A P J JOHNSON EUGENE A PAULA JOHNSON 5818 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 22 0002 05865 NORTH SHORE DR M A A M A DOBRATZ MARK A A MARY A DOBRATZ 5865 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55564 58 17-117-25 22 0012 01655 SHADYHOOD RD RALPH E MILLER ETAL RALPH E MILLER 1655 SHADYNOOO RD NAYZATA MN 55591 KPORT NO. PI4354Q1 PAGE <58 08-117-25 55 0057 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FOT.EITEO LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK4/15/79 ST DEED 156754 58 08-117-25 55 0084 05884 CHERRY AVE KENNETH C NEEKS KENNETH C NEEKS 5884 CHERRY AVE MOUND MN 55564 . )• 58 08-117-25 55 0089 05825 CHERRY AVE JEFFREY J JOHNSON JEFFREY J JOfOISON 5825 CHERRY AVE MOUND MN 55564 58 17-117-25 21 0001 05805 NORTH SHORE DR JAMES A PONERS JAMIES A PONERS 11220 OAK RIDGE LA N MINNETONKA MN 55505 58 17-117-25 22 0005 05895 NORTH SHORE DR DALE F BERQUIST DALE BERQUIST 5895 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55564 38 17-117-25 22 0015 01645 SHADYNOOO RD RALPH HARVEY ETAL RALPH HARVEY 1645 SHADYHOOD RD NAYZATA MM 55591 RUN DATE 06/25/96DATCH 501PROP ADOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 36 17-117-23 22 003903905 NORTH SHORE OR HOHARO R ALTON III HONARO R ALTON III 1635 CONCORDIA ST ORONO MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNAflON SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI635A01 PAGE 338 17-117-23 22 006001635 CONCORDIA ST HONARD R ALTON III HOHARD R ALTON III 1635 CONCORDIA ST ORONO MN TOTAL 8ATCH 501 00038 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE XN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE 8EfT OF MY KNOHLEDGE AMO BELIEFi DAT EPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXyiON, TO T ‘•f s * (\ ■ Vc ' A p.. I • *. s \ t'i' I - V \ • X o <0X Jo g I 3 Ia MB ! 1 4»f ('ll If locahon survey K it! <r> a * * W~k T?1 f Kir* 2 JO 2 Afn COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION may 13 1996 DATE: Ma]C<^l5I^RONO ITEM NO: j 3 Department Approval: Name Title Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: lItem Description: ^ Dan Handlin Request to Acquire City Property to Resolve Non-Conforming Driveway Issue Background In mid-1995 Mr. Dan Handlin and Ms. Nancy Krause purchased the property at 3860 North Shore Drive which is adjacent to a parcel acquired by the city through tax forfeiture. The city parcel includes a wetland area and has a sanitary sewer line running through it. At the time the property at 3860 North Shore Drive was purchased the buyers were advised that the driveway serving the property was non-conforming, in tliat it extended into the adjacent city parcel. The driveway was install'-’ illegally by a prior owner a number of years ago. The non-conforming driveway created a cloud on the property title. The buyers moved ahead with the purchase without removing the cloud from the title. Rather, $3,000 was placed in escrow to enable the driveway issue to be resolved in one of two ways. Alternative Solutions 1. Find a way to make the current driveway conforming--through either acquiring an easement from the city or acquiring land from the city. 2. Install a new driveway totally on the subject property. Mr. Handlin has indicated he much prefers option one, and has requested the city’s consideration regarding an easement or land acquisition. Because the city property was acquired through tax forfeiture, the city is not able to provide an easement. The only solution to making the driveway conforming is for the city to reconvey a portion of the tax forfeit parcel back to the County for sale to adjacent property owners of which Mr. Handlin is the only eligible buyer. Issues for Consideration In responding to Mr. Handlin’s request there are three issues for the Council to consider. The first is whether the city should allow a driveway that was constructed illegally--partially on an adjacent property--to remain in its current location. The city generally would not allow such a driveway to remain unless the property owner was able to acquire additional property from an adjacent property owner for a lot line rearrangement that would make the driveway conforming. In this case the city is the adjacent property owner. The second issue is whether the city should play a direct role in solving the driveway problem by enabling the acquisition of city property to enable the driveway to be conforming. The city generally does not make city property, obtained for a public purpose available to adjacent property owners to address development related issues. The city currently has numerous parcels, many acquired through tax forfeiture; used for stormwater drainage, utilities, and/or Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 May 8, 1996 Dan Handlin Request to Acquire City Property to Resolve Non-Conforming Driveway Issue open space; that are adjacent to private properties. Staff periodically receives inquiries regarding whether the city would be inter;:sled in selling portions of these properties to adjacent property owners for various reasons. Staff regularly discourage these requests. Because the driveway is located on a portion of the parcel that does not affect the wetland or sewer line, it would be possible to assist Mr. Handlin without adversely affe-cling the various purposes for which the city acquired the parcel. The third issue is whether the negative impact on the Handlin property caused by relocating the driveway is substantial enough to merit the city assisting in resolving the driveway non ­ conformity. A feasible option available to Mr. Handlin is to move the driveway so that it is totally on his property. Prior to the driveway being located in its current location the driveway serving the garage structures in the rear yard was located directly adjacent to the east side of the house. This area is now part of the front lawn area. Relocating the driveway to this location is a feasible alternative since this portion of the front yard area is relatively open. It would require the relocation of one large pine tree. Mr. Handlin indicates in his letter that he has substantial concern regarding the disruption this would cause to the natural character of the existing front yard. If the Council finds the negative impact of moving the driveway is of such an extent as to merit the reconveyance of a portion of the city property to Mr. Handlin, staff would recommend four conditions. 1. 2. 3. The portion of the parcel to be reconveyed be minimized The width of the driveway, particularly at its two ends, be reduced as much as possible Mr Handlin bear the cost of any survey and legal work required related to a division of the city parcel and a lot line rearrangement. 4.Mr. Handlin follow through with a lot line rearrangement process to add the parcel to his existing parcel. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve/deny Mr. Handlin’s request to acquire a portion of the city parcel adjacent to his property to bring his existing driveway into conformance. 372833 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON ^UY 13,1996 mi .p (#12) LORD FLETCHERS REQUEST FOR USE OF PUBLIC PARKING LOT Moorse reported that the request is to allow Lord Fletchers to use a portion of the public parking lot in Navarre for use by their employees on weekends during the summer months Shuttle buses will be used to transport the employees between the restaurant and parking lot Moorse said problems that occurred last year have been worked out. The request is similar to that of last year with a number of conditions attached. Lord Fletchers’ representatives said they agree to those conditions Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, to authorize Lord Fletchers to use the public paiking lot in Navarre with conditions #1-8 as listed. Jabbour asked and received no comments from those in attendance at the meeting. He also noted that he spoke with a person who had concerns over the use last year and was told those problems were worked out. Jabbour asked that the distinction be made why Lord Fletchers would be allowed to use the parking lot and not Jack Smith. It was noted that Lord Fletchers has signs posted for patron parking and use of the lot by employees only is a good solution. It was also noted that, because it is a public lot, it could be used by Lord Fletchers’ customers without specific approval by the City. The agreement to allow employee parking only is a much better arrangement. The use of the parking lot by the Lafayette Club last year w as mentioned. Hurr noted that both businesses are located outside of the City of Orono and should be considered on an equal ’oasis. It was noted that the Lafayette Club did not request use of the parking lot and w ould receive equal consideration if a request was made A maximum use of 60 parking stalls will be permitted. Vote: Ayes !>, Says 0. (#13) DAN HANDLES REQUEST TO ACQUIRE CITY PROPERTY TO RESOLXT NON-CONFORMLNG DRIVEWAY ISSUE Moorse reported that the property owners of3860 North Shore Drive have requested to acquire a portion of a City property that was obtained through tax forfeiture in order to resolve a non-conforming driveway due to its partial location on the City-owned lot. Moorse said the former owner installed the driveway without permits resulting in a cloud on the title when it was sold. The new owners went ahead with the purchase of the property, and money was escrowed to resolve the problem MIMTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\’ COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NLAY 13,1996 (#13 - Dan Handlin - Continued) Approval of the request would enable the current driveway to conform. Repositioning of the driveway would be the less desired solution. Moorse said the driveway could be installed on the side of the house where it was originally located. This is said to be feasible but would have impacts on the property. Hardships are listed. Callahan noted that it is not legal for the City to sell the property. Moorse said the parcel is owned by the City for a specific use only, similar to a lease situation Once the property is used for other purposes, ownership would be reconveyed to the County. The parcel could then be made available to the adjoining property owner at market value. Moorse reported that the City owns lots 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 for use as open space. Lot 23, the lot in question, has sewe'- lines running thru it as well as a wetland area that extends into lot 24. Hurr said she was concerned with setting a precedent noting that there is an alternate solution of moving the driveway. Hurr inquired about maintaining an easement on the lot Moorse said the City would do a lot division reconveying only a portion of the lot necessary to remedy the driveway problem back to the County and maintain that portion of the lot containing the wetlands and sewer line Property owner, Don Handlin, said they purchased the property knowing the problem but still desiring the property. It is their intent to solve the issue in a reasonable fashion. Handlin said the best solution is that which is proposed. Changing the driveway would result in the loss of mature trees and landscaping. Handlin said he sees the request as reasonable He said he is not at fault for the occurrence of the problem but is responsible for resolving it. Handlin said he agrees with the conditions 1-4 as listed. He noted that the property would also be placed back on the tax roll. Handlin said, as far as setting a precedent, he asked what precedent that would be. It is his understanding that no precedent would be set by allowing this purchase to occur. Kelley said that the Council was here to try to help people. Hurr noted that the lot would be deemed unbuildable due to the wetlands. Handlin said he would want to protect the wetlands and understands that the lot is unbuildable. Callahan said he agreed with Kelley noting the public use was not being impacted by this request. Moorse said the Staff agreed with Council Member Hurr that the City should not generally sell off City property, but the circumstances of this request make it a reasonable ii one. MLNl TES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITV COUNCIL MEETLNG HELD ON >L\Y 13, 1996 (i 13 - Dan Handlin - Continued) Hurr said she did not desire the City to sell off City ouTted property. It was noted that the driveway was installed after the City gained the tax forfeit property. Kelley asked Staff to suggest the area of the parcel to be divided The applicant will pay the cost of the di.lsion of the lot. Kelley also asked that the two lots be combined. Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Mr. Handlin's request to acquire a portion of the City parcel adjacent to his property to bring his existing driveway into conformance. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0 (•14) GOLF COURSE PURCHASE - T MARKERS Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the purchase of tee markers for the Orono Golf Course from Ima^nality Incorporated for an amount of $5,304. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (•15) GOLF COURSE PURCHASE - MOWER Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the purchase of one new greens mower from North Star Turf for an amount of $3,925,18. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#16) BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FOR 1995 Kelley asked why adjustments are made to match up to expenses. He noted that this does not reflect what actually occurs. Kelley said if residents want to see the budget and what actually occurred in a year, they would see the same result. He questioned why a budget is then done at all. Moorse said it was a matter of reflecting decisions made during a budget year to spend more than the original budget amount. Jabbour said the money brought in is spent but this makes it difficult to ascertain the difference. Callahan moved, Jabbour seco..jed, to approve the budget adjustments and transfers above for the 1995 General Fund budget. V'ote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Callahan commented that Staff had provided an investment report for Council review. TO: FROM: DATE: Ron Moorsc, City Administrator John Gcrhardson, Public Works Director December 18,1995 SUBJECT: Driveway Encroachment 3860 North Shore Drive During the summer of 1996,1 received a call from a realtor r'*garding the drivew'ay location at 3860 North Shore Drive. It seems that over the years there has been encroachment onto adjoining City property for the driveway at the above address. Considerable landscaping has been performed and the new owner is requesting an easement from the City to leave the driveway where it is. In my discussions with the realtor. I indicated that because the City acquired the property tl^ough tax forfeiture through Hennepin County, the City is restricted as to what can be done with the property. We do not have the authority to grant an easement because the property was acquired to be used as a drainage and conser\ ation area. We have an official request from the new owner to take whatever stops are necessary to grant them an easement. The following are the procedures we would have to follow to allow the driveway to stay where it is: 1. The City must reconvey the property back to Hennepin County by resolution that states the property or part of the property is to be sold to an adjoining property owner. 2.Hennepin County would place a value on the property and if the property owner agreed with the price, it would be a done deal. The other option would be to have the current property owner move the driveway off of City property. An amount was escrowed during the closing to do this in the event an easement or sale could not be accomplished. r Nanc)' Krause and Dan Handlin 3860 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 NOV 2 7 1995 NoN ’cmbcr 20, 1995 John R. Gerhardson Public Works Director City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Dear Mr. Gerhardson: Enclosed is an agreement, made at the time of purchase, between the sellers and us. regarding securing an easement for the driveway that encroaches on city properly, next to 3860 North Shore Dr, Orono. We respectfully request city council assistance in resolving this issue. First, we request a roadway easement, for use of lot 23 (unimproved city property) for the purpose of access to our property via the aforementioned driveway. If an easement is unobtainable for some reason, (within our budget limits), we will seek to purchase the property known as lot 23, block 7, Crystal Bay View. The reason we take this action is that unnecessary hardship weuld result, if we were forced to move the driveway. First, the driveway is the only viable access to our garage. Second, if forced to “relocate" the driveway, beautiful and old trees would have to be cut down. Years ago the current driveway entrance vvjs built by the city (or county), to service a pumping station on lots 23, 24, and 25. Previousownersofour properly, used the driveway entrance also. It became common access for the city and owners of what is now our property. On lot 22 (our property), should a new driveway have to be constructed, large mature trees, flowering bushes, rock boulder landscaping, and flower gardens would also have to be destroyed, or uprooted. The cost of doing this, would be more than monetary, for an attractive "years in the making" front yard, which is home to various species of birds and squirrels, would be cut up. (^itc frankly, there is no other viable access to our garage, and it is unreasonable to destroy these trees, which arc testimony to how long this driveway access has been in c.xistcncc. Tlicrc is no longer a pumping station on the properly in question, and we are ad\ ised that there is no other use for it than drainage. This would not change under our proposal. Wc liavc since been advised b>‘ the county tnistcc of the property in question, that lot 23 lus been appraised at $6,000.00. It is also the opinion of this individual, that the only way wc can procure legal use of this driveway, is to purchase the entire lot, which would require a resolution from the city of Orono to; A approv-e rcconvc)ancc (in which ease they would have to contact the county assessor's ofTice for the proper forms), B approve a lot split of lot 23, block 7, Crystal Bay View (according to city procedures), and C if Orono has a housing and redevelopment authority, approve our request that they sell the lot to us, after they buy it from tlw county. The city council resolution should reflect this process Wc intend to add the lot to our homestead lot description, which will further ensure that wc arc not interested in selling off part of the property, or pronting from this process in any other way, than to have legal use of the driveway. Please advise us when wc can meet with the city council in order to resolve this issue. Tliank you for your time and attention. Nancy Krause and Dan Handlin ; /f.0C :.iye4u4’ ■ -^ ■ ■ ^2-7^ . /iS-T&Zir- /■ .. ~7~7i/^ <5?*^ - ^ <5-7^/ ^ Z. if /y ■" ' '- T'^Z' ^ Z , ^t4. I ■ . • »• •. . . > . ..................... _ . ^ 'E^ J, jZc£^^ ^ V '2.0 - ^/-^7 7^ /)J/ Z^c2c'(^-^ '-^^' A ^(ily^AzA^tZ-XC Z 'Cy'Z^ 't ~/^/9 ypy'^-^^ W1 ^ VV ! K \ \ I i ,^^U^'C^cc--rZy g ^<»<Z:2r?s^ £p'^cyjZ<^ ^ ^/x-4<W/v ^f^S Y-7(^ ’t^i/' (^ f^ypcu crjt-^ s^*^ /■/<^ ^>- XxP ,'^/d/Py"^.^r ^ _Av/. $ZmM!^z:zzzz::z^ :l __________________________ _________ / ... . ......./------- - —^■^m • 0 m • •mm m -• .. -:r-j .... • • • j i i tL ^ ^^ ^ •'=^' ................ • . .............. • » •• ^ *^** * • *- * ’ • • .•••- ' _ ^<J>^/'T'y,, 7^(7^/^ . ■.^' ----------------------------------------------------- --------------- i! X 938.7 'u 938.8 A/p^Nq ^99$ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 4,1996 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2160 David & Jennifer Dotzenroth. 3225 Casco Circle - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, sewered. 1/2 acre. Application: Request for street setback and side setback variances to consuiict additions to existing detached garage. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action C - Revised Building Plans/Site Plan D - Memo and Exhibits of 8/15/96 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of August 15th. Briefly, applicants propose to construct a 16'x24' addition to the rear of the existing garage. The existing garage is less than 1' from tiic street lot line, and opens toward the street. While this area of Casco Circle has relatively low' traffic, under the current configuration applicants or their guests park on the garage apron which is completely within the right-of-way. The proposed addition will provide additional garage space, and will also raise the roof pitch to allow for storage space above the garage. Issues of concern include: adding to the bulk of structure within the required side and street yard areas (proposed 1,000 s.f. total footprint requires side setback of 15', and 30’ street setback for garage with doors open towards street); - making the existing nonconfonning structure more permanent via the proposed additions; the potential additional roof overhang into the right-of-way. Planning Commission Recommendation Because the property is relatively large (nearly an acre), and because 75-250' zone hardcover is well within the 25% limit (existing = 13.3%), Planning Commission felt the entry to the garage should be moved to the east side within the proj)ert>' boundaries, which would still yield a conforming level of hardcover Planning Commission's recommendation included the following: Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 September 4. 1996 Zoning File #2160 1. 5. Footprint of garage structure including addition must not exceed 1,000 s.f. (this means applicant will have to reduce it from 16'x24’ to I5.6'x24’. 2. Approval of roof reconstruction to create a higher pitched gable. 3. Garage stall doors must be relocated to east side of garage. 4. Concrete apron in right-of-way must be removed. House exterior work must be completed prior to issuance of building permit for garage remodeling/addition. Applicants were requested to submit a revised site plan and building proposal. Those plans are attached as E.xhibit C. Note that the garage overhang as proposed will extend 1-2' into the right-of- way. Also note that applicants propose three stall doors on the east side of the building, and have eliminated the doors opening toward the street. The site plan indicates a parking apron within the property, of approximately 30'x40', which w ill result in a 75-250’ hardcover level of approximately 19%. Applicants note that this configuration will necessitate the removal of at least one tree, and potentially damage the root system of the large maple tree to the rear of the garage. They are also concerned that this will have a negative impact on parking in the neighborhood. Planning Commission was also concerned that the current house remodeling project has been under way for some time, and that the one year period for completing the exterior work on the house was nearing an end. Plamiing Commission suggested that approval for the garage variances be conditioned on no permit being issued for garage construction until the house exterior work is complete. Staff Recommendation Staff has drafted a resolution reflecting the Planning Commission recommendation, and including a condition that the overhang at the north end of the garage be eliminated to result in no encroachment of roof overhang into the right-of-way. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Approve the attached resolution per Planning Commission recommendation. Approve with revisions. Tabic for further information. Conceptual denial of requested variances. Other. Request for Council Actiqn continued page 3 of3 September 4,1996 Zoning File #2160______ COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Action to ^prove, amend, or conceptually deny the requested street and side setback variances. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9(D), SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9(E), AND SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6(B) FILE #2160 WHEREAS, David A. Dotzenroth (hereinafter "the applicant") is ovviier of the property located at 3225 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.0'’ Tubdivision 9(D) to allow the existing detached garage plus the proposed additions to be located 0.2' from the street lot line where a 10 ’ street setback would normally be required, and a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9(E) to allow the proposed 1,000 s.f. footprint building to be located at setbacks ranging from 0.2' to 9.3’ from lot lines where a 15’ setback from any lot line is required, and a variance to Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to allow a side setback less than the required 10 ’ for accessory structures in the LR-IC zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2160. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 7 3.The Orono Planning Commission revie\ved this application on August 19, 1996, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based up>on and subject to the following findings and conditions: A. B. C. D. E. F. The existing garage is located as near as 0.2* to the street lot line and 4.4' to the side lot line. The proposed addition to the rear of the garage will range from 7.4' to 9.3' from the side lot line. Applicant further proposes to reconstruct and construct a new roof over the existing garage and proposed addition, such new roof being steeper in pitch than the existing roof, and portions of it constituting new structure in locations not meeting the required setbacks from the street and side property boundaries. The existing garage doors open toward the street, making the existing garage nonconforming because a garage with doors facing the street is required by code to be setback 30' from the street lot line. it would be inappropriate to construct the magnitude of additions proposed while continuing the direct access to the street (Casco Circle), which currently forces parking to occur within the street right-of-way where such parking is generally discouraged or disallowed by Municipal Zvimng Code Sections 8.20 and 10.61, Subdivisions 4 and 5. Applicant has agreed to eliminate the garage stall doors facing the street and has agreed to place such doors on the east side of the existing/proposed garage structure, and to develop a driveway apron within the property boundaries to accommodate maneuvering and parking outside of the right-of-way. The profMDsed addition located as near as 7.4' from the side lot line will have no significant impact on neighboring property or on the neighborhood. Raising the pitch of the roof over the existing/proposed garage located only 0.2' from the street lot line and as near as 4.4' from the side lot line, will have no negative impact on the neighboring Page 2 of 7 property owner or the neighborhood, since there are other similarly situated detached garages in the neighborhood. G. Planning Commission finds that the reconfiguration of the garage stalls to enter the east side of the garage, and the concurrent construction of a new driveway/parking area to the east of the garage structure, will have minimal hardcover impact and will not cause a nonconforming hardcover problem, but will result in hardcover in the 75-250' zone at a level less than 20%, where 25% hardcover would be allowable. H. Planning Commission recommends that further parking within the right- of-way be discouraged by requiring that the applicant remove the existing concrete apron located within the right-of-way of Casco Circle. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9(D) to allow the existing detached garage plus the proposed additions to be located 0.2 ’ from the street lot line where a 10’ street setback would normally be required, and a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9(E) to allow the proposed 1,000 s.f. footprint building to be located at setbacks ranging from .2 ’ to 9.3’ from Page 3 of 7 lot lines where a 15' setback from any lot line is required, and a variance to Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to allow a side setback less than the required 10’ for accessory structures in the LR-IC zone, subject to the following conditions: 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Applicant shall reduce the size of the final garage structure including the addition such that the footprint does not exceed 1,000 s.f. Reconstruction of the rr.«f to create a higher pitched gable is approved subject to redesign resulting in no encroachment of the street lot line by the roof overhangs. Garage stall doors must be relocated to the east side of the garage. The concrete apron in right-of-way of Casco Circle must be removed at the time the garage stall doors are relocated to the east side of the garage. A building permit for the garage remodeling/addition shall not be issued by the City until exterior work on the house pursuant to building permit #7225 is completed. 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 (September 9, 1997). 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. Page 4 of 7 1 4 — ■ .»—t ft - •I'r H'SIVfl. 8.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of September, 1996. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of September, 1996, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of___, 199 before me a Notar>' Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of____, 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of___, 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 6 of 7 • T*.*—•••trr ‘I—^ 11 -f —■ r CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2160 NOTICE OF PLANNING COM3HSSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: August 21, 1996 TO:David and Jennifer Dotzenroth 3225 Casco Circle Wayzata, \fN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING:08/19/96 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Footprint of garage structure including addition must not exceed 1000 s.f. 2, Reconstruction of roof to Crete a higher pitched gable is recommend for approval. 3. Garage stall doors must br relocated to east side of garage. 4. Concrete apron in right-of-way must be removed. 5. House exterior work must be completed prior to issuance of building permit for garage remodeling/addition. NOTE: Although not specifically discussed at the meeting, you should consider redesigning the proposed overhang on the north end of garage to avoid its encroaching into the right-of-way. Additional information is requested, as follows: Please submit a revised site plan and building proposal meeting the above noted conditions, by September 2. Contact Mike Gaffron at 473-7357 if you have any questions. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council, Monday, September 9, 1996; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Isv FPOfI t«»9 3 P. I To: Nlike CjaflVon Cir> of Orono From; Jennifer A, r>a\ id Ooizenroih Ket*.; Zoning Filtf «21(>U August 31.1990 Mike Flox'^e find enclosed the revised sue plan and building proposal meeting the ctmditions requested by planning commission . Unforuinately moving doors to easlcm side ol’slructLue will neccasilaie the remosal of one hickorv tree, and possible deterioration oi looi s> stem to large maple tree in order to accomiitodaic apton on eastein side of structure. • Itis vsill also encourage parking of cars by n»»n inhabitanis on street and in park W’e will p an u» attend the Sepieitiber 9lh City Council meeting at 7 00 pm. Thank You The Dotzeiuroths Vi'iV,’, V,','|.. . ■y. .y.' • w.'.'.v •.'.•/I'.'.v ’ N. ’ • ’ J ' ' • • • ' k . > * • I i ! • I I I 1 #|i y \ *1. .. T, S'l i'r,*#*! . ' ’’ll ' V I ' > iViV'** ViV*' ' I'f I'l'i'- t’-' 'i* 'i‘ *i'i ’ ‘I'lVi* 't *5 . . ,y. .v.'.v.'.'.'/.' .V, :V>.• '.sV V \ II ^ro}pai%AjJ i*-='TZircini;^ _ TZ". '! 1 •— '■ ”31 ^ ' •• ^ I (s I I ’ ^ I • 1 m Ml V 1 Um-L ' .--r~d^ To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator From: Date: Michael P. GafFron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator August 15, 1996 Subject:#2160 David Dotzenroth, 3225 Casco Circle • Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 Acre, Sewered Application: Request for side setback and street setback variances to construct additions to existing detached garage. List of Exhibits A - Application B C D E F G H I J Plat Map Property Owners List Acknowiedgemenis from Neighboring Property Owners Supplemental Letter Including Hardship Statement Survey Construction Plan Hardcover Calculations Submitted by Applicant Staff Hardcover Review Staff sketch: Driveway concept Pertinent Code Sections 1. 2. Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B): Required = 10', Required front (street) yard = 30' Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (D): "No detached garages or other accessory buildings shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot gjiCfipt on lots which have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent to a street, accessory buildings located within the street or rear yards of such lots are subject to the setback requirements of Section .... 10.25, Subd. 6 (B) except that detached garages may be located 10' from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and a turnaround is provided on site." Section 10 03, Subd. 13; "Accessory buildings which are for the storage of automobiles shall have the doors 30' or more from the property line when said doors face on a public alley or street." Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (E): "Accessory structures in excess of 750 s.f. footprint but not exceeding 1,000 s.f. footprint area shall be located at least 15' from any lot line." i.,- Zoning File #2160 August 15, 19% Page 2 Summary of Request Applicants propose t\^o additions to the existing garage which is located less than 1’ from the street lot line and from 4.4' to 7.4’ from the side lot line. The existing garage has doors which face Casco Circle, leaving virtually no room for parking in front of the garage other than within the right-of-way. Currently, additional parking is in a graveled area directly adjacent to the garage. Applicants propose to construct a 24' x 16' addition to the rear of the existing garage, and replace the existing 8:12 pitch roof with a steeper 12:12 pitch roof, enclosing some storage space. Applicant has indicated he does not propose to move the garage stall doors to the side as shown on the construction elevation views, but intends to leave the doors facing the street. The existing garage is non-conforming from th. -.pcctive that with do s facing the street it should be 30' from the street lot line and 10 trom the side lot line. The proposed garage will in many respects be even more non-coi . because the added size places it into a categoiy (750-1.''DO s.f.) which requires a 1j si> *.1back. Discussion Applicant has indicated in his supplementary information letter (Exhibit E) that the existing garage is a sound structure with proper frost footing foundation, and that the costs to tear it down and start over in the location meeting the setback requirements would be cost-prohibitive. Further, he notes that a large 4' diameter maple tree would be lost if the entire structure was moved to meet the required setbacks. The garage addition as proposed will be approximately 12* from the base of that tree. The existing garage has an 18’ concrete apron between the garage doors and the traveled surface of Casco Circle. While this leaves room to park two full size cars without extending into traffic, all of that parking is within the right-of-way. The reason the City Code requires a 30' street lot line setback for garage doors facing the street, is to allow substantial off-street parking outside of the right-of-way. Given the relatively narrow width of pavement on Casco Circle, it would be in the best interests of the City to decrease parking within the right-of-way. And, tec' .lically per Municipal Code Section 8.20, parking vehicles between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. upon any public street (defined as the right-of-way) is prohibi.cd. Obviously, this has not been enforced in most neighborhoods. Further, Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (A) indicates that ^vith^^ residential districts, "All vehicles normally owned or kept by the occupants on the premises must have a garage stall or open parking space on the same lot the principal use served...". Also, Subd. 4 "Purpose of Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements", states that "regulation of off-street parking and loading spaces in this chapter is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public right-of- way and so to promote the safety and general welfare of the public by establishing minimum Zoning File #2160 August 15, 1996 Page 3 requirements for off-street parking, loading and unloading for motor vehicles in accordance with the utilization of various parcels of land and structures." In staffs opinion, while the proposed garage addition and roof reconstruction will have little impact on neighboring properties, it w ill increase the permanence of the current non-conforming situation. One way to mitigate this would be to require that the garage entrance doors be relocated to the side (as shown in applicant's construction elevations. Exhibit G), and establishment of driveway and parking area directly east of the garage. Then, the magnitude of variance for street setback reduces form 29.8' to 9.8', and a parking non-conformity is resolved. Existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is approximately 13.3%. Adding the 16' x 24' garage addition and a new 30' x 26' driveway entering the garage on the east side, and removing the 8' X 8' shed results in 75-250' hardcover of 17.1%, still significantly below the 25% limit. This driveway would require minor changes in landscaping, but would not eliminate an excessive number of trees. Applicants have stated they do not want to lose trees if at all possible. Staff Recommendation Applicants should reduce the size of the addition to approximately 24' x 15.6', so that the entire building stays below the 1,000' limit. If Planning Commission concludes that the proposed addition is in an appropriate location. Planning Commission should also consider whether the conversion from a hip roof to a steeper gable roof less than 1' from the street lot line, is justified by sufficient hardship and whether it is appropriate in the context of the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, staff recommends that if the proposed addition and roof conversion is approved, applicants should relocate the existing garage doors to the east side, and construct a new driveway access as shown on Exhibit J, which will reduce the magnitude of the variances needed (garage will only need a 9.8' variance instead of a 29.8' variance for street setback) and eliminate parking on the right-of-way. In that case, it may be appropriate to request that applicants remove the portions of the existing concrete apron located within the right-of-way. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval as proposed by applicant. Recommend approval with conditions. Table for further information (specify). Recommend denial, stating reasons. Other. Application # O Date Received 7 / 7 S / f ^ Amount Paid :0^'Z0 ' ^'O CITY OF ORONO - VARLANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) / Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00 (no change from original application) /g Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) . A . *u;*i I 9-^ *•. * . PROPERTY INFORMATIONVV/m JLfvl 1 li’^r ^ Site Address 3^315 Cc-S03 d.^rd^r. U)cv.>A , rrMp I Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) \\'l •• •Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Prt^/fy^Acquired y4.-*-<- 1^79______________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do n^ also os<^i the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential o ther (specify)_ Zoning District: H i,*y\ n>>r*r^ o applicant . _ ^ Name Hn ^Ocl \n Phone (home ) I - y? t “X T) Phone (w'ork)_________________ Address:Citv: UL? ____Zip:—tiTlS OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work) Address:Citv:Zip:. VDESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S ttoo t.:. Describe request in detail: AL^rO.V,r/v\— (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore _ Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:^_____________________________________— (attach additional sheets if necessary) \ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the followfng information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. 3. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Depanment of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 34S-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8'/:" ,x 11" for reproduction. 4.HjO Topographic surv'ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade^are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 5. 6. 1/ 7. 8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. F'ease remember that yttUE variance application is not complete if the above information has not been includetL 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 Clk Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the propertv- by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council mernbers for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date r7 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, ple^e 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 MM DATE 07/2^94 BATCH 509BMP AOOR OmiR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR AOOR OHCR NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OMCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR HENNEPIN COUNTY PNflPERTY INFOmATZON SYSTEM PROPERTY ««CRS lIST30 20-117-23 43 000500030 AOORcSS UNASSIGNEO MARY SUSAN SHANSCN HARY SUSAN SHAN5QN 5229 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 30 20-117-23 43 0017 00030 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO 0 C PLAIN A P L PLAIN 0 CHARLES PLAIN 3227 CASCO CIR NAVZATA MN 55391 30 20-117-23 43 0020 00030 AOORESS U4ASSIGNE0 0 C PLAIN A P L PLAIN 0 CHARLES PLAIN 3227 CASCO CIR HAYZATA tti 55391 30 20-117-23 43 0031 00030 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO THE CASCO CO THE CASCO COMPANY ROBERT 0 MACNIE 3135 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI4354Q1 PAGE B30 20-117-23 43 001503233 CASCO CIR 0 M SPILSETH A P 0 SPILSETH DAVIO M SPILSETH 3233 CASCO CIRCLE NAYZATA MN 55391 $0 20-117-23 43 0014•3231 CASCO CIR J E COOPER A J E COOPER J E COOPER A J E COOPER 3.!31 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 3B 20-117-23 43 0018 03227 CASCO CIR 0 C PLAIN A P L PUIN 0 CHARLES PLAIN 3227 CASCO CIR NAYZATA M4 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0019 03227 CASCO CIR 0 C PLAIN A P L PLAIN 0 CHARLES PLAIN 3227 CASCO CIR NAYZATA m 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0021 03225 CASCO CIR OAIVO A OOTZENROTH OAVIO A OOTZENROTH 3225 CASCO POINT CIR HAYZATA m 55391 58 20-117-23 43 0022 03205 CASCO CIR CONISTON ESTATES INC CQNISTON ESTATES INC 7 BROAD ST CHARLESTON SC 29401 TOTAL BATCH 504 OOOlO 0) I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEMJEPIN COUITY OEPARnCNT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY lOOHLEOGE AND BELIEF.^rDATE 1i0 MitlLu) e/n . D - / Jeanne Mabusth Orono Building and Zoning Administrator 2750 Kelly Parkway PO 'iOX 66 Crystal Bay. MX.r/ rt 612-473-7357 / ^ L, . «'V. June 24,19% Dear Jeanne: Concerning the Dotzenroth proposed garage addition at 3225 Casco Circle, We the Haw kinson's of the abutting west side of the Dotzenroth's lot # 30 have no objection to their proposed addition to extend southward from their existing garage. Thank You Douglas and Cherj l Hawkinson f *» I (we) Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowiedgement Form he>uf{4-t >lki.fAJS? J of ^ Ciftsro* [print name(s)] ■ 1> 2 print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^>rt--Ualso referred to as Land Use Application No. 3L / Q. I (we understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (tue) not asked to declare a^ 'roval or disapproval of the propert>- or use but merely to confirm for the City Council • • I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or ase requires Council approval. /j ./icr Propetv Owner Date DateProperty Owner j^55^#*********************'*****************************"***************'****-'^^ I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located 0^ 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 DateProperty Owner If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 1 To : Mike GafYron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono AUG t. 3 1 ).,r From David & Jennifer Dotzenroth Ref.: Garage AdditionA^ariance Application #2160 3225 Casco Circle Wavzata. MN. 55391 Dear Mr. Gaffron: Thank You for your facsimile and letter with the information mentioned in your preliminary review of our application. We hope that the enclosed information will assist you in granting our request. 1. Please find amendment in sur>ev to show setback measurements from the side lot«r line at both front and rear corners. 2. Accurate length and w idth dimensions of the proposed garage w ill be: Width = 24’ X Length = 41.7 ’ (see survey) 1000 sq. feet total. 3.& 4. Existing garage doors will remain only. Moving doors to eastern side of structure was an idea given by Ms. Mahusth, however this plan would necessitate more driveway. Existing garage doors and existing driveway provide necessary access to structure, thus eliminating any additional hardcover. 5. The undue hardship and or practical difficulty as well as unusual property conditions w hich prevent us from comply ing with Zoning Cod^* requirements are as follows: A) The existing garage is a good sound structure with the proper frost footing foundation. B) Adding on to the existing garage would be the most cost effective. Costs of tearing down existing structure, electric’s, driveway and foundation etc. coupled w ith the cost of reconstructing same in zone setback requirements would estimate to be an additional $17,000.00 or more. C) Moving addition to zone setback requirements w ould require removal of a 4’ diameter maple tree, w hich is our largest shade tree. D) Keeping the structure where it currently exists is an environmentally positive thing eliminating much waste to the city dump, and saving a beautiful tree. We hope this clears up any questions you may have with regards to our application. Thank you for allowing us to complete the incomplete. If you have any other questions please feel free to give us a call or fax. Regards, David & Jennifer Dotzenroth 1 %-'T%Jidfc*i*l ryiOKfa/rtFMjT /cr r 4/c6r'i c.^ C,^/^c J^e4' (,8 .8 S<?/77 ;- /^.t» SC/Z, creNrc^<-^^ 7/^SS<^^' e,,^.a A9.99 f A: S (MHt, 99FA^ AA9^'^ ^c ?C!^ ffc^<;rp/iPD-- 43f^S r<?./^ All that part of Lot 28, Sprine Park, lyinr, vestarly of a line described as rollous: Commencing at a point on the "°‘''''’'''^?','*''',J' from distant hs.s feet southwesterly, measured along said northel ly the nu^theiLerly corner of said Lot 20 which corner - ,p judicial landmark; thence southerly along a f^J'kJd bv a Lake Minnetonka, said straight line passing through a Pf" J iuh'uii erstrriJ’line'of'laL'lot sl! from’a'"point in said easterly line ^Lo; ^p^'‘:rso1?i^^'Iotrn'a:;d^ortoreth:^iura:d l: ud. "" ‘^^h^^pa^J ^ha!r[;/;rh:;e;rb:ro?; j^tc?i^:d!iiiirs”ir," Tark a co^dfnrto th^plartherecf on file and of record in the office O^tiie Fegisier of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, bnd the or tne Kegiste havinp been marked with a Judirial land !arL’''and^a further Judicial land mark haying been - r> J mTm rm?i>L InuHM.t a> ii«wm imm mm \ l> UNM N iltl» « r W«)t« WW1 M Vi -«• * I * 1! 11111! I *•I-; 'i' V ll‘ r I I III I; I I 111 III III III III I»j II111IIIII •l^ *l'V IJ 1,11 t‘i*i I ! I I I f I I I I I I I II II IIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "l* I II I I 'l* I II 'l^II V VI I I . I . 1 I I ' rn:I “1 1.1 I *) . * • '/ * • * *{ •' *’ •• .«% • ’-J (^ (l»W HARDCOVTR CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'75-250'250-500'500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ________ ?oCcV Garage Length Width X X X B C. Driveway \ X X D. Sidewalk T -wh To X * •' ■» c E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G.Other 7 X it i! TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE B a 7. i'fiO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZOME A. House Length Width X X X B. Garage IF O c Cc ________ 4 fjc D. Sidewalk ________ X X IQ. X X E. Pacio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other -L dyn X U _ 2> TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 414-^- - B a S.F. !2L.S.F. 1 g r> S.F. ^^5. ^ S.F. S.F. -O' r>- S.F. S.F. iS-S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. a —; >;a• a S.F. U a S.F. a m. °S.F. C- . O 3317/F. A -S.F. r X 100 a '5'-% S.F. a •~j l‘~S.F. a * O-S.F. a ^S.F. J r ’S.F. > S.F. a S.F. S.F. a - r -S.F. ^ o •S.F. as - 0 -S.F. - c ^S.F. sa - o -S.F. S3 -o-S.F. ni °S.F. c. -4 O ■ 4.1(0^ "S.F. A •Jry S.F. B X 100 S3 m !k % i t }-j-0'yz.T 'n~:. 15») ' J Dfc' ^ r■ *I . \ //^ V * ;,.y iv / '.»’ r * • • ’ )C . '. t '.k' ~ '••'*• ^*^2, r^” • # . V * /"^,r \ r . r^fif /(r^of \ '.V 2,t/ _ 1.1 ' -'7Z' •' ’ • • ' ' ,Y • • 4— • •.,n\ _^■•a\ '9^ #• L I cr •-7 • '7Z • / ••* ■ $y '' e 1L-',hi :' J ! ^- -s tK . /'■ ' v"* ^ • ‘ i.'r ur OO - r'• •■z:)-' -z2ro 7-'-O- ' *r^’ V N / \ Ta- • r. • w' .^N f '■ t'-- \k ' ^/^ou ?ro’/££:>•----->/ >1 , ]U y 9• }de--^C ^ L-/• ' f • ' * / V\'-' 0^^ -•'- J) .\? '* . . <.' _ » « JTtm. ^ sr^.* - .. ^ i y - •^' >'zc=: •' iy>o -f Z^UI +5 9V-^-^33-6V'- ^-Dil/4^i,u-r ^ n. I ^ /?tb. t>vJ/V/. { A'^^TG" :Joaa -^■ POOR original oocum <?i!* REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SSP ^ 199s DAl®fy^^ember 4, 1996 ITEM NO.7 Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Rev iewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Dacription: #2161 James and Melissa Easley, 4105 Highwood Road - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre minimum, sew’ered. Application: Request for 75-250' hardcover, lot coverage by structures, street setback, side setback and height variances for construction of a new garage to replace the existing deteriorated garage. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 8/26/96 C - Memo and Exhibits of 8'15/96 D - Staff Review of Building Heights Discussion Please review the memo and e.xhibits of August 15th. Briefly, applicants have a detached garage located as near as 3' from the right-of-way of Highwood Road, and that garage has deteriorated to a degree that it must be replaced. The appli'.'ants' lot is only 40' in w'idth and has a steep drop from the road to the existing house. Additionally, two mature trees on the east side of the property and a drainage concern on the west side of the property are factors which have resulted in the appliceints’ request for street setback and side setback variances. Also, the small size of the lot results in the request for hardcover and lot coverage variances. The accessor}' structure height variance request results from applicants' proposal to construct a room above the parking level of the garage. This room I.as potential use as a home ofT.ce but will not have plumbing. The applicants have provided a conceptual diagram showing connection of the garage structure to a future house that would replace the existing residence. The concept plan shows a future new house meeting the 75' setback (existing house is about 52' from the lake, deck is about 42'). As conceptually planned, it is likely that the combined house/garage structure would need a further height variance at the time the new house w'as proposed. Including the existing house and proposed garage, lot coverage will increase from 16.8% (1.401 s.f) to 19.7% (1,646 s.f.). a variance of 146 s.f. from the 1.500 s.f. allowance for lots under 10,000 s.f. in area. Request For Council Action continued Page 2 of 3 September 4, 19% Zoning File )?2161 As noted in the Planning Commission memo, drainage is a concern due to the narrow roadway, small lots and steep topograph) in the neighborhood. The applicants propose a new garage side setback of 3* on the w est side, w hich w ould be approximately 11 ’ from the neighboring garage. The west garage wall would be extended southerly as a retaining wall in order to chan..el drainage along the property boundary past the applicants' house The City Engineer has reviewed this plan in concept on the site and feels it is feasible. Before the City could issue a permit for that wall, applicants would have to provide engineered plans for any portions of it in excess of 4’ in height. The 3' setback from the west lot line also is requested in order to protect two mature maple trees located along the east side of the property, which would likely be jeopardized by construction of a garage meeting the normal 10' west side setback. The proposed garage will increase 75-250' hardcover from 38.1% to 40.8%. Hardcover in the 0-75’ zone will not change, and is currently at 23.3%. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this item at their August 19th meeting and on a vote of 6-0 recommended approval of the new garage construction as pre.sented. The findings noted by Planning Commission specifically or suggested by the applicants include the following: 1 The 75-250' hardcover increase from 38.1% to 40.8% is primarily a result of locating the proposed garage more than 20' from the street lot line to allow for off-street parking which is critical in this neighborhood. There is minimal excessive extraneous hardcover which could be removed to mitigate the hardcover variance. The small size of the lot is a significant factor in the need for the hardcover variance. The 6' variance to the 30' garage street setback requirement is justified based on the topography of the lot and the need to minimize driveway hardcover while providing an optimum level of off-street parking. The garage side setback variance to allow a 3' west side setback is justified based on the hardship of two mature trees which would be jeopardized by construction of a garage meeting the required side setbacks. Further, the proposed location of the garage allow s for extension of the west w all of the garage to assist in accommotlating drainage from the neighboring property along the lot line without negatively affecting applicants' existing residence. 4.The 245 s.f. increase in lot coverage, which results in a 146 s.f. overage from the 1,500 s.f. allowed, is primarily caused by replacing the existing 1 8'\20' garage with Request For Council Action continued Page 3 of 3 September 4, 1996 Zoning File 161 ______ a 22'x27.5' garage that includes an interior stainvell in lieu of an outside stairway. The justification for the increase in lot coverage is the safer walkway access provided bv an enclosed stairway svstem. 5.The defined height of the proposed garage structure is 23'. The defined height of the existing house is approximately 19*. The proposed garage structure will not be out of character with the neighborhood, given the topography and varying building styles and heights in the neighborhood. It is noted that if the future concept plan is executed and a future house linked to this garage, a future height variance will likely be necessary, since that combined structure will likely exceed the 30 ’ defined height limit. Staff Recommendation While the number of variances requested may seem somewhat extreme, that is to be expected from a lot that is only 40' wide. The positive aspects of the application include replacing a deteriorated garage, resolving an existing drainage problem and providing additional off street parking. Additionally, the proposed garage location helps preser\ e two mature trees on the east side of the property. These positive impacts must be weighted against the magnitude of variances requested and whether adequate hardships are shown to Justify the requested variances. A resolution has been drafted reflecting the Planning Commission recommendation. Options for Action 1. Approve per attached resolution. 2. Approve with additional or revised conditions. 3.Table for further information. 4. Conceptual denial (state reasons) 5.Other. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt attached resolution or take other appiopriate action, ch A RESOLUTION GRXNTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS IQ.0\ SUBDIVISION 9(B); 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14(C); 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; 10.55, SUBDIVISION 16(L) AND 10.23, SUBDIVISION 5 FILE ^2161 WHEREAS, Melissa Easley and James Easley (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 4105 Highwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 16. Highwood Lake Minnetonka. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono to permit the construction of a new two stor>' garage structure to replace their existing garage, requesting a variance to Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9(B) to allow the height of such accessory building to exceed the height of the principal structure, and a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C) to allow lot coverage by structures on the property to exceed the 1,500 s.f allowance by 146 s.f, and a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.55, Subdivision 16(L) to allow hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone to increase from 38.1% to 40.8% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, and variances to Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 to allow a 3 ’ side setback where a 10' side setback is normally required, and to allow a 24' street setback where a 30' street setback is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; Page 1 of 7 FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2161. The property' is located in the LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 19, 1996, and on a vote of 6-0 recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A.The 75-250 ’ hardcover increase from 38.1% to 40.8% is primarily a result of locating the proposed garage more than 20' irom the street lot line to allow for off-street parking which is critical in this neighborhood There is minimal excessive extraneous hardcover which could be removed to mitigate the hardcover variance. The small size of the lot is a significant factor in the need for the hardcover variance. B.The 6’ variance to the 30' garage street setback requirement is justified based on the topography of the lot and the need to minimize driveway hardcover while providing an optimum level of off-street parking. C.The garage side setback variance ?c allow a 3' west side setuacl; u justified based on the hardship of two mature trees which would be jeopardized by construction of a garage meeting the required side setbacks. Further, the proposed location of the garage allows for extension of the west wall of the garage to assist in accommodating drainage from the neighboring property along the lot line wiuiout negatively affecting applicants' existing residence. D.The 245 s.f. increase in lot coverage, which results in a 146 s.f overage from the 1,500 s.f allowed, is primarily caused by replacing the existing 18'x20' garage with a 22'x27.5' garage that includes an interior stairwell in lieu of an outside stairway. The justification for the increase in lot coverage is the safer walkway access provided by an enclosed stairway system. Page 2 of 7 E.The defined height of the proposed garage structure is 23'. I he defined height of the existing house is approximately 19'. The proposed garage structure will not be out of character with the neighborhood, given the topography and varying building styles and heights in the neighborhood. It is noted that if the future concept plan is executed and a future house linked to this garage, a future height variance will likely be necessary, since that combined structure will likely exceed the 30' defined height limit. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community . The City' Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary' to all.’viate a demonstrable h rdship or difficulty; is necessao to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivisions 9(B) to allow construction of the two story attached garage structure exceeding the defined height of the principal structure by 4', and grants a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C) to allow lot coverage by structures of 1,646 s.f. where only 1,500 s.f. of lot coverage would nomially be allowed, and grants a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.55, Subdivision 16(L) to allow hardcover in the 75-250' zone to increase from 38.1% to 40.8% where only 25% hardcover is normally- allowed, and grants a variance to Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 to allow a 3' side setback where a 10' side setback is normally required and to allow' a 24' stieet setback where a 30' street setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: Page 3 of 7 6. 7. 8. The roof overhang at the uest side of the garage shall not exceed 2\ such that the drip line shall be no closer than 1’ to the propert>^ line. Applicants shall adhere to the site plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, and any significant changes to that site plan may require additional City review. Applicants are advised to consult with the Building Official regarding the need for design plans for the proposed retaining walls. Applicants are advised to coordinate grading plans with the tw'o adjacent properties which are either undergoing remodeling currently or which have been approved for new construction. Applicants are advised that replacement of the existing house with a new residence structure in the future will likely require lot area and lot width variances, and might require a height variance if attachment to the new' garage is proposed. Authorities granted by this variance run with the prop>erty not with the applicants, but are permissi'^e only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one ye: * of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 9, 1997). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned 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. Page 4 of 7 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of September, 1996. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of September, 1996, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 7 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: James and Melissa Easley 4105 Highwood Road Mound, MN 553o4 T\TE OF APPLICATION: Variances ZONING FILE #2161 NOTICE OF PLANTVING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: August 26, 1996 COPIES: Sarah Susanka Mulfmger, Susanka & Mahady Architects, Inc. 43 Main Street Southeast Suite 410 Minneapolis, MN 55414 DATE OF MEETING: 08/19/96 Plann ing Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confwmed as: City Council, Monday, September 9, 1996; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator FROM:Michael P. GafTron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:August 15, 1996 SUBJECT: #2161 Melissa and James Hasley, 4105 Highwood Road - Variances Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB. Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre minimum, sewered. Application: Request for 75-250' hardcover, lot coverage by structures, street setback and side setback variances to construct a new garage to replace the existing deteriorated garage. A height variance may also be required, pend; confirmation of the existing house height. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Adjacent Owner Acknowledgements E - Letter of Request F - Existing Survey G - Proposed Site Plan and Grading Plan H - Future Conceptual Site Plan I - Hardcover Calculations J - Staff Hardcov er/Lot Coverage Review K - Cross Section L - Height Analysis Pertinent Code Sections I Section 10.22, Subd. 2/Section 10.55, Subd. 16(L): 75-250’ zone hardcover limited to 25%. 2. 3. 4. Section 10.24, Subd. 5: Required side setback 10’, required street setback = 30 ’. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 'C): Lot coverage by structures limited to 15% of lot area. Section 10.02 Def. 13: Building Height measurement; and 10.03 Subd. 9(B): Height of accessory buildings ma> not exceed height of principal structure. #2161 - Easley Page 2 Pertinent Facts 1. 2. Applicants propose to replace their existing 18'x20' garage located 3.4’ from the road, with a new 27.5'x22' garage located an average of 28' from the road. The new garage will face the street as does the existing garage. Applicants propose a side setback for the new gat age of approximately 3', to accomplish two purposes; A. Use new garage wall and extended retaining wall for channeling drainage along property boundary past applicant's house. The neighboring property is higher and portions of it drain toward applicants' property. B. To protect two mature maple trees located along east side of property. Applicants have provided a conceptual diagram (Exhibit H) indicating the location of a future house to replace their existing house, which is mostly in the 0-75' zone. The concept plan shows the new house meeting the 75' setback as well as the required 10' side setbacks. This construction would be the subject of a future variance however, since applicants are not proposing that construction in the immediate future, and have not finalized those plans. The proposed garage and driveway to accommodate offstreet parking will result in a slight hardcover increase of approximately 128 s.f in the 75-250' zone, or an increase from 38.1% to 40.8%. A retaining wall system w ill also be needed east of the driveway. No sidewalk access is proposed alongside the garage. The requested variances are summarized as follows: Existing Proposed Allowed/ Required Variance Garage Street Setback 3.4’24'-31’30’6' Garage Side Setback 2.5'(E)3’(W)10'r Lot Coverage 16.8% 1,401 s.f. 19.7% 1,646 s.f. 15% 1,500 s.f. (4.7%) 146 s.f 0-75’ Hardcover 23.3%No change 0%No change 75-250' Hardcover 38.1%40.8%25%15.8% Acc. Struc. Height 12 ’?23*<House .» r #2161 - Easley Page 3 Neighborhood Drainage The City Engineer was again asked to review the neighborhood 'hainage situation in relation to this project. As the neighborhood has redeveloped over the last 10-20 years, the magnitude of hardcover has continued to increase, and storm water problems tend to be exacerbated rather than resolved because there is no comprehensive storm sew er plan, i.e. a lack of curbs, gutters, and catch basins, and no formal storm sewer system but merely some rather informal individual piping to solve individual problems. The grading plan approved for the Applebaums, located immediately west of the applicants’ property, was to direct drainage from his remodeled house and driveway downhill within his property boundaries. However, topographically that is a challenge, and applicants' proposal to establish a wall system extending southw ard from the west side of the garage, would help that to occur and help that drainage move past applicants' house location. The City Engineer has vistited the site and feels this will be acceptable. Garage Height Issue While the proposed garage meets the 30' building height limitation (by definition it is only 23' in height measured from the grade at the high side to the average height of the gable above the vaulted ceiling), the height of the existing house has not been established. Applicants architect has been asked to confirm this height and will have that information prior to the meeting, to verify whether a height variance is required. Zoning Code Section 10.02, Def. 13 defines how building heights are measured and 10.03 Subd. 9(B) disallows an accessory' building from exceeding the height of the principal building. The proposed garage, if attached to a future house as indicated in the concept plan, would result in the need for a height variance of approximately 8 feet. If the need for a height variance is shown, one option is to eliminate the story above the garage... Issues for Discussion 1. 2. Is the proposed placement of the new detached garage (with possible future attachment) at a distance 24' to 31' from the street, sufficiently justified by hardships and other property constraiius? Moving it closer to the street would reduce hardcover but also reduce the off- street parking potential... Is resolution of a diainage problem and preservation of two mature tree^ sufficient hardship to justify granting a side setback variance to allow the garage to be 3' from the side lot line, with a 2' overhang being just 1' from the lot line? A 5 ’ setback might be more appropriate. #2161 - Easley Page 4 3. 4. 5. but might not accomplish the same goals. This will at least place the drip line and its immediate impacts within applicants' property . The setback to the neighbor's new garage to the west will be approximately 11.5 feet. Please recall that all properties regardless of lot size are allowed up to 1,500 s.f. of lot coverage by structures to include the house and garage. Placement of the garage will bring applicants' propert>' to 1,646 s.f. (19.7%), an increase from 1,401 s.f. existing (16.8%). Note that their concept plan for the future would also end up at about 19.7%. Is there sufficient justification for an increase above the 1,500 s.f lot coverage limit? Is the 2.7% increase in 75-250' hardcover justified? Does it make sense to reduce the size of the driveway in order to minimize the increase? How does the positive impact of the future concept plan affect Planning Commission's view of this property? Is the proposed garage reconstruction consistent with other approvals granted recently in this neighborhood? Note that it will contain a lower level shop and upper level office. As a detached structure, this space is cannot contain living space, i.e. cannot have plumbing and cannot have a kitchen area (neither are proposed). Staff Recosimendation The existing garage needs to be replaced and the proposed street setback yields offstreet parking which is definitely necessary in this neighborhood. The drainage and tree preservation goals of the minimal side setback should be weighed against the visual impact as well as the impact on neighboring properties. The lot coverage variance is relative to the small size of the lot, less than 1/5 acre in area. T he hardcover increase should be considered both in the "interim" context as well as the concept plan context. The height issue should be consisted in the context of the existing house as well as in the context of a future attached dw elling. If Planning Commission concludes that each of the variances proposed are justified, a recommendation for approval, or conditional approval, would be in order. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval as proposed. Recommend approval with specific conditions. Table for further information (specify). Recommend denial (state reasons). Other f - ijp r O Application § Date Received '7/>s/^f- Amount Paid ‘7/') Cl' CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00 (no change from original application) Vauiance for non-conforming structures S220. After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) I •• 1 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ________OS i Propertj ’ Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propertj^cquired _________________________________________ I 'do)((don^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) Present use of property: )C residential Zoning District: other (specify) APPLICA^pr A I. Name *■ / \£ • > Address:V/^':^ i'/yJ Phone (home) Phone (work) 9l^y OfnnO ~ Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ______________ Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address:Citv:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimated Constmction Cost S (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover \ Lot Coverage Setback:Front X' 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:_______________________________________ //: r M i-rv-r tJ) (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. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Applicauon Form Certified ProperU’ OvsTiers List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Depanment 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'/j" 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 owTier(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all irJbrmation 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 suppliecNi&^rue'T^*^ correct to ih^^ best^ his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature OWNER’S SIGNATURE ^ The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property hy City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for puiT»ses'9f investigation verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date — II 0Applicant must have all submittalSvJnto the Cit^ 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 / g <vt •( !5,I \ *<r- I !•'i iiC 55 i ■^'r j 1^/ Cf. S^>j / / / •5^^. / /f4=v' Vt / '/:> '.'fT>-'>^ S / /' *Tl\' •'V /' • /* ""■ <9^^' - Ur^i :c^ r^’y.V/-- / /(\2)^\iA?>vJ; ?4 '7. rvj 1 ■s ^ 1 ‘ ft____‘•-/ (11! 1 7r.Q vj L____r 1 «i 61 ! \fii 1 -------- eo -i (6 ’> : CH) ‘ , i 11 •, 46) /5^'5,' M « 13 Jil' */ ■{-'^ •§'5 ‘i'/ ■'/■ ■ / /V>-^"'''4r. ''-<sr / / '7 7 '^''’’s'-, / / i-y .-'v-«74.;/V«y' // / \§>w„ / ■. P. > ?5J«EtO?5KA" "' \ \ \ t* fi *•’* tr) 0 .* * -• i•X RUN DATE 07/25/96 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY CWt^RS LISTBATCH 525 PROP AOOR (5tlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 07-117-23 44 0010 04079 HIQtROOO RO jmN T SANBORN ETAL J T SANBORN 4079 HIGHHOOD RD MOUND MN 55164 PROP AOOR ONFIER NATC TAXPAYER NAm/AODR 38 07-117-23 44 0013 04101 HIGHHOOD RO EVA THEOBALD EVA A THEOBALD 4101 HIGHHOOD ROAD MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 07-117-23 44 0031 04132 HIGHHOOD RD SCOTT G ft CATHERINE ANDERSON SCOTT G ft CATHERINE ANDERSON 4132 HIGHHOOD ROAD MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 30 07-117-23 44 0006 04104 HIGHHOOD RD GLEN ft BEVERLY SAUER GLEN ft BEVERLY SAUER 4104 HIGHI^tOOD RD MOUND m 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE SB 38 07-117-23 44 0011 04D91 HIGItlFDOD RD F L JCmsON ft D L FOSS FREDERIC JOHNSON 4091 MIGWOOO RO MOUND MN 55364 :: • • • 38 07-117-23 04099 H1& 0 L ft R NELSON ALONZO B SERAN III 4099 HIGHNOOO RD MOUND MN 55364 0012 RO . •• 38 07-117-23 44 0014 04105 HIQHHOOQ RD J B ft M J EASLEY JAMES B ft MELISSA J Ei^LEY 4105 HIGHHOOD RO MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0015 04109 HIGHNOOO RD GEORGE H APPLEBAUM GEORGE APPLEBAUM 4109 HIGHHOOD RD MOUND MN 55364 30 07-117-23 04108 HIGMH( JAS0i4 M T>fEIS JASON THEIS 4108 high:ick)o 0033 RO MOUTjO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 04125 HIGHHOOD JOHN N ft ROBERTA JOHN H ft ROBERTA 4125 HIGHHOOD RO ORONO MN 55364 0084 RD J HENRICH J HENRICH 38 07-117-23 44 04116 HIGH^IOOO PHILLIP M OTTO PHILLIP OTTO 4116 HIGHHOOD RD MOU^fJ MN 55364 0087 RO ■ -r. TOTAL BATCH 523 00011 y• ... f ‘A., 4 r'K \ * I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE I |o V I I (we) (-?ec>^e Adjacent Propertj' Owners' Acknowledgement Fo^jgC> ^ ic^^koOooJ/ . 4"(-oeofAe. 4 —}0C‘nntL [print name(s)]print addre have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No.4? f 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 pK^ct or use^^retJuTpe^Council approval. Propert>' Owner Date fopert>' Owner ^ Date »/ ‘ ******♦**♦*♦*******•♦****•*♦*************************************************’'' ■7 7-3 c)-9j^ I (we)h [print name(s)^print address] i^kujp<yA have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the propert>' located at nlo5" ^ also referred to as Land Use Application No. -P/k? / .. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the propert>- 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 u r Date DateProperty Owner If you have any information that may assist the City In the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 07/26/1936 10:00 6123790001 ME..;W aF*<>IITECTS P aCtE 02 B .• I # 'i- y-;. J 43 MainVrfriS£,SuH^410. MN 55 M 4 TcIcpSoof (#.l2i i79-30)7 F4x ; (61 ?1 J79-0001 Inly 26, 1996frincIpAlt: MMifinpief M,rlSl'vt*4.3y M.t<e Goffron. Ass.stanl Planning and Zoning Admini^uaio. City ot Orono A moc U im; 2750 Kelley P«»tkway p,ul Buum P.O.Box 66 K.^ft^pfinc A Canrelt** ^ lo rcj-iiMrilyR O.vi* Crystal Bay, MN 553-1.1 Timofhv Fuilcf Robert Cti\oi^ Joseph G Mptilef Dear Mike: iSiSSSS5= 4105 Highwood Road. The Easley's lot is no exception. Currently they have the following problems: a An evisting garage that is unsafe, and, according to a structural erig’meer ■ retained W prov ide a report on its soundness, may not last through the coming w inter. b. A retaining vv.dl supporting the vvoorlen stairvyay COttnecJing . garage that w.is installed improi'^rly, (probably without the required frost footings). and needs to be replaced. c A slope within the buildable area of the lot that is close to and 8«;e3ter than 25% (This will be determined with topographic data being collected over me coming week). d. Run off from the westerly neighbor’s pro|wrty onto the Easley's profierty, causing erosion 4long .in unrctaincd bvink the two properties. p An existmp house which is currently situated entirely within the area be^vcen the lake and the 75' l.ikeshoic set back, so that even it they wtre to add on to any pan of the existing house, a variance would be required. I Twe^" diameter, m.iture, healthy and beautiful maples located ‘dong the east property Ime that would preclude any construction within at least 10 and preferably 20 teet of their trunks. After reviewing the situation with the Easleys. I made the following recommendations: a That we propose to locate the new garage structure as close to the westerly property line as the City will allow , so th.u we can use the side wa I ot the gaigac to serve\is a ret.iining wall for the cunently eroding bank, and so that we can reconfigure the run oft from the neighbors property to stay on that property latner 07/!l6/19?b 10:00 61237S0001 MSiW AF'CHITE'IiTS PA'jE 05 thon rontinue to run across neighboring properties. This loCtllion will aiso provide the greatest protection tor the root systems of the two maples, keeping he new garage foundation walls approximately 20 feet away from the tree trunks. b To extend the westerly wall of the garage as required, to form a continuation oi this retaining wall between properties, for the same purpose as Item a above. C. To increase the distance between the street and the garage face to allow ^ pull off the street completely svhen parked in frunt of the garage, su no o py beyond this point, so tbar we can reduce the amount of engineered till required to accomplish the ^e^v <^iructurc. d. To apply for the rtecessary variances to accomplish this work as quickly as possSe, as it is important trom a safety st.uidpomt that the garage ar^cl new- steps between the house and the garage be installed l«.-lore Easleys have two small children, and the c ondition of the existing garage, wall, and stairs provide a very real satety hazard with the onset o winter, an ic additional frost heave that can be cxf.>e«:ted as a result. For this work to be accomplished then, they will need the foUoyving variances: 1 . Hard cover variance 2. Lot coverage variance 3. Side setback variance 4. Street setback van-tnee In addition, the EasU-ys hacc asked me to help them think through either remodeliiiR the existing home or building new on the same site^ would not be doing this work for the next couple ot years, they wan to evaluate how any such yvork might affect iheir decis-onmaking about the g.^rage placement and form. Their preference would be to btiild new. but this will of course depend to some extent upon the granting of the variances they would rieed tor such work, and al^i^ilable.^The Site Plan and Section already submitted prior to receipt ot this lett.r. indicate the general location and size of house they envision. The footprint ot the hwse diagrammed here .s 70' x 4h’. or 960 sf. Because ot the e.xtreme Slope ot the the dcsir^^d distrihuTion ot rooms would bc 3S tollows. a I ocatp mam liy ing areas at the same elevation as the garage parking surface b. I o( ate fxfdrooms on the leyet h»elOyv this. C. Locate storage and basement of the level below litis. The Easley's would prefer not to have another living level above the main level, and in my pro'^sioX-ipinion this -s certainly prefeiable\o making the hous. s.-ucure aryy^ taMer However if they were unable to gel approximately 1 ,000 st ot mam level living 07/26/1936 10:00 6123790001 APiXITECTS PA>3E 04 f r -f • ' (■ » *. .a t m» * •V >• e:‘.» K P i \t space, they would either remodel the existing house or increase the height of the profxised new home to include another story. Thus, it appears tt^ey would need to ohiam the tollow ing variances tor the proposed new house: 1. Lake side set back variance--to allow them to build up to the 75' setback, rather than the average ot the setbacks ot the two adjacent piopcrties. 2. Lot coverage variance 3. Hard cover variance .Mlhough the decisions regarding whether to remodel or add on do not appear to affect any decisionmaking related to the new garage, we arc interesierl in hearing the -ity s attitudes atmut the liktlihcKxl of such variances for the house being granted, to help the Easleys as they plan for the futLire. Any assistance, advice or comment m this matter would be greatly appreciated We do understand, though, that such vatiances will be evaluated and decided upon only once a complete proposal has been submitted. Supporting data for the variances currently being applied for will be forthcoming. Thcink you for your «fssisliince, Mike, in helping us to undprstanil ll'iti Zoning Ordinances that apply to this situation. Sincerely. Sarah Susanka, AIA I 1 I II ^ wwi ^1 If iki. >irr I r ^ j»y^,'*'ip^s}>rf^?^6.0 Existing 'o Garage o .i) ^ / ‘■;o ' *xV V ij*' Gravel . Drive \ • • • ' '• (»*»-’J“ .* '' '* »•/!’'' \ f ' -jy 1 /Wood'stapi J I VTWWW ^ It Lon^ - ".i <V:- 13«*V 17 /^\. \ \\ C>' -.\: .\ i6 x4\/ / ...-3 / Existing House \ l0 '4 Existing House 5-7 A 27:^-•• / / Deck Steps .'\W l/ / / i.;2A Concrete Slob / f / / / Existing House * Z / / / / '^W^^beck y j / LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Lot 16. HIGHWOOD LAKE MINNETONKA This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house and existing garage, and all visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. Bearings shown ore based upon an assumed datum. •.: denotes iron marker found 0 : denotes iron marker set / > 10> / / I ^ rl -r.oo”AO- VxO® e'-o oV-° % cr < - .Proposed J' * 1 • ’ • • ^ I It>o Garage ^KoadOrono MULFINCtR,SUSANKA, MAHADY.v PARTNER I INC 41 Mjm tend U. VmW 4lli. MN \V«M kWfitwfW 4r l4»/» I/** »«• • »<•••*• 612379C0O1 473-4433 M APOHITECTSOr 14/1998 09:57 09'12/1996 lb: IS HARDCQVIR CALCULATION WORKSHETT SITBACK ZONti (CmCLI ONK) 5M.|00«* mMTtHA MABPgQVtB IN ZONE------ PA*SE A* Hcoit UAfil \ n % B. Cvtt« C Dflvewty % n A D. Sidiwitk 2JC 1 X E. F4tl<^gS^2ju±k t F. LwidKipt Vndtrl«in By Orftbric K X X O. Cdur total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY ARIA IN ZONE ZIZ * B »BnW>«Pn MABPgOVWR IN ZONE A. Houm ■ UtffX I X X B. CiriRt C. Drti^tway 0. Si4»M)«Uc X X r.’^Lmdxeap* UnderUin By Plutic Or Fabric X X X O. Oihar 6.F. ap. S.P. S.P. if: 8.P. S.F. /^7 $.F. S.F % •• • ■ • •1££ir^ S.P. S.P. 8.P. $.F. ^^7 JtIZl 8.F. A f.F. B 7S9J ■ X too - S.F. V.AX it' • S.F. 8.F. 8.F. ^S.P. ij'. i.F. * • • t t.F. $.F. $.F S.F. I.P. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPIRTY AREA IN ZONE » . ♦ B 8.P. • •• X iOO • _-l.P, _H A I) 0 • ‘ B'33 ai= PEdKC : -2/50 • • *14* ^ ‘ * ’«•• • • • • • • • # *• • • fi •• I63S 5335 ^1^.65 Z i xi 1 I 1 £ <0 08/'’14/1996 09:57 Oi/12/1996 16:16 6123790001 479-4435 M3:-M ARCHITECTS P age 02 y*4 €4X1 (f i HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHfiET SCTDACKZONlt (OHCLBONC) fiXTSTlNC HAftPgQVgft tN ZONR A. H o «m ___ _ 0.75 ’ISO-SOO'SOO-IUUO' LM||h WMUl X X X •. • • 4 4 m B. Cirt|« C. Drlvtwsy // X X D. Sidtwalk /rY iiM§ X X IJL E. niurf. MtttfiLr * X F. Landicip* Und«ritiA By Fliitie Or Ptbrie a a X S.F. 8.F. S.P.- 2£^sp. p. S.P. 5.F. yy .S.F. S.P. O. Oth«r COHC . (<Z) TOTAL HAROCOVeA IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A iBOb • B </7V2 X100 - PROPOSED HARPCOVER IN ZQNIl A. Houtt _______________ X Ui«yi % X X Ba. Oirtfi C. Drivewiy Zl.6 X X D, Si4(wtlk W/oxi walk A X 7 S E. fill9/P«ck u;aJ F. LWMlietpc Un4«Tlaiii By Pli*tt9^ Or Ptbrle X X % O. OChfr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _______________ » ■_S.F. _SF. .-S.P. m _sy. • • «?« » M _S.F. _$P. VTVl . SP. TA.09 S « . • • r 311 -S.F. » . • • ‘ ■ «# »t4>SF. M -ST. ■i -SF. • eas * M -S.F. A3d - S.F. •-S.P. _s .p : 31-4 -S.P. -40 _^S.F. •- S.P. -8.F. S.P. •B •-S.F. « B *• • ______S.F. A U .'f - A II X 100 •A «# • L u fcV-'-'s • •—-il ^T/; r r c/yjj^l ''«-■ .*.//; /<^A y • 0^ s-^• 2-S'/i . 2r» ?•-■:' ’-ic."/■'.?: ? ’ y-(^• • s ••: • iz'-zyj'-' ?-■/ :^7. C? •'• • - ^ -r . (36./ % (73■’z r ^ 1 . ?<> ^ ^ / ^, / Z33 CcUC^^'T __0 -r •____-r ^52:.W '•-i * ' V( ?o . , 0-•>: 'A-'Cr.. i SS'^S -r-r ,. .. 7r'?p’yCJ-tfA,'. >/7‘72- ______n^7pc_ t^7 ' CvL . % •• • • <'>?■' BV *'f • ■»' <■-' l?2 ^ B.U ,6.M^.<'- ... P e ct «• • ^6^ ^or ^o^ r M /;r>/6 •. <" —X • *-n zo^H^ .... PiCIJO^jAT uuAtcc.VrO 2 ^itAj7v)k'-! ? V'''4(? .I(o0 .A< '■ ^ A“'n 7- r '/V'= I S-A P^/^ Of iCOOf TD / s 2.6. ' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: Sep ITEM NO. Sip ^ 1996 Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2164 Douglas J. Olson. 2601 W^est Lafayette Road - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, sewered, 1 acre. Application: Request for 0-75' and 75-250 ’ hardcover variances, lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback variances for construction of additions to the existing residence. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 8/20/96 C - Memo and Exhibits of 8/14/96 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of August 14th. Briefly, applicant proposes to construct additions to the existing residence including a room expansion on the south side of the house in the 75-250 ’ zone and a second story addition above the central ponion of the house in the 75-250 ’ zone. Additionally, the entire existing house and additions will be getting a new 12:12 pitch roof system to replace the existing low 3:12 pitch roof A portion of the existing house w hich w ill have its roof pitch revised is located in the 0-75 ’ setback zone, requiring a 0-75 ’ structure setback variance. 0-75' hardcover is 9.1% and no hardcover changes are proposed in that zone. Hardcover in the 75- 250 ’ zone is 31.0%. and with the proposed additions and proposed driveway hardcover removals, 75-250 ’ hardcover will be reduced by approximately 217 s.f to 30.25%. The entire house is located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line as drawn betw een the two adjacent residences. The house sits on a point of the lakeshore. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this application at their August 19th meeting and on a vote of 5-1 recommended approval of the variances requested, based on the following findings: Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 ' September 5, 1996 Zoning File ^2164 __________ 3.Table for further information. 4. Conceptual denial. 5.Other. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt resolution for variance appro\ al. , seconded by , to adopt ResolutionProposed Motion: Moved by_______ No._____, granting hardcover, lakeshore setback and average lakeshore variances to Douglas J. Olson of 2601 West Lafayette Road for construction of additions to the existing residence. Vote: ______ayes_______nays. Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 Septembers, 1996 Zoning File ^2164 3.Table for further information 4. Conceptual denial 5.Other. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt resolution for variance approval. seconded by ,, to adopt ResolutionProposed Motion: Moved by_______ No._____, granting hardcover, lakeshore setback and average lakeshore variances to Douglas J. Olson of 2601 West Lafayette Road for construction of additions to the existing residence. Vote: ______ayes_______nays. J • • ------------------ Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2164. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8; AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C) & (L) FILE #2164 WHEREAS, Douglas J. Olson (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 2601 West Lafayette Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tracts C and F, Registered Land Survey No. 131. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56 Subdivision 16 (C) and (L) to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence and the revision of the roof of the existing residence, such additions and revisions const tuting hardco\'er and structure in tlie 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, and constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in that zone, and such additions and revisions encroaching past the average lakeshore setback where no encroachments are normally allowed. Page 1 of 5 •JuiL«hiira rtiirtiviiiT*anirti •jijiiiais •ittyt rtitjflt] rmm rtuniit]KlaiTno^C rtiirt] r« r* * r« I \sm ^FsT¥Wn itTMt liKtlt] A r 4.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the 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 variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (C) and (L) to permit the construction of room additions and revisions to the roof structure of the existing house and additions, a portion of which are located in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, and grants a variance for hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone for hardcover in excess of the 25% normally allowed, and grants a variance for average lakeshore setback encroachment where no such encroachment is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1.Hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall not exceed the existing 9.1% as shown on the site plan and hardcover worksheet attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone shall not exceed 30.25% as shown on Exhibit A. The hardcover removals necessary to achieve this hardcover level shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for the proposed new construction. Applicant is advised that hardcover on the property exceeds the normal limits, and any future proposal to increase hardcover on the property will likely not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with the concurrent removal of pre-existing hardcover, resulting in no net increase or a net decrease in hardcover on the property. Page 3 of 5 3. 5. ATTEST: Applicant shall adhere to the construction plans and site plan submitted, and any plan changes which result in a greater magnitude of variances will be subject to further review by the City. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be e.Kercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 9, 1997). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and a.ssigns, hereby agrees 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 September, 1996. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknow’edged before me on this 9th day of September, 1996, by Edward J, Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instmment was executed on behalf of the City. hotary Public Page 4 of 5 i i -r STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary’ Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO; Douglas J. Olson 2601 West Lafayette Road Excelsior, MN *55331 ZONING FILE #2164 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: August 20, 1996 COPIES: Bruce Knutson Architects, Inc. 1128 Harmon Place Suite 308 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Lake Country Builders 339 Second Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Concept Landscaping, Inc. 3153 Priest Lane Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 08/19 96 VOTE: 5 FOR I AGAINST Plarning Commission recommends the following; Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: • Approval subject to 75-250' zone hardcover removals as proposed. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council, Monday, September 9, 1996; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator FROM;Michael P. GafTron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator D.ATE:August 14, 1996 SUBJECT: #^2164 Douglas J. Olson, 2607 West Lafayette Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB. Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 1 acre, sewered. Application: Request for 0-75' and 75-250' hardcover variances, lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback variances for construction of additions to the e.xisting residence. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Neighbor Acknowledgments E - Survey F - Existing Site Plan/Hardcover G - Proposed Site Plan/Hardcover H - Construction Plans I - Elevation Views J - Hardcover Calculations K - Lot Coverage Calculations L - Contact List Summary of Request Applicant propr'ses to construct a second stoiy addition above the central portion of the house, and revised the existing 3/12 pitch roof to a 12/12 pitch roof system over the entire house. The project also involves expansion of the footprint of the house, mainly on the side of the house away from the lake. A portion of the existing house is located in the 0-75' setback zone. Further, the entire house is located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line, as drawn between the two adjacent residences. Hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback zone is 9.1%, and no hardcover changes are proposed in that zone. Note that extraneous hardcover in the 0-75' zone was removed as a condition of a previous variance which allowed reconstruction of the pool area. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 31.0%, and with the proposed additions and proposed driveway area hardcover removals, 75-250' hardcover will be reduced by approximately 217 s.f., to 30.25%. J #2164 - Olson Page 2 Discussion The proposed remodeling of the existing structure will result in additional living space and an updated look for this home. Staff has reviewed the proposed defined height of the structure and finds it meets the 30' maximum height requirement by definition. The portion of the existing house located less than 75' from the lake is not intended to have a second story, but will increase in height due to the change in roof pitch. The adjacent residence to the southeast is on somewhat higher ground, and may currently enjoy minimal views over the existing residence, which may be reduced or eliminated by the revised roof system. However, the main views of the lake from that house are to the east and not affected. Existing vegetation will also act to limit neighbors' views hence it is unlikely that average setback is a significant issue for this property. No neighbors have indicated a problem to staff as of this writing. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is primarily due to the pool and paved area surrounding it, which was addressed in a previous variance application. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is primarily attributable to the house footprint and extensive driveway area, which iias existed for some time. While the additions add approximately 840 s.f to the footprint of the house, a portion of these additions are over existing driveway or walkway hardcover, and applicant proposes to create a nonhardcover island in the center of the large driveway apron, leaving a loop driveway for access purposes but resulting in hardcover decrease more than offsetting the additions. Lot coverage by structures currently is approximately 7.7%, and will increase to 8.8%, well within the 15% limitation. Issues for Discussion 1.Is the location of the existing house sufficient hardship to justify granting a lake setback variance for construction of a higher pitched roof above the existing portion of house in the 0-75' zone? Are any neighbors' views of the lake negatively impacted by construction of the additions and higher pitched roof? Is the shape of the shoreline sufficient hardship to justify the granting of an average lakeshore setback variance? Given the fact that lot coverage by structures is not an issue with this project, is the proposed reduction of hardcover in the 75-250' zone from 31.0% to 30,25% adequate? Are there other hardcover items in either the 0-75' or 75-250' zones that could be further removed in order to reduce the percentage of hardcover? #2164 -Olson Page 3 Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission concludes that adequate hardships have been shouTi to justify the granting of the average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback and hirdcox er variances, then a recommendation for approval may be appropriate. The shape of the lot and the cur\ e of the shoreline, as well as the fact that lake exists on both the north and east sides of the property, are hardships noted by the applicant. Planning Commission should consider whether the hardcover removals proposed are sufficient. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval as proposed. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval with specific conditions. Table for further information.i Recommend denial. . ^ ' • r. Other.I / 1-^-^ r ( r \ . t « 7 ( Application #^l-4 1 '7 ■9(f w , t ^ 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) ©'f' £ O • • 3'/ n 1 : ia \ r 4 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 7,CrOI /c/ Propcrt> Identification Number (P.I.D.)rropcrt> loenuncauon iMumocr yr.i.u.}_____________________________ Attach legal description ’.o mplication if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ‘^lyaic ___ 1^44 ______________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propert>" ^ residential ___other (specify) Zoning District;------------------------------------------------------- (month/year) applicant , Address: 2A>Ol A/. Phone (home) llh ^3^ Phone (work ) *^20 • Mil y)fl£>U6 Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:_______ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Citv:Zip: Estimated Construction Costdescription of request , , ^ Describe request in detail: pHOhBL pUL tHHC ■ WmCU LXItidh. (HttBch Edditiondl sheets if necessary) VARIANCES required Lot Area ___Lot Width y Setback:Front Side X Hardcover ___Lot Coverage __Rear A.verage Lakeshorc Other (specify) hardship /description of unusual PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual properpf condition preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: fturHOOCy LfT $/?£ \Af AtlB <»AVB Of JHE Lax.-----— (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 CITY OF ORONO W 6124730510 07/23/96 10:12 0:02/03 N0:6?1 . V REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of tht following information mml hf lubmitttd bv tht application deadline ditt in prder for vour ■pplicition to be considered complete; 1. 4N»« 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. X Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603, Gov't Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8'/i" x 11** for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade arc proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/:” x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy VfiT x IP). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in Me 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 vHangg application i« not complete if the above information has not been IncludetL APPLICANTS SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay j ..’'lional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the tnfoimation supplied is true a^d(curect to thq best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signatiu’e Date 7 5 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___^ > -1 Date X Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plannlog Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an outhorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 I (1-^:5 &d\ ■ 6 J RU4 DATE 06/27/95 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATIQN SYSTEM PROPERTY ONI^RS LIST REPORT NO. PIA55401 PAGE 9BATCH SOSPROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER HAME/AOOR SB 2I-1I7-2S 21 0001 02404 NEST LAFAYETTE RO LAURA C PIOSKE LAURA C PIOSKE 2404 NEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR HN 55SU SB 21-117-2S 21 0002 02400 NEST LAFAYETTE RO ANN MATTHEHS ANN HATTHENS 2400 NEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN SSSSl SB 21-117-2S 21 OOOS 02401 NEST UFAYETTE 0 J OLSON A B J BONERS DOUGLAS J OLSON 2401 NEST LAFAYETTE RO EXCELSIOR m SSSSl PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAIIE/AOOR SB 21-117-2S 21 0007 02405 NEST LAFAYETTE RO BRADFORD L BLANKENSHIP BRADFORD A DEBRA DLATKENSHIP 2405 NEST LAFAYETTE RO . EXCELSIOR HN 55S31 SB 21-117-2S 24 004S 02410 NEST LAFAYETTE RD CYNTHIA N ENGQUIST CYNTHIA N ENGQUIST 2410 LAFAYETTE RD N EXCELSIOR MN 55SSI SB 21-117*21 24 0049 0241S NEST LAFAYETTE RD VICTORIA L GAGNE VICTORIA L GAGNE 2415 LAFAYETTE RO N EXCELSIOR MN SSSSl PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR TOTAL BATCH SOS 00004 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS ...PRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APr^ARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION» TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDCE AND BELIEF. .-.yc.) DATE UdSLu V rii \o 1 CITY OF ORONO n 612A730510 y'• «V: 1/ 07/23/96 10:12 |3 :03/03 N0:621 Adjactnt Property Ovnen' AckiiowIcdgcnicDt Form 1 (we)4nn 0]R-hthf±w? [print name(s)J have rcviewccLihe plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at Ua! also referred to as Land Use Application No.________.V - 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. f .V.^S^L Property Owner Date property Owmer Date [print n£me(s)] *** of 7-^05~ IcK / [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located k\Z£0/ lO. ^:^/Xf<^v^^lso refened 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 I (we) am (arc) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. 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 i __✓it--------- * •m H-( \ -1 ■lc=^ • *’fl. -r.. •••.,!{ » % « ^’l!. . .? 1* 15 ^ 1 V ’\^----r-=r^ !5 y » —4. *i 4 i7 1 J1 ■1- 0 ? > 4r* . fl r - M ni I - f > I •- D POOR ORIGINAL DOCUM?fJ^ 4 A OLSON/BOWERS RESIDENCE :60l U I AFAVtTTE ROAD URONO. MINNESOTA 55391 iMh -1: ••V. Mi HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET mi • J SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ®-75* ]EXISTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House /6>_______ Length 6 / X X X X 250-!soo-ioeo' Widik B. Girage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. L >n<1iirap» ■ By Pla atie G. Other o5.3 ^5 n X X X X X X X X X X- ICl TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •T“ B PROPOSED HARDCO\TR IN ZONE A. House _____________ * Letifth Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck -F:—bandscape Voderlain- -By-Plastie G. Other n ~j___________ ^3 X 17. 26 t> TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B. + B 46/ X 100 % 100 A't'7 «rC w- \4e^■2 T /ail <4^ I ■ '<Z6 i5Q 5^- 5^- Z2SS. ^2 S.F. S.F. 3:-^.v'v;:4 S.F. Ai ‘f * S.F. / - 'v. S.F. bA. *:r::rr.-1 S.F. bs - ' S.F. S3•5 <••T' . ‘'<T' i ’ « F eA ' ''' *'} S.F. b(p S.F.i:)7 S.F. S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. i. af S.F. 2/ S.F. CZ JS.f. S.F. bi S.F., ] ^ IZ: iir'tS.T-S.S.F. £4 S.F. bl S.F. S.F. S.F. ___________S.F. __________S.F. A B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-2S0* 250-500*500-11 rXISTINO HARDCOVER IN ZONE House Z6L IfJ * ZL Lrtigih Width % X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk 60' X X E. Patio/Deck 2S> X X u-z 21 -z F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL I.IOPERTY AREA IN ZONE B 5 -Ti./ fWnPOSFn WARnCO\TR IN ZONE A. House 2-^_______ X LBQffh Width X X X B. Garige Driveway X X D. Sidewalk //<X X 2 /. ^ E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other \0 / TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 3. 273_____ + B 3f^. *74/ X 100 X 100 216 3* tieO •3 23>0 76 ^6 ^0 3 3 3'S. la S.F. S.F. S.F. S F. S F. S.F. S.F. p- S.F. Ol .' V r F. D2. • 5 f. D3 ‘ S.F. £/ ^ i S-F. ^2- S.F. r‘ S.F. S.F. S.F. <;/ S.F. S.F. X A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. D/ 5. F. rz. 6. f. S.F. S.F. S.F. fi S.F. S.F. S.F. Cl S.F. S.F. X A B Job_ Dote Kl i Q fI*.Job Date II* '-* tlPAr^'k'^IVAA-^i . 'J ■ K Kl M • 4 » • « i• MFMO TO: Olson/Bowers Remodeling File FROM: Bill Michels, Project Architect DATE; May 24. 1996 SUBJECT: Lot Area •> - • . : J Lot Area: Total Driveway Easement (110’ x 20 + 166 ’ x 20): 83,575.00 sq.ft. 5.520.00 sq.ft. Lot Area Less Driveway Easement:78,055.00 sq.ft. Lot Area (Less Drivewav Easement):78,055.00 sq.ft. 0-75 75 - 250 (less easement) 250- 35.961.00 sq.ft. 29.551.00 sq.ft. 12.543.00 sq.ft. Allowable Lot Area Coverage: 78,055 X 15% =11,708.25 sq.ft. Existing Lot Area Coverage: House and Garden Pool and Patio 3.401.89 sq.ft. 1,860.00 sq.ft. 616.00 sq.ft. 150.00 sq.ft. 6.027.89 sq.ft. 6,027.89 / 78,055 x 100 =7.72 % 1128 Harmon Place, Suite 308, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403, 612*332-8000, FAX 332-7504 exA_, al -z Memo Re: Lot Area - continued Proposed Lot Area Coverage: House and Garden Pool and Patio 4.242.00 sq.ft. 1.860.00 sq.ft. 616.00 sq.ft. 150.00 sq.ft. 6.868.00 sq.ft. 6,868.00 / 78.055 x 100 8.80% Page 2 of 2 1128HarmonPlace, Suite 308, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403, 6!2-332'8000, F.\X 332-7504 Kl ew. / OLSON/BOWERS REMODELING CONTACT LIST BRUCE KNUTSON ARCHITECTS. INC 1128 Hannon Place, Suite 308 Minneapolis, MN 55403 (612)332-8000 LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS 339 Second Street Excelsior, MN 55331 (612)474-7121 it ‘ // • ^ .? • -t -1 ♦-vn y\ ■ ] CONCEPT LANDSCAPING. LNC 3153 Priest Lane Mound, MN 55364 (612)472-4118 1128HarmonPlacc,Suite3C8, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403, 612'332-8000, FAX 332-7504 ^a-1 REQUEST FOR COUNOL ACTION C/jy DATE: September^ 1996 ITEM NO = 9 Department Approval: Name Michael P. GafGroa Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2166 Janet Kieraan, 1491 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Resolution Zonjig District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, unsewered, 2 acre. Application: Request for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, side setback, and 0-75V75- 250 ’ hardcover variances for construction of additions to the existing residence. Application has been revised so that a street setback variance for expansion of the existing detached garage is no longer necessar>'. The application also includes the relocation of the existing driveway access to the property. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Revised Site Plan C - Original/Revised Terrace Proposal D - Original/Revised Garage/Driveway Layout E - Driveway Grading Plan F - Existing Topography South of Garage G - Revised Hardcover Calculations H - Notice of Planning Commission Action/Sewer Preliminary Route Layout I - Memo and E.xhibits of 8/14/96 Discussion Plea.se review the memo and exhibits of August 14th. Briefly, applicant proposes room additions in the 75-250' zone, including revisions to the roof system of the existing house which currently encroaches 9' into the 75' lakeshore setback and encroaches 15.5' into the 30 ’ side setback. Applicant also proposes a 2-stall garage addition which will bring the footprint of the existing 2-stall detached garage up to 1.000 s.f. This garage addition has been ofl'set to meet the required 15’ setback from the street right-of-way line. Applicant also proposes to relocate the existing driveway access to the south side of the garage, which will be a much safer location, but which will need some additional design work and possibly Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 4 September 5, 1996 Zoning File #2166 __________ some agreement with the neighboring property owner regarding drainage routing. Existing 0-75 ’ hardcover is 6.0%. Applicant originally proposed a reduction to 5.6%, but Planning Commission recommended a revision/reduction to 3.9%, with which applicant has complied (see the revised terrace plan. E.xhibit C). In the 75-250’ zone, existing hardcover is 27.5%. Applicant proposes a minor increase to 27.6% (an additional 34 s.f.) which Planning Coiimission had no problem with. The existing house and proposed addition encroach as much as 26’ past the average lakeshore setback, however, impact on neighboring views of the lake is minimal or nonexistent. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Conurission reviewed this application at their August 19th meeting and on a vote of 5-1 recommended approval (Peterson voting nay due to inadequate 0- 75 ’ trade-offs and average setback encroachment) subject to a number of conditions: 1. 5. The garage addition must be offset to meet the required 15’ street lot line setback (applicant has provided a plan meeting this requirement). 2. Limit the garage to no more than 1,000 s.f. footprint (applicant has complied). 3. Reduce proposed semicircular patio to 240 s.f. (applicant has complied). Hardcover removals required as originally proposed, with reconfiguration in 0-75 ’ zone not to exceed 3.9% and in 75-250’ zone, approval of 0.1% increa.se to 27.6%. House must be limited to proposed 4-bedroom design since existing septic system has a 4-bedroom capacity (no revisions are required to the rec room area, which is not to be used as a bedioom). 6. An advisory that this property should be granted no additional structure in the 0-7o' zone. 7. 9. That the applicant provide a grading and drainage plan for the property ’ giving special attention to the proposed diiveway area south of the garage (see Exhibits E & F). Thai the City Engineer review the impacts of the proposed additions and site revisions on the preliminary' sanitary’ sewer route location, also considering the need Request for Council Actipn continued page 3 of 4 September 5, 1996 Zoning File #2166 ________ for anv easements for that sewer.m Planning Commission generally felt that the house additions (which meet the 75’ setback but encroach the a\ erage setback) were not a problem, since neither of the adjacent properties has views of the lake that w ould be hindered. Planning Commission noted that the existing encroachment of the house into the 30' side setback and 75' lakeshore setback would not become more prominent with the proposed roof revisions and consequently had no concerns about those encroachments. Planning Commission felt that the 0.1% hardcover increase in the 75-250’ zone was adequately justified by the reductions in the 0-75’ zone. Grading and Drainage Plan Applicant’s architect has provided a preliminar>- grading plan for the driveway, however, City Engineer Glenn Cook has reviewed the plan and visited the site, and has some concern that there may be a potential need for a retaining w all, and possibly some drainage retention on the site or an agreement with the neighboring property owner as to drainage routing. He indicated that these issues can be resolved, and that the proposed driveway location is far superior to the existing location. Staff has no problem with approving the variance application subject to no building permit being issued until staff and City Engineer are comtortablc with the driveway and drainage plans. This has been incorporated in the resolution as a condition of approval. Future Sewer Route The City' Engineer has also reviewed the site in regards to the potential locations for sewer lines to serve applicant's residence and the three homes to the north. Due to elevation problems, it is likely that sewer will not extend across the east side of applicant’s property as shown on the preliminary sewer drawings, but likely will be constructed along County Road 15. Applicant should be advised that the City will need an easement for sewer, however, the exact location of that easement has yet to be defined. Although Council may w ish to condition variance approval on granting of an easement for future sewer, it is questionable whether there is a definite connection between the two subjects, because the proposed improvements requiring variances appear to have no impact on the sewer routing. While the City would always have the right to require the grantmg of sewer easements with a subdivision, that connection is not as clear with a variance application Staff Recommendation Applicant has revised certain facets site plan in accordance with the Planning Commission recommendation. Staffs only remaining concern is grading and drainage near the driveway, which Request for Council Action continued page 4 of 4 September 5, 1996 Zoning File j1^2166 ______________ the City Engineer feels can be resolved. Staff has no problem with making it a condition of the resolution that no permit be issued until the drainage issues are resolved. Options for Action 1.Approve per attached resolution containing specific conditions regarding hardcover removals and grading/drainage plan requirement. 2. Adopt with additional conditions. 3.Table for further information. 4. Conceptual denial 5.Other. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt attached resolution or take other appropriate action. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8; 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6(B); AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C) & (L) FILE #2166 WHEREAS, Janet Kieman (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 1491 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City"l and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has ar plied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16(C) and (L) to permit the construction of additions to tlie existing residence and revision of the roof of the existing residence, such additions and revisions constituting hardcover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, and consiituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in that zone, and such additions and revisions encroaching past the average lakeshore setback where no encroachments are normally allowed, and such revisions encroaching into the 30' required side yard setback where no encroachments are normallv allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application w'as reviewed as Zoning File #2166. 2. fhe property is located in the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Pape 1 of 8 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 19, 1996, and on a vote of 5-1 recommended approval of the proposed variances subject to the following conditions and based upon the following findings: A. The major proposed room addition to the existing house will be located behind the 75' lakeshore setback line. Some proposed revisions to existing roof lines will encroaclt both the 75 ’ lakeshore setback and the 50’ required side setback, however none of these additions will increase the footprint of the encroaching portions of the house, nor will walls be moved closer to the respective lot lines. Therefore, the additional impact of the additions and roof line revisions on neighboring properties is minimal. B The existing house encroaches approximately 26 ’ past the average lakeshore setback line, and the room additions to the north of the existing house will cause an additional average setback encroachment of a lesser magnitude. No neighboring property views of the lake arc encroached upon by either the existing house or the proposed additions, hence there is no impact on neighboring properties by granting the average lakeshore setback variance. C. Hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone is proposed to be reduced from 6.0% to 3.9% by removing ceuain existing hardcover items and replacing them with a terrace area at a reduced level of hardcover. Hardcovei in the 75- 250' zone is proposed to increase from 27.5% to 27.6%, and the impact of this minor increase is minimal. D.The location of the existing house with its existing encroachments into the lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and side setback is a hardship to the property. E.The driveway relocation is a positive improvement to the property, and the 75-250 ’ hardcover variance is justified by the need to provide adequate off street parking for the residence since no parking is available in the County Road 15 right-of-way at this location. Page 2 of 8 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. F. The proposed garage addition should be offset to meet the required 15' street setback and the footprint kept at no more than 1,000 s.f. to keep it from becoming an oversize accessory structure subject to much stricter setback standards. The applicant has revised the proposal to eliminate the need for a street setback variance for construction of two additional garage stalls, and has provided plans showing the footprint of that garage to be less than 1,000 s.f. in order that the garage be a conforming structure. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed driveway relocution and finds the driveway configuration feasible but indicates additional design work and/or agreements with the neighboring property owner are necessary and must be completed prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed improvements to the property. The City Engineer has reviewed the future potential routes for municipal sewer on the property and has indicated that the proposed improvements will not hinder sewer development, but has indicated that certain sewer easements may be required. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply p-'r . rally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance w<vj ’;,( : .adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 3 of 8 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22. Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55. Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16(C) and (L) to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence «nd revision of the roof of the existing residence, such additions and revisions constituting hardcover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, and constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally in that zone, and such additions and revisions encroaching past the average lakeshore setback where no encroachments are normally allowed, and such revisions encroaching into the 30' required side yard setback where no encroachments are normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1.Hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall not exceed 3.9% per the revised site plan and hardcover worksheet attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Hardcover in the 75-230' zone shall not exceed 27.6% as shown on Exhibit B. The hardcover removals necessary to achieve these hardcover levels shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for the proposed new construction, except that removals associated with driveway reconstruction may be delayed with the approval of the building inspector in order that construction traffic not be impeded. Applicant is advised that hardcover on the property exceeds the normal limits, and any future proposal to increase hardcover on the propert>’ will likely not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with the concurrent removal of pre ­ existing hardcover, resulting in no increase or a net decrease in hardcover on the property. 2.Applicant shall provide adequate grading and drainage plans for the proposed driveway relocation which must be approved by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed additions and site improvements. 3.Property owner is advised that the existing and proposed house at a 4-bedroom design shall not be increased to a 5-or-more bedroom design until such time that municipal sewer has been provided to the property. 4. The appi.cant and future City Coimcils are advised that the current City Council Page 4 of 8 5. 6. 7. 8. ATTEST: intends that no future additional structure in the 0-75' zone should be approved for this property. The property owner is advised that the City will likely require a municipal sewer easement along the west boundary of the property, such easement location to be defmed at some future time. 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 (September 9, 1997). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees 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 September, 1996. Dorothy M. Hallin, City’ Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 5 of 8 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of September, 1996, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 6 of 8 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (^ey) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 7 of 8 L....... •i • ^* • ” • “ - . # • -» *. • » V t* s^l:«ai5 N. . . • * ' fc . . *. * ' • •■ ■r,,.i [ t»' N*r .. V ’M •' • < ■»» - *:'’ .'♦’f • •*» • . V: .•'.A' .'• / ; •; r* • • \ . v.;'A ^ s »* ,• • • •'J ■'''■■'• •!:*■ ‘■•'Vvr;-i, ‘*v .-^’• S . ‘ ' .»•*;» , .. w ^ •■ • , ' ■ .•••’•:■ :: '■ ' ••■■ •* r . ■ • , . • ^ A" v-*-'*"*' *’** .• * •*1 •«, “ ■ ■ M . *•». •*'I n:roi 44-- liV • ■ • ’ ■. f . . •• ▼* «»> • •... • • ' i . I *-• V v-4 <« I r r : * 5 • ^ 1 4 .;: U11; k 4> J !» ^TLTT*-rt '4 i4 4u|{THciukii lit! A' x:::“ ■ .*A k •• > • I .>n ' \‘* 5\v V /' V Vi; •i > fi-: / \ ? • ' . • . ■^\ u ■?f ho-iU.; ,'..V •' *'^*’** w. . *v I I'.' / t • . f-A :i' ' -u s / 3 , (■ 13. ; i. t. =■• ■ I 1:' i-p^“Wi “V \ -'.ir 1: wPiiSifi • ease —I;— \ • /! . • *.f. If—s**.!:?: .\\\ >^.N'\I'i^.Ntl -• I'-.T • '> \l • ..v» • • • ^•v. ./?;•/ V’.'•:• ■*S ■'*.%*.• V*‘ V **• * ( « ^i-v. V- 1 \ V,. . 4. i.v •• •:V»r.'!".-jf.-_.«;*. • -s I V, •. * T . ‘... •. ^; >• • ••• . * •;•- * • V •/ •;•-.taftr v: ‘. . I .'• .'-fV < \i/- '• .... *# «, • .>• •■••.:.« .••• > ■• ■' • K‘-t4■/4'L • »i , •*• WWv\ *• • * — $ I \ • 1 z!:i--. > $ * 1 ____'-4_..\V A : M I------- IB 1^* r __^ ■-•ei-^irW p^.^en^cic a>^ f^oMth * ■e»-t»v^Ot\G!^f^ -TferS/^Ae-e fi£^9pDS4t- a ___ •1 ; * *» •I • / -15 ’6^8^ \________1^ A 1 ^u 'Ti^RA^ A :-*r kiernan residence.*.T E A 1491 SHORELINE DRIVE ORONO, MINNESOTA ESaH6I2T19-2800 |J4»|fcT H Kirf- rr ' > i5 4 .1 , i I . ^ * i j r * i r | -r I •—r ^ t* ri •-• •♦ h-pr'»“*”n *“ •• •*•»■» i • V • • ; T- . I *“♦•.•*»♦ pr* T ' f k i i I I . , i t y. ► . ! ». f ♦ ♦> uf; [I (l: [j^ .................................1 ): • •»•••!}- -i-U-« . . , . * . _i I , . I I , 4r—, < • 1 .• . « i t f - ^^ , . • ♦ , »•••> *•■► •‘‘-|M- r-rl::i.: :‘-i ’! ••I • ' » • j t V * I » • • :• * *•'* rV ’••i'T"; - - #• • * ■* VZv/'T^^^Ty77/^ '///■'' -//A v- /. >. './'// .,AA. '■ • • /y /y/ ' - A /'; /'At. * s''//// y / ^ ^ i . 4 l.p — ,-•/' '//// t <1 ♦r. C 3 • 2 L'vA r \ ., ^ V f*' /».* - -i: y—^ ■ - *09 04 15«30 s 2500 TOM ELLISON ^»Fl:H F . 02 <E I u. •2 srli '. ^MSi',. ■ ■ „'?952-...........^ •• JAh KiFW/vM HAlUJCOVEfUi^CULATlO.N VVUlUv2>tll::i:. j * SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 25-50a’ 4‘iBrl€ ‘500-1006’ EXTSTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ■ X • l’ LenttSi miih i \ • fi 1 X X X V •w \\ B. Garage C. Driveway X X I? D. Sidewalk Co}^C. <^,^00 P X X •I ^ E. Patio/Deck _______X X F. Landscape-'""'^ Mo<y«£ Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric • X X STFt>S G. Other j.AwiC TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^ B H.^60 X 100 -181 S.Ff . S.F. », S.F. B * *'2.1 S.F. • 13 • • s!f. • • ss ■■ •*i. * S.F. « . •S.F. 1=3 99 S.F. » .•_ <fl S.F. •••«S.F. S3 •*S.F.- • •• • • » ^9 * F S.F. m •• S.F. 8 S.F. • 8 • • • • ( 186 » • S.F. S4Z S.F. QAO jrs.F. A B Ayor( i t^A^Ofd-Cfioc^^o ^£4Mfi A/or PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE ' A. House •• • . .X —\'2\. w<g S.F, Length Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. ■B.—Garage- -C.- Driveway S.F. X X _S.F. •S.F; » " -Di—Sidewalk X X •• ? ^rip.c- E. Patio/Deck X X 'A _____S.F. • ■ - ^ • A- J , r F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric aS.F. X X X S3 SS S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other •r • r ’ K > L’f. i*'-I ■ S’.P. ■ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE. ,, , A «^~i, * B X 100 - . S.F. . A “ ^ S;F.* * ® • " % . . • Jah K iFPnan hardcover CALCULAJ^tWf4V Oi<K6H£fc. J SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ ^^£^25^ 25-500’ EXTSTINC A. House t i ! %• •• • •V • • • ir: ;r • I ^ • i! }♦w n*i r B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidev^k ^•XOCfP ZA.^ X X X Widtho 20. f X X X X 33 • *•••% % • E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain• • • By Plastic. Or Fabric • X X X .1 •• O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 7727 + B ?P.,?0 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ LcngCi Width f-rfr JU WL c;:rA J B. Garage _____ y /V.<- r C. Driveway^ ____ D. Sidewalk ____ X X X • sd pcr:!.h E* Paiio/Dcck F. Landscape Uoderlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ /- . A ^ B *\X 100 ■- 500-1000’ I6S3 S.F. IbO Ml S.F.' - S.F. •S’.F. S3d .S.F. i S.F. ■ Z■ S.F. 4s<2 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.‘ »- •• • • S.F. • S.F.. S.F. S.F. 7727 18, I to ' S.F. 5s.f. A B Vl.Arb VffO ZT1^-.q.?^S.F. • »» ^.F. 'T’^Tg J S.F. S.F. r^'J=vy^^ s;f; S.F. ■ go J S.F. V ! ^ ~S.F. S.F. • • S.F. S.F. 's.f; - S.F. S.F.. • • -* * ^ ••• . » »14 • .i 4 / HARDCOVER CALCULATION W0RK§HE£T SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* 75-250’ QsO-SOlQ PYKTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A* House _________^_____ X • ■ * » ----- . “ — SOO-IOOO*" S.F. Leofth Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X • • Q. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A Q ♦ B /So /SO X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X ______________ “ Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic . Or Fabric X X X G. Other O total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^ * B .5^X100 - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.“* S.F. •SJ... S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.: S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B y.- 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.K S.F. A S.F:- B • % If,____ HCITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Costal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2166 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 8/21/96 TO: Janet Kieman 2209 Totem Trail Minnetonka, MN 55305 COPIES TO:Rene Stratton Tom Ellison Architects 2724 W. 43rd St. Mpls., MN 55410 TYPE OF APPLICATION: DATE OF MEETING: 8/19/96 Variances VOTE:5 FOR 1 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1 . Garage addition must be offset to meet required 15' street lot line setback (provide revised plan/site plan). 2. Limit garage to no more than 1,000 s.f. footprint. 3. Reduce proposed semicircular patio to 240 s.f. 4. Hardcover removals required as proposed. 5. Okay for 0.1% 75-250' hardcover increase as calculated by staff. 6. House limited to 4-bedroom design (no revisions required to rec room area). 7. Advisory that this property should be granted no additional structure in 0-75' zone. 8. Applicant to provide grading and drainage plan for property, giving special attention to proposed driveway area south of garage. 9. Preliminaiy sanitary sewer route location is enclosed (more detailed plans have not been developed, and this is veiy^ preliminar>'). Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information noted in items 1, 2, 3 and 8 above. Deadline for the September 9th meeting is September 2nd. If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Department (473-7357). If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. CD o CD > -< TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator August 14,1996 A- SUBJECT: #2166 Janet Kieman, 1491 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acres, unsewered. Application: Request for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, side setback, and 0-75V75- 250' hardcover variances for construction of additions to the existing residence, and a street setback variance for expansion of the existing detached garage. The application also includes relocation of the existing driveway access to the propert>’. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Proposed Site Plan, Floor Plan F - Existing Floor Plans and Cross Sections G - Proposed Elevation Views. 2nd Floor Remodel Plan H - Hardcover Calculations, Existing and Proposed I - Septic System Review Information J - Topography K - Note from Survey re; Unknown Parcel Summary of Request Applicant proposes to remodel and construct major additions to the existing residence. While the primar>' addition to the house will be outside the 0-75' zone, that addition does encroach the average lakeshore setback Additionally, both first floor and second floor remodeling of the existing house, including a proposed terrace on the lake side, is located in the 0-75' zone. A portion of the remodeling work involves new roof and deck construction less than the required 30' side setback. Additionally, applicant proposes to relocate the driveway access to Shoreline Drive, reconfigure the driveway, and extend the existing detached garage further north. That garage will then be 1,000 s.f. in area, requiring a 15' setback from Shoreline Drive, but proposed at a setback of 10.7'. A proposed gazebo appearing on the site plan appears to encroach the septic system drainfield. 1 #2166 - Janet Kieman August 14, 1996 Page 2 Applicant notes that this gazebo is conceptual in nature and can certainly be located elsewhere on the site. A summary of the required variances follows: 0-75' Hardcover (Area = 13,960 s.f.) 75-250' Hardcover (Area = 28,120 s.f.) 250-500' Hardcover (Area = 150 s.f.) Average Lakeshore Setback 26’± Side Setback Lake Setback: House Terrace Street Setback (Gar.) Existing Proposed 1• • Allowed or Requilsd Variance 842 s.f 788*s.f 0 s.f.788 s.f (6.0%)(5;6%)(0%)(5.6%) 7,727 s.f 7,749 s.f 7,030 s.f.519 s.f (27.5%)(27.6%) (25.0%)(1.8%) (This ver>' small area contains only Co. Rd. 15 pavement) 26’±26’±0 ’26'± 14.5' 14.5' 30'15.5' 66*66 ’75'9' —53'75'22' 21'I0.7’±15'4.3' Hardcover In the 0-75 ’ zone, applicant proposes to remove the existing fireplace pit and adjacent patio and landscape areas, remove an additional stone landscape area and eliminate walkways near the house, and construct a stoop and grade level semi-circular terrace adjacent to the house. The met result is a proposed hardcover decrease of 54 s.f or a reduction from 6.0% to 5.6%. The terrace is an amenity that, while in keeping with the character of the house, could be reduced in square footage. Another option would be to relocate it further north near the guest bedroom and living room outside the 0-75' zone, but that might not fit the scheme of the floor plan. In the 75-250’ zone, significant reduction of driveway surface will allow- the proposed house addition and garage addition to be constructed while proposing to reduce hardcover by approximately 178 #2166 - Janet Kieman August 14,1996 Page 3 s.f, a reduction from 27.5% to 26.8%. However, this reduction is partially achieved by use of a grass paver system at the north end of the driveway leading to the main entrance. Applicant's architect has taken a 40% reduction in the area of hardcover because the grass pavers are 40% open. The City position in the past has been that areas which are driven on or used for parking, regardless of their surfacing, are considered hardcover. In staffs opinion, this is actually 498 s.f. not 298 s.f., and the result is a minimal hardcover increase from 7,727 to 7,749 s.f., or a 0.1% hardcover increase. The plan could easily be revised to result in no hardcover increase if that is Planning Commission's recommendation. Average Lakeshore Setback The existing house as well as the proposed additions encroach approximately 26’ past the average lakeshore setback line. Due to the site topography and existing site lines, the proposed additions would appear to have extremely minimal or no impact on views of the lake enjoyed by neighboring property owners. Side Setback The existing house is located 14.5' from the south side lot line. The LR-1A zone requires a 30' side setback. The need for a variance is a result of the remodeling which changes the roof lines on portions of the house less than 30' from the side lot line, but does not add major amounts of structure nor bring any new walls nearer the lot line. Note also that the adjacent house to the south is approximately 40-50’ from the lot line, and offset slightly so that the houses are separated by approximately 70'. Lakeshore Setback The existing southeast house comer is 66 ’ from the shoreline. The major changes to the existing house in this area again are to the roof lines. A very' minimal portion of overhang above the new' living room may encroach ver>’ slightly into the 0-75 ’ zone. The majority of the house additions, however, have been placed to meet the 75 ’ setback. It should be noted that there is an existing pump house underground adjacent to the lake. Applicant has no plans to change the nature of this stmcture. The proposed grade level terrace constitutes hardcover in the 0-75' zone, and the steps leading to it are an additional encroachment of stmcture in the 0-75 ’ zone. The terrace itself would not be considered stmcture, but is considered hardcover. The steps, like the comer of the house, at their closest point are 66 ’ from the lake. #2166 - Janet Kieman August 14. 1996 Page 4 Garage Addition The proposed addition to the garage results in a structure that, on the plans, has a 49'x20.4’ footprint or 999.6 s.f. Applicant ’s hardcover calculations indicate the garage at 1,029 s.f. The garage must be kept less than 1.000 s.f. to not be considered an oversized accessory structure. Above 1,000 s.f, it is subject to a 50 ’ street setback and a 30 ’ side setback, neither of which it could meet. Assuming the garage is under 1,000 s.f, it still needs to meet a 15 ’ south side setback (side setback as proposed is approximately 18 ’) and a 15 ’ street setback. The existing garage is 21.0' from the street, but extending its west wall northward, the garage extends near the right-of-way, and w’ould be lO.T from the street lot line at its northwest comer. This places the noihwest comer of the garage nearly to the edge of the perceived shoulder of Co. Rd. 15. In order to meet the required 1 5' setback, the garage addition would have to be offset to the east, or could be reduced to one additional stall instead of two. Note: The entire existing/proposed garage is within property noted on County plat maps as "unknown parcel". The surveyor indicates that the propjerty owner likely needs to proceed with some type of Judicial action to have this parcel added to the legal description. Until this occurs, the city has no assurance that the existing/proposed garage is within applicants property. Dennis Hill at the Hennepin County Property Descriptions Office has indicated they have no record of such action pending. Septic System Analysis This house is part of the Bracketts Point "hotspot" neighborhood which has petitioned for installation of municipal sewer as soon as possible. Assuming the City is successful in its currently proposed MUSA boundary amendment, it is not impossible that municipal sewer could be provided to this property through a project that could occur in 1997. Howev er, such project has not yet been ordered nor designed, and municipal sewer is therefore not yet "guaranteed" to this property. The existing septic system was reconstmeted in 1982 and consists of a lift station discharging to two septic tanks and a 600 s.f drainfield located uphill north of the house. The drainfield was sized in 1982 by guesstimating a 1-15 minute per inch perc rate based on the soil textures encountered at the site. Technically, this would require a drainfield sized at a range of 0.83 to 1.27 s.f of drainfield bottom area per gallon per day. At an average requirement of 1.05 s.f per gallon per day, the system likely can handle no more than 570 gallons per day ar.d may be slightly undersized for a four bedroom house. On the other hand, if actual perc rate is in the 1-5 mpi range, requiring only 0.83 s.f of trench per gallon per day, the system might handle up to 722 gpd or almost a 5 bedroom home. #2166 - Janet Kieman August 14,1996 Page 5 The existii.;; house contains three bedrooms on the second floor not including the sleeping porch, one bedroom on the main floor (called a study/bedroom but has closet and bath) and there is a room in the basement that is defined as rec room but has a closet, and therefore would be considered a bedroom for septic system design purposes. However, applicant notes that this room has not and likely would not be used as a bedroom. The proposed house suggests no changes to that basement room, has a guest bedroom on the main floor and three bedrooms on the second floor, i.e. resulting in the same bedroom situation as currently exists. It appears, then, that there is no increase in the number of bedrooms with this addition. It is unknown whether the existing septic system is sized adequately to serve the existing and proposed residence. While it may be feasible to add one additional drainfield line on the downhill side of the existing trenches, (no testing work has been done to confirm this), the existing system has not exhibited any signs of failure and with sewer pending, it may be unnecessary to add to the system unless a failure occurs under the usage of this new owner. It should be noted for the record that the previous owners' family size may have not taxed the system to its limit. The difference between this situation and that on Long Lake Blvd. which the Planning Commission struggled with, is that technically there are no additional bedrooms in this proposal. However, some of the same risks are borne by this property owner in that if the system fails and sewer does not become available, only a limited degree of system expansion is possible before a holding tank would be a final option. Bluff Not an Issue Staff has confirmed that the locations on the site where construction is proposed do not constitute a bluff, although the next property to the north may in fact be subject to the bluff impact zone protective requirements. Drainage Drainage from this property appears to all flow to the southwest comer of the property south of the garage. This will not change under the new site plan, but this area will also now be taken up by the relocated driveway. This may force more runoff onto the adjacent property or into the neighbor's unique serpentine wall, pplicant should be required to provide a garding and drainage plan for the site showing how mnott will be addressed under the new site plan. I 1 #2166 - Janet Kieman August 14, 1996 Page 6 Issues for Discussion 1 . Is the 0-75’ hardcover reduction from 6.0% to 5.6% justification to allow a good share of the hardcover to be reconstructed as terrace located 55' to 70' from the lake? 2. Given the City's policy to not allow a hardcover reduction for grass pavers, there is a 0.1% hardcover increase proposed. Is this increase justified, or should applicant remove additional hardcover to result in no net increase, or even some net decrease, in 75-250' hardcover? 3. Is the minimal impact on neighboring property's view’s of the lake, sufficient justification for the average lakeshore setback? 4. Is the magnitude of roof changes above the e.xisting south and east walls of the house so minimal as to not create significant side setback or lake setback concerns? 5. Given the proposed garage expansion from two stalls to four stalls, is there any justification to grant a setback variance if that garage exceeds 1 ,000 s.f. footprint area and by definition becomes an oversized accessory structure required to meet 50' street and 30' side setbacks? Is it more appropriate to limit that garage to no more than 1,000 s.f, and grant a variance from the required 15' street setback to allow it at 10.7'? Or, is there insufficient justification to grant the street setback variance? If this is the case, then the garage could likely be expanded to just a three stall capacity, of footprint area approximately 800 s.f and still meet the required 15' setback. An alternative would be to offset a 2-stalI addition to meet the required 15' setback. 6. Does Planning Commission have specific concerns regarding the septic system? Staff Recommendation A. Planning Commission must determine whether the proposed hardcover additions/reductions/revisions are appropriate as indicated. B. Plaiming Commission should likewise determine whether the impacts of the average lakeshore setback encroachment by the new addition and revisions to the existing house are of concern. C. Planning Commission should determine whether the roof changes for portions of the existing house that encroach the lake setback and side setback are appropriate. D. Planning Commission should reach a conclusion whether a street setback variance is appropriate for expansion of the existing garage, or w hether the garage addition should be reduced in size or offset. #2166 - Janet Kiernan August 14,1996 Page 7 E. The applicant should be advised to confirm with Hennepin County Department of Transportation that the proposed relocated driveway access is acceptable (it appears to give a much better site distance than the current location). F. Planning Commission should consider what limitations if any are imposed by the existing septic system and the current unavailability of sewer. Staff would recommend that the existing house be limited by covenant to no more than four bedrooms until municipal sewer becomes available. A further step to consider w ould be removal of the partitioning that technically leads staff to the conclusion that a rec room could serve as a defined bedroom. Note that there is no shower existing oi proposed for the basement, hence the likely use of the rec room as a bedroom is decreased. G. Applicant must provide drainage and grading plans to address possible impacts on the neighboring property. H. Applicant must provide evidence of ow nership of the 'unknown parcel'. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval as presented, applicant to provide information noted in staff recommendation. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval or partial approval with additional conditions. Table for further information. Recommend denial, stating reasons, Other. CITY Of- ORONO W 612^750510 07/25/96 0S:46 Cf :02/1Q N0:652 Application # ^ Cr>_____ Date Received V - ^ A vi Amount Paid j vc c< CITY OF ORONO - VAT....SCE APPUCATIO!^ Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal V'ariar.ce Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) •. • PROPERTY INFORiVUTION ^ Site Address ____I S>ti ^39/ Property Identification Number (PIP.) Attach legal description to applicatio.n if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired Feh _______________________________(month/year) I (do) ^ojjpi) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of ororertv; ^ residential other (Present use of property; residential ___other (specify). Zoning District:____-l/V_______________________.i_ APPLICANT Name JAaJ£:7~ ^/g7xA;4Aj Phone (home) Phone (woric) ________ Address: ^^7) Cit>’: h'lr'KA Z'w: 3 OS' 0\\^'ER (if dif^'erent than applicant) Name_____ ^______________ Phone (home). Phone (work) Address:CiW:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 3 o<5^ac>0. _ Describe requesfln detail: aJ£^ a t/Ar€>AMC^ ^£U/£:Ld 7D 71H£: T^f^u€:/n&o7 Tn T»P. Tn •*- A2>2> caJ tz> £^/'5rrAJ<C /icetss ~rz> ciy.^o. fs (attach additional sheets if necessary) -r^ ^^r'fc>£, VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot .Area Lot Width Hardcover ___Lot Coverage Setback:Front Sid Rear Average Lakeshore _ Other (specify) HARDSHIP.DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical diiTiculry or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code require.-rtents: _gAJ -TA\ tr/en/^T- aF A UL/Q.t4 NCUSE CLof A «3) e.Xi^r/AJg- /s aJO^ r^ki A/Ub AnvCrH BAtJi. 3) /g~ a.- ^(1^ia-l(L^k aP ,q4^/k3g- ^A^z> CPU/'S aJ qAJ-(U)AJ f=^a^/^/A/(^ s') TAJOfA*J /noc^bs PAJ /U<g^/y ^/Lm. 0€T L-i\i}aJG- (attach additional sheets if necessary) e /4 a/a X" HAn/B /} JLA e v,iiT ur UKWwy ur/^5/96 oa;^»6 [? :03/io N0:652 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted hv the appllcption deadline date jn order for vour application to he coniiJgred complete: 1. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. __Compleicd Application Form __ Certified Property Ovs-nsrs List of owr.ers within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, la’rcis and map from Hennepin Count)- Department of Finance, A-603. Govt Center, 3-1S-3271). __.)!<• Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyorj and include hardcover \ calculations as required. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8'/»" x H” for reproduction. __ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘/j" x II" for reproduction. _ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/j" x IT). __ List of the legal nantes (include marital stams) of all persons with an interest in the prepert)'. This would include namc(s) of app!icant(s) if not current owner(s). __ As an addendum to this application, please attach a sep-arate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City stafT. The Applicant and Propeny Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not CQmplctc if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to p.'ovide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not coN cred by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in revie-.v of this application, an3 certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of hiS/Tier knowledge Applicant’s Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges a.nd 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 Signamre V '-A Applicant must have all subminals 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 tunable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorbied agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 i- l -.» « *• •t . ' . • t' • to. 's hN \ x> \ V ■i ‘ Kv > • \ >• 4', •f ■N . -N-N , to \‘v .to\^ «• 7 / • I i I t • • I I • t ‘ ♦ I • » * I I * •♦ • t 1- < .• \ * « • •• i t • j I • »* /.« . •* • - II V.2 P-.v V??.-* .vS ::• V - •I ■' > I f I '» • 1 > S^h//ini r' 1 i-f \ * r^"» r*>, * '-i • ^ ■«V4;^*: ‘ >;V« i* V:i:5Vvr;.7i^»* . * . . • t tJ 'to. /-I U. ■rt to-» *vr to \ C ' . P . ^>a N'; ■fy.rr^vr. l^a ■ ■ T1 " J W'll- . V . »to, ‘, tr t • f • t , i mm- * •% ' • • ’e>noe i-.. •-.v: ••.• .. . .. — • ^ •- ‘ .* , I' • I** ** .'• I • V* '.‘4. !*« •-•■ /v /' .<& —;• .* ..V 1I • • \ F^7»\ »* ••• in. V. ■,4 ‘-V/- I ?I r • -Vvv' I « I • * . . v- w / * • • * ' • • • •/ to. . , .• \ i. %/vv.:-4'';4v.?44a;^' /• ••.*».,• ^»'* * •; . / toli 1*1 •• • 44-\>> r n < — 1 11 • — 1 1 1 4I f A r • 1--------- 1 —I— -,‘4-iL u- r --------14- --------------------------- ✓ //^ s> V'' • r-:!/' Ux> "iUv *«•• • » •* •# I* *M* t m •* • f • "p \§ V c: O' y'"7i !'■'_Lv 4f9 n. ± '.9 :a t § c^ > \p ,r ^ .1 I N ik T1 > oz:f a.. - j L J » .V.? iTT\ ir n li 4 •' • X .#1 /''iM*, ItTrrg .Itllr* tL.___*i V rail ' / / / I r V% I; A t£‘ ' I?-* . . .’' 'f'Q i •Jl ■•r / / / :$ j • i JUpr 25.1996 KIERNAN RESIDENCE TEA K iEkhah ^ 4-!8-<ie HARDCOVEP^C^CULATlOiN WUKK5ni::i!.i ------ ’* SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 25^500’ ^OO-IOOO’ 1 EXTSTINC TL^DCOVER IN ZONE A. House X 181 S.F. • 1 Leo|(h••X Widih • 4 *** • • S.F.u H1 X’ •■1 S.F. X •*2.1 • ■S.F. f • i‘ • B. Garage X •1 t • - S.F.r • t C. Driveway r X • • • • #••• • S.F.<«• i* •i X • • ♦ S.F. V.i; • . • • D. Sidewalk X •99 S.F. !Coj^c. «;Td<?P ••X n* *<?/S.F. h •• • • • ft • _ r* P3**o/Deck • • • • • < X » ••• •*S.F. ([»Oiil£jCiVu\£^iJC^4>C BBO X tm I S.F.- 1t * • * F. Landscape-fU^txO^^C A\20(/aj O • . • • • • • • . • ,‘ f S.F.#• J Underlain •X S.F. By Plastic.X t •S.F.t • Or Fabric • 5Tf^$ ''O.e G. Other i 9 X* •• • • • • ... . 186 •• 9 99% • S.F. • •TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE . S4Z S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •* ft R, <^AD •^.S.F. A + B n,.^'^0 X 100 i V. <?3 • % f Ayorf t t**Jof*..Cfioc4^o 4/or /aJcc. r^'JC io ‘Sov PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ^ONE } A. House ...... * . X :Bi z ^ jr.' • 4 • laleOC? S.F, - L4n|Lh • • m X • •V'idih • «»• • • »•4 S.F.. X •.. ,S.F. t• • •• X *» , - f ^ •S.F.# •i • * * • 3.—Garage* • X , . 1 % • ••S.F. ••jC»—Driveway X • •• S.F. ••x.‘ .• •M ••• ••S.Fi • -D«—Sidewalk X • • • a n • ft • • • , • # • “ • t ft . S.F. •• •X m • *. .. S.F. , E. Patio/Deck X %» • S.F. / 1 ; L.' r j T*X 1‘J-«8 S.F. F. Landscape X S.F. Underlain X * • 1 n * .S.F. •By Plastic..................X . ft ^ 1 S.F. •Or Fabric • G. Other -?>wr«; ii X • •lit!?- .S.F. « TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE • • m • •. S.F. total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE m •• • •#•••*. • S.F.* 4: B X 100 « • •r# •• • • ... • • • ft. ft . . • •• • •< • P • • t • • .... . • • • • . . . • . ............................-f • • • • • • •ft A B • • T B r Jah hardcover CALCULAXiJl.WM'VUiiK^tiJtifc I SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ CjS-2^ 25-500’V*500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVFR IN ZONE A. House ____ ^COtJC ^ fS..If B. Caraje 2A.'^ V • if' Hf II. C. rrivcway I D. Sidev^k ^’XOC^P E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape . Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric • X ^ • # •» • ■# •I6S3 S.F. X _ Widih 1 __[bO .S.F. X o.AH . 1 .S.F. X *• • • • • • S.F. X.20. <h 1 • 1 53^1C/1•X •• • A710 J ••• S.F. . X 3.4f- ^S.F. . X ( S.F. X • •«7t S.F. • X ••m ► S.F. X .*1B..I M •- S.P.‘ * • •• X •• • * • • • • •• • 4 • - - • ► •• • • S.F. X ili: • ••• • • - «S.F.. X ' wd ♦S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDC = fR IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AR’ iN ZONE A 7727 -r 1-72.7 S.F.urnr^'S.F. B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House : i____ ? S*. / 7 r? X 1001 - I 7 27.^0 vr /0 LeniuH iA'llli_______ oufi:---------- J.---------- B. Garage ________ C. DrivbwayO ' “ WWA X X X OQli^^S.F. • • ^ I «i . •• • OO S.F. •\ ^.O a S.F. o O-W S.F. % • • • • # • X X • S.F.~ .S~L> S.F.' ’ L«^1«=^>Fo S.F. D. Sidewalk parch :. -Patio/Deck X X >2.4lg.O S.F. it S.F. X X • • • f S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X S.F. s.f: S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE • • - TOTAL PROPERTY^AREA IN ZONE ^ A 0'^ *► B X 100 ‘ . o• S.f’.' --------S.f; • « • *••••■ • •• • 14 ■ .1 A B A B 4 / HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET • SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-250* Q50-500l> RYI5TINO HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _________:_____ ■ X • • _____• . " 500-1000*' S.F. 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 V• X X G, Other \ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A . ______Q.______ ■*" ® /SO xlOO -I : ^ iS /j /A> ZSC '^4 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A- House Length Widths X X X B. Garagq C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plistic . Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A g_ _ _ - B X100 -S2. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.- S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F.: S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.- %- A B S.F.* S.F. S.F. S.F. s.f; S.F. . S.F.. S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.'F. S.F. •S.F: A B • . • e A ADDRESS CODE ___ CITY OF ORONO . SEPTIC SYSTEM INVENTORY CARD Datt Connecttd to Munictp«t S€v^r Address m/ Ti^Srind.Star>djrd trench □ Mound System type □ Other _______ Permit No. 67/V________ Building ty^M _____ Property I D. 2^ OQG& /oT ^ 2. Legal Description /V> ^ Ptft^¥ Date of permit 2^ ^ Installer __________ No. Bedroorrjs or GPD ^ Laundry Dishwasher Garbage Difpotal 1 ) f^PPTir TANKS Material P^ec^yT . C , ^ j^CK Capacity 1) ^ OQ /OOQ ^ /OOC> Proper outlet and inlet ^ Baffles /T/iS^ ^ S S_____Liquid depth to RO level ^ - Height of tank bottom above water table ,.. ___________Distance to nearest building — DRAINFIELD: Total length of lines ^ HG * _ Number of lines ______.Trench wid Total treatment area (sq. ft.) ^____Height of drainfield above water table *3 ^ Type of filter materia) ^ ^ Soil type ---------------------S Distance from nearest bldg. ^ Tile size —^2^— Trench width _ Pare rate , / ** / S^ ^ min/in Depth of fill over drainfield /^ - Depth of rock over tiff ^____________under tile ---------------- WELL DATA i 5 5 C 9 9 o t £ O nw "O t:oa QC S3 o \ $ «) <« UJ c1r• •• O I as Eo VI 3 VI ?>w £ O<s fS. Jf 3 o a E 3 (L T3 H O so INSPECTION RECORD DATE co«?/^e»« OF —--------------- / Cl COMPLIANCE V f^-Z3'S2 y-/ 2- TVftAJKS 5/-. ggT~S fggC?. ---------------- ^-3:^2. . r-<Q ^ r>r>• ZT2n^4 L rrrr^ \n<y^< yuyn S. I T/ii / C- CONFORMING S - SUBSTANDARD N - NONCONFORMING septic tanks, disi. bo*. j and drainfield ^4 3) North arrow and road t — • * i t 37.2 \ 958.1 li LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYEDLots 1 ond 2, N. J. Stubbs. First Subdivision in Lot 2, Section 11, Township 117, Range 25, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ALSO* That port of Government Lot 2. Section 11, Township 117 North, Ronge 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, which lies westerly of the West line of Lots 1 and 2, N. J. Stubbs First Subdivision in Lot 2, Section 11. Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesoto, ond southeasterly of the southeasterly right of woy line of H. C. S. A. H. No. 15, Plat 51, per Document No. 4701348. \ V — (951 6) denotes iron marker found denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an ossumed dotum. ht * There is not a description of record for this piece of property that is known to us This property may hove to be added by some type of judicial proceedings./ This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of on existing house, garoge, and pumphouse, and the location of all visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. 1 7^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION J9$, DATE: Sepf«W>et|4,199/ ITEM NO.: J (3^*^ Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2167 Water Street Builders, Inc./Allen Schefers. ”2540" Casco Point Road - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, sewered, 1/2 acre. Application: Conditional use permit for fill importation in e.xcess of 100 cubic yards List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 8/19/96 C - Revised Hardcover Calculations Dated 8/19/96 D - Revised Sur\ey and Cut/Fill Analysis Dated 8/19/96 E - Memo and Exhibits of 8/16/96 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of August 16th, and the Planning Commission action notice. Briefly, this application began as a request for a floodplain encroachment variance, to which a hardcover variance was later added. However, prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant was able to revise the proposal to eliminate the hardcover and floodplain variances. As a result, it was determined that by raising the house out of the floodplain, reducing the size of the house and pulling it back further from the lakeshore. the amount of fill needed to accommodate the driveway and area surrounding the house was approximately 426 cubic yards greater than could be excavated from the site. This requires a conditional use permit for importation of fill in excess of 100 cubic yards per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 21.2. It should be noted that the shoreline is currently being rip-rapped under a MCWD permit, hence Council may see some disruption in the 0-75' zone due to this activity. However, no proetected trees have been removed and no grade changes have occurred, nor are they proposed, in the 0-75' zone. Planning Commission Recommendation At their August 19th meeting. Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit on a 5-0 vote, indicating that the normal standards and precautions for filling and grading (such as road cleanup, etc.) should be applicable. Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 September 4, 1996 Zoning File #2167 Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with Planning Commission's recommendation, noting that the applicant and builder have been diligent in revising their plans to eliminate the need for a hardcover variance, which would have been difficult to justify for this conforming lot. Also, by raising the house and relocating it, the need for floodplain encroachment variances was a% oided. Applicant is advised that the City w ill require documentation that the two tax parcels comprising this lot have been legally combined, before a building permit will be issued. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt attached resolution for approval of conditional use permit for importation of fill to accommodate the proposed new house. seconded by , to adopt Resolution No.Proposed Motion: Moved by________ ________granting approval of a conditional use permit for fill importation of approximately 426 cubic yards for construction of a new residence at 2540 Casco Point Road for Allen and Judy Schefers and Water Street Builders, Inc. Vote: ______ayes,_______nays. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 20 AND 21 FILE #2167 WHEREAS, Allen Schefers and Judy Schefers, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 2540 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as; Lot 2, Block 6. Townsiie of Langdon Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to allow the importation of approximately 426 cubic yards of fill material in conjunction with the construction of a new residence, where a maximum importaiion of 100 cubic yards of fill is normally allowed per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subd ’visions 20 and 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2167. 2.The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 19, 1996 and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit based upon the following findings; Page 1 of 5 I The need for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards is directly related to the required minimum floor elevations associated with adjacency to a floodplain, which eliminated the possibility of excavating the necessary material from the site. The proposed grading plan will allow the construction of a driveway and garage located at the main floor level of the proposed residence structure. The proposed grading plan will allow for proper drainage away from the proposed residence. The proposed fill and grading will not be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, but will provide a tran.‘ .lion between the liigher lot to the south and the lower lot to the north. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicants and the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the importation of 426 cubic yards of fill will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 Subdivisions 20 and 21 to permit the importation of approximately 426 cubic yards of fill material in conjunction with the construction of a new residence on the property, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ATTEST: Applicants and their agents shall adhere to the land alteration provisions of Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(J), and such work shall adhere to the Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. Applicants and applicants' agents shall be responsible for immediate cleanup of all materials spilled on City roads. Applicants shall adhere to the site plan and grading plan by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. dated 5/16/96 revised 8/14/% revised 8/19/%. Any revisions of that grading plan and site plan will require further review by the City. No other conditional use permit or varian.j approvals are granted with this resolution of approval. Applicant shall obtain a land alteration permit from the City prior to commencing importation of fill. 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 teiminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of September, 1996. Dorothy ul. iluiJin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 5 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of September, 1996, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 •i'' -i'-1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknow ledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) fiee act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 ' Yp ■ A -^ /: . I CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MiN 55323 473-7357 TO: Water Street Builders, Inc. 2125 West Highway 13 Burnsville, MN 55337 ZONING FILE #2167 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION D.\TE OF NOTICE; August 20, 1996 COPIES: Allen J. Schefers 9001 Grand A\enue South Bloomimiton, MN 55420 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING:08/19/96 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: • Approval of CUP for fill importation in excess of 100 cubic yards (426 c.y. estimated) per Gronberg grading and cut/fill plans submitted 8-19-96. • Hardcover and floodplain encroachment variances no longer needed based on 8-19-96 site plan and hardcove. submittal by Gronberg. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council, Monday, September 9, 1996; meeting starts at 7;(K» ' m. If you desire certified copies of the olTicial Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. / HARDCOV ^ CALCULAIIU.N WUKKSrtJLtl C/i^^ .rOACK ZONE: (CtRCLE ONE) Co-^J 75-250’ 250-500’ 500-1000’ 5’w- / ■ ■ FVtSTlNG H^RDCONTR IN' ZONT * A. Houjc ' . ■ _______ “ ‘ S.F. Lsniih X X X B. Girssc C. Dnvr.vav X X D. Sids‘.vilk X X E. Pa:io<Deck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Of Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER fN ZONT A. House Lenf'Ji X X X B. Garage X C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By’Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY .AREA IN ZONE A O ^ B . Widuh # I » « 4 X 100 WiJuh 95TO X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. fo S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B Cr/O • % / HARDCOVTER CALCLL/yU2:i\vuKKbHi:.ti .TBaCK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ QsTs^ 250-500’ J'l if* 50()-1000’ A.Housi X S.F. widei • X m.S.F. X **S.F. X »r. B.Garscs X ss S.F. C.Dnvr.vay X JB S.F. X «S.F. D Si(ii'.vaik X SS S.F. X =S F. E.Pa'io-Deck X ss S.F. X n S.F. F.Landscape X KB S.F. L’rtderlain X SS S.F. Bv Plastic X s=s S.F. Or Fabric G Other X ss S.F. «» ^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE m • S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE m S.F. A - B X 100 % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House X i •“ '■ J7/€ s.p. Lcngih Width •, ••• • X 0 S.F. •X ss S.F. X • %S.F. B.Garase X e:S.F. C.Driveway X m 1 t2 30 S.F. X * %S.F. D.Sidewalk X SS S.F. X ss ^ S.F. E.Patio/Deck X 3*/0 S.F. X ss S.F. F.Landscaoe X •-• S.F. Underlain X S3 S.F. Bv Plastic X SS S.F. Or Fabric G.Other X S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE .^-5*^ ^ S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -2.2 A /Ja i f- A SS2 6 •r B ZZ. /?o X 100 = 2V-?7 A B A B ■' i ti HARDCOVER CALCLLAIIU.N uUKKanJbiu • r .TBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-250’ ^250-500 ;^ 500-1000 ’ EXISTING Hi^RDCOVTR PS' ZONX A. House X L^ngih WiduH X X X A _____ B. Ciroie C. Dnvs'.vav D. SidewaJk X X E. Potio Deck Lir.dscapc Lr.derlain Bv Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE. > A -r B X 100 = PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONT A. House Lcng Wjdlh X X X 3. Garage C. Drive.vav /o/X X /2/2 D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck X X r.Landscape• Underlain 3v Plastic Or Fabric X .X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER •N ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY .AREA IN ZONE ^ /2/ 2____ + B /2y €50 X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ✓ 2/2 sF. fp. S.F. 9.CT iO A B A B i ^ •• (9^0.6) cnaEi LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES Lot 2, Block 6, TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK o ; denotes iron marker (937.9): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum " ~ ’ denotes proposed spot elevation, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the proposed location of c proposed house thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. ') , 9JS.S S) = 92JS.S fSJ.f 40U>(A w i r \ L r .1 ,.-(93^.0) \ \(9J7.T) 9 pa a ^ii '(Wf./J 3 Z ocf ^ pOCf^ • » •<i« • \ s ‘^ioo ^ 9 o ^ ^ ^ \ % • \ fVi.-fJ's • » \ X' #4* .5) 'U"'-**' *ri ^jsX4CO^r e4A*Cf fi***- m y .y$P ^ 4 •« \ X! L\\ \ \ V\ '/.'i \ i 0 L«• #,.^- S.(( ■L j^GAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 2. BIock 6. TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK P /. %V d» 0 : denotes iron marker existing spot elevation, moan sea level datum 1945JJ : ^ denotes proposed spot elevation, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. V . * •o" \\ deLcribirpri'^^^^^^^^^ and'?hT pro%sTd1oca®lon^or^ prSpLed house thereon. It does not purport tD. show any other improvements or encroachments. 0 5? ve r 9JS.S y/rxr* y/^tfr g 9^y.s J) (r^r^f e ' 3 0 00 1^00 X ^6 0 >/9^; r 9^S.S •» f 0 0 7 ll A •• •« (too _1 ______f ^V. . £ To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:August 16, 1996 Subject:#2167 Waterstreet Builders/Allen and Judy Schefers, "2540" Casco Point Road Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 Acre, Sewered Application:Request for 75-250' hardcover variance to construct new home on this vacant lot. Possible request for CUP for fillimportation in excess of 100 cubic yards. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey (8-14-96 revision) E - Hardcover Calculations (8-14-96 revision) F - Original Proposal G - Flood Insurance Rate Map H - Area Map from Flood Insurance Study Detailed Study Area Showing Boundary Between 931' and 935' Flood Zones Section 10.08, Subd. 3 Pertinent Code Sections 1 2. 3. 4 Sections 10.22, Subd. 2/10.56, Subd. 16 (L): 75-250' zone hardcover limited to 25% (30.7% proposed). Section 10.55, Subds. 7: The regulatory flood protection ele«^ation for the Floodway and Flood Fringe Districts is 1.0' above the base floodwater surface elevation as defined in the Flood Insurance Study. Base floodwater surface for the drainageway on this site is 934.5', requiring basement floor elevations no lower than 935.5'. Section 10.03 Subd. 21.2: Maximum fill allowed to be imported without CUP is 100 cubic yards. Section 10.08, Subd 3: Variance .standards (Exh. J) Zoning File #2167 August 16, 1996 Page 2 Summary' of Request This application continues to evolve as the days go by. Applicants originally proposed to construct a new residence on this vacant 1.0 acre lot just outside the 75' setback line, and the size of the house plus necessary driveways to serve it at that location yielded 30.7% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. AddlHonally. at that original location the house would have encroached into the defined floodplain alongside the house, raising two issues of concern: 1. Placement of structure and fill within a designated flood plain, potentially reducing the available amount of storage in the wetland and thereby causing an increase in flood height; and 2. Proposed construction of a basement garage at a floor elevation less than the required 1' above the 100-year flood plain, results in the possibility of flooding that basement garage. Both of these concerns were the impetus of the original request, although the City technically by state statute could not grant a variance to allow- the basement floors belov; the 935.5' Regulatory Flooilplain Elevation. The applicant has since raised the house to 935.5', moved it out of the defined floodplain, and reduced the driveways and decks in an attempt to meet the 25% 75-250' hardcover limit. However, they still are at 26.03% and cannot apparently cut back any further without reducing the size of the house. Additionally, applicants surveyor is attempting to balance the cutsTills on the property to result in less than 100 cubic yards of fill needing to be imported. However, as of this writing it is unknown whether a CUP is needed. Hardcover Variance The e.xisting vacant lot is conforming to the 1/2 acre, 100’ width standards of the LR-IC zone (See Exhibit D). The applicants' need for a hardcover variance is entirely a function of the size of the house proposed for the site. The house has a 4100 s.f footprint including the 3-stall garage, in addition to only 40 s.f of sidewalk shown and a modest 340 s.f deck. The driveay configuration, entering at the side rather than at an end, results in a larger apron witliiii the 75- 250' zone. Re-design of the garage configuration could potentially eliminate some driveway and a backup/parking apron could be placed behind the 250' zone line. UTiile Planning Commission might find that the proposal is not out of character within the context of Casco Point, there is no question that the need for the vaiiance is created by the applicant and not based on a hardship caused by any unique feature of the property. There is likely no adequate justification for granting the variance based on the standards of section 10.08, Subd. 3. Zoning FUe #2167 August 16, 1996 Page 3 CUP for Fill Importation As of this ^^Titing, applicants have not submitted a grading plan indicating whether a CUP for importation of fill in excess of 100 cubic yards is necessary. Absent such a plan, this portion of the application cannot be adequately dealt with at this time. Staff Recommendation Applicants have not provided a hardship statement regarding hardcover, nor a grading plan defining whether a CUP is needed for excess fill importation. Applicants should be asked to define the specific hardships they propose in support the hardcover variance. At this late date staff can only recommend tabling the CUP portion of the application, although Planning Commisssion may want to give some direction regarding the hardcover variance. Options for Action 1. Table for further information regarding CUP for fill importation 2. Recommend approval Menial of hardcover variance. 3.Other. ( 1 Application # • C- Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VAJUANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 - , (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00 ^ (no change from original application) « a* j . Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address j 4- ■ft. t' Propertv' Identification Number (P.I.D.)^v3 ai _______ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired CL\A^ 's^ ___________________________^(month/year) I (do) ^ n^) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___^other (specify)_______________________ Zoning District:____________________________________________________________ Phone (home) ~~___________ _____ Phone (work) ' Citv: ./n.i Zip: l 7 APPLICANT ^ ^ Name S,. . UJ: Address: Z,>, OWNER (if different than applicant) ^ Phone (home) 0\^. -Zm -5*1 Name ‘-.N'XiV, S v Phone (work) u Address:hynKC^r^'^'^ Citv: Zip: 2^y Estimated Construction Cost S 4r-:>^| rva~^'DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: <-> o >■ 5 \ C| .^■^<.^ Of ^^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore ^ Other (specify) QcVwiroJi'* ~lv)we i HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardJiip or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ol .V . s i\ \nf^rredZ- it^ L_ q■f'.iL'.'L I\ pa ,>-0-1*"-t ffi TS. --------------- . y P( j-rs^ p'u.Uif;jV ^^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AH of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: L 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Propert>‘ Owiiers List of ovsners 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 SVz' x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/z” x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the propertv'. This would include :Mi;ie(s) of applicant(s) if not cuaent ovvner(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 e.xpenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the Applicant's Signati re i ^^Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner herebv acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the ptop.' ty by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purpc c^^f investigation^d v^fic^tiOn^ this request. Owner's Signature ^ —- Date Applicant must have all submittals into tlfe'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 autl-orized agent attend in your place and to advise the building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 RUN DATE 07/26/96BATCH 503 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0NT«RS LIST REPORT NO. PI635601 PAGE 9PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 20-117-23 21 001200036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED A J A J B SCHEFERS ALLEN J A JUDY B SCHEFERS 2511 112TH ST H BL00HItlGT0^4 ^34 5Sh31 38 20-117-23 21 001300038 ADDRESS UN.ASSX(R4ED A J A J B SCHEFERS ALLEN J A JUOY B SCHEFERS 2511 112TH ST N BLOOMINGTON MI4 SE631 38 20-117-23 21 001602530 CASCO POINT RD T CHALUP^KY A 0 Y CHALUPSKY T CHALUPSKY A D Y CHALUPSKY 2530 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55396 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 20-117-23 21 0015 02528 CASCO POINT RD MARIE A SVAU3 MARIE A SVANG 2528 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0C17 02520 CASCO POINT RD THOMAS H FRAHM ETAL THOflAS H FP^HM 2520 CASCO POINT ROAD MAYZATA M4 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0022 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO VIL OF ORONO CUT OF ORO^X) PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55359 PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 20-117-23 21 0026 02580 OlMnXlOY AVE JAG NAFUS JOHN A NAFUS 2500 DUN>*IOOOY AVE HAYZATA M4 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0036 02590 CASCO POINT RD J04IN T REDtTONO JOHN T REOrtONO 2695 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 38 20-117-23 26 0063 02600 CASCO POINT RD PAUL J A MARY E RASTER PAUL J A MARY E RASTER 2600 CaSCO point RO NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADOR OHNER NATC TAXPAYER NAME/AODR TOTAL BATCH 505 00009 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENT4EPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF HY RNOHLEOGE A440 BELIEF. DATE ^ J^BY • (j <7 ALLEN 5CHEFER5 OF LOT. 2. BLOCK 6. TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA % ...■(93|.0) • $ * « t 4 •••(9^0.0) 9^A SN' :u^ (V6.^) i.5) / 1.“^ /•vy (5J^ 0^'..V?' r.*1 .of®x.«»r.<. /L pf i • I' LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES # <■' /ji *m* Lot 2. Block 6. TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK o : denotes iron marker (937.9): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum cnaEi : denotes proposed spot elevation, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the proposed location ot a proposed house thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. 'J c yjS.S 2-) /^/ 'rx/ t 7^^.S 3) (r^r-9^ r 9^ 735. f £ou>(A / / .. C-. -•'/ / .T / .^TBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) HARDCOVERj;:^LCLLAlIUN WUKKNMtti ^ ChD EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Hojse LcnrUi X X X B. Garase C. Drive wav X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F.Landscaoc• L'nderlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVEP. IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 4- B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONT A. House Lcnfih X X X B. Garaae X C. Drivewav X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ________ - B . 75-250’250-500 ’500-1000 Width as ms X 100 Width 4 * J 9syo X100 *^ss ‘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. % 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 .J / HARDCOVER CALCLLAllU.N \vuKK5iiiii:>i ^^TB aCK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ Qs-isj!) 250-500’ i EXISTING HARDCO\TR IN ZONE 500-1000’ A. House \8 S.F. LsngLh Width %• *X flat »• • ••4 S.F. X S.F. • X «S.F. B. Girsgs X S.F. C. DnVC’.vay X • 1 S.F. X S.F. D. Sidewalk X S.F. X a S.F. E. Patio-Deck X m S.F. X • A 4 =1 S.F. F. Landscape X •••S.F. Underlain X 8 S.F. Bv Plastic X 8 S.F. Or Fabric G. Other X S.F. ** TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE • I S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •S.F. A ^ B X 100 % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X B *y/ o/S.F. Lcngih Width X B S.F. X B S.F. X B S.F. B. Garage X a S.F. C. Driveway X ■ i2Q0 s.F. X a •i 1 S.F. D. Sidewalk X B S.F. X a S.F. E. Patio/Deck X a 3*/0 S.F. X a S.F. F. Landscape X « *• « f S.F. Underlain X a S.F. By Plastic X a S.F. Or Fabric G. Other X a S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE •S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -S.F. A S'7€/-i- B f? o X 100 2€.o3 % A B A B HARDCO\*ER CALCtLAl IU.N uuk k^mhim ,TU a CK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-250’ C 250-5^ 500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCO\TR IN ZONE A. House Length X X X B. Gorsse C. Dnvcwav X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X F.Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONTE A. House Lcn$>h X X X B. Garasc C. Drivewav /o/ D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other widih X 100 Width /a « I ss m • m • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY .AREA IN ZONE A /1/Z ^ B /2^ X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S F. A B fo S.F. ., S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /2 /2. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /2/2 S.F. /.?. dCSa S.F 9.» % A B i i D(^GmL >'C> -OWO)o ^ -V / n ' ^f: Euro LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES Lot 2. Block 6. TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK o : .denotes iron marker (937.9): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum denotes proposed spot elevation, mean sea level datum Bearings shown ore based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the ooundories of the obove described property, and the proposed location of a proposed house thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. c yjs.o I) r- .j, , / .. ••• 'To I"*- n) w ConiN & Gronbfrg, Inc. m: 4:v 4ui I hereby certify thnl this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super­ vision, and that 1 am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the Stale of Minnesota. Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 DATE 5-16-95 SCALE I JOB NO 96-170 lyn • * '‘-iy :$r: -A' • • ! 'i- 1 •" • • •' >• .** 'w. ♦*? - -' ,»• *. ^ • Ju . .« rj- % i;* 4 F f . i • t • . ♦•t; .li . " -f' . .. ;;V,i:-rH-.• ^ - tr-.e JC, »■. *■ •-.. :-.Ii *P--i'J os«- c; Citv of Sprill" P.irk ARlA NOT included ngton ZONE A1 ICL936I NORTHBRN ~< RM10 •'ff pn \n c ■••N Vf" y -1 y --••.■ ; •: iT'.. ,-^t ,- -, ■ ^.-.•v. .,,fM •r }l 1 t ▼»{*! V, .» J ly i &?3 *'••,xjf_,r5>'iii mm ivW ZONE C n; i;-.’> Wi \ V WEST sPo X r i r 'Iru iWs'fi y-ii-S^rSiAK / r / / r / t / 'A / / .piONE A 'tng id / r(iV \ ^ d < \ # Fdgerness Point' . ^-k r C'7V(. F -3'^“...... m •Ha • prmg -V. !lT“ - • . I. .,0" • Wv^ • \« • ^ ■ ‘L/> m • r /V im\Q> x ‘ p dV [ • m res AH 15^^ :" Ty-Ub..ZONE A k /• ike ; ^ ORONQr\ ;. . \\r,<> \ : ZONE A N / ZONE A y kuVto. y V ;y ----------- \ A / 'ZONE A /\ 4 / A \ m \t- /r^_ A N \ -\ \ Pelican Point V# m O \\ \V w 'o -. \ioose Inland 1j;^52_coe£9s^^ Qasco Point f V 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET CARHiAN BAY LAKE MINNETONKA f- Vv-Vi r)i »Vi i)'i_ ZONE A1 (EL. 935* MS.) )7 ZONE A2 ,, .931* MSL)V 1 fflEfIiiL CARMAN BAY AREA ^// IT •§ 10.0^^ without impairing the intent and purpose of the Zoning Chapter. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments shall recommend such conditions related to the variance regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed building, structure, or use as it may deem advisable. The Council by unanimous action may waive reference to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. B. The Board shall hold hearings as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subd. 2. A notice shall be published in the official newspaper once at least ten days before the day ^ the hearing. Any party may appear at the hearing in person or by agent or attorney. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 150 feet of the property that requires the variance. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the nature shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this Subdivision has been made. C. Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the Council, the Board may adopt rules for the conduct of proceedings before it. Such rules may include provisions for the giving of oaths to witnesses and the filing of written briefs by the parties. The Board shall provide for a record of its proceedings which shall include the minutes of its meetings, its findings and the action taken on each matter heard by it, including A. In considering applications for variance, the Council shall consider the advice and recommendation of the Board and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. Before granting a variance, the Council shall hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this Chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances^ only when it^ is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means: 1. The property in question cannot be put^ to a reasonable use if usid under conditions allowed by the official controls . ORONO CC 265 (4-1-84) S 10.082. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this Chapter. 5. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 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. 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. Source; Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 ORONO CC 266 (4-1-84) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION %/> 0 DATE : September ^1996 ITEM NO: j ^ Department Approval: Name Michael Gaffron Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Item Description: Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer Report Order Feasibility Study - North Long Lake Area and Country Club Addition Sewer Hot Spots Resolution As directed by the Council at the September 3rd work session, attached is a resolution ordering preparation of a feasibility study fo*- construction of municipal sewer in the North Long Lake and Country Club Addition sewer hct spots. Council may wish to consider proceeding with a feasibility study for the two additional neighborhoods (Bracketts Point & Bay Kidge) which have indicated full support for a sewer project as soon as possible. If Council d.rects, staff would prepare a Resolution ordering a feasibility study for those two neighborhoot’s for your next meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt attached resolution. Proposed Motion: Moved by seconded by to adopt Resolution ordering preparation of a feasibility study for the installation of municipal sewer in the North Long Lake and Long Lake Country Club Addition areas. Vote: ayes_, nays__. A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF MUNICIPAL SE\\T:R TO SERVE THE NORTH LONG LAKE AND LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION AREAS WHEREAS, the City of Orono has identified certain neighborhoods where the installation of sanitary sewer appears to be preferable to long term use of on-site sewage treatment systems; and WHEREAS, the City has made application to the Metropolitan Council for an amendment of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary to include these identified neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, Metropolitan Council approval of said MUSA amendment is anticipated within the near future; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that North Long Lake and Long Lake Country Club Addition are the highest priority neighborhoods for construction of sanitary sewer; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has provided preliminary cost estimates for construction of sanitary sewer for these two neighborhoods, however, additional information is needed in order to establish the feasibility of such a project; and WHEREAS, it is proposed to construct municipal sewer trunks and laterals to serve the North Long Lake and Long Lake Country Club Addition neighborhoods and to assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, that the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the Counci . ith all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono this 9th day of September, 1996. ATTEST:Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk r \ %REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 6, ITEM NO: Department Approval:Adminis^^ Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse Administrator's Report Title City Administrator /Vn Item Description: Planning Commission Vacancy Update Staff has contacted previous Planning Commission applicants to determine if they are still interested in being considered for a position on the Planning Commission. Three of the applicants are interested. These are: Jon Pendleton John Thimmesh Bruce Kelley In addition to the applicants listed above, the city recently received an application from William Miller indicating an interest in serving on the Planning Commission, and Lili McMillan has also expressed an interest in serving on the Planning Commission. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to indicate the process to be used to fill the current vacancy on the Planning Commission. - •• • r' foj o\ l( •- ,'i Municp^ Off <« Post Off« Box 6£ C^rr^ Ba^^II^xesoa£c^23^ . TaEPHOSX-«T3-T<5f • EOC-TMSIO ■JxJ-^-^PP^xcricH ro. citxze. .oviso.r co««i¥S?c?.# W96 conu-aliv^'n Applying For: ^ V- Parks Ccmnission ^ Planning Coicaission Com -unity Task Force (Nane) Name J, Accress 9^ WorK J^h post Office & Zip Code Telephone (H) Resident of Orono (W)'?t(-?^S^ years Work Experience iV/iVt ^I i I ------------^(A Education •',f, civic and Volunteer Activities (past and p r..»oi(J r-WrtAr -j ----------50^ jrt're^A..i/ r< ^,-P /CiV<l^ iC*wi 'J ■ « • . ..... ^ tjsntina to serve on this Conmission , ' possible. nse sdditional sheet if necessary.) / y. y J "<r i... c . ^ ----- £----------------------r-^" T 9nAi. W« ,J.. -L r<tf< J>^r -^uvo__rjr.y^2i—il£.< .jS /; ■ • ■ ’ ^ .*f ^ o> jAc if r .....y.^l V.U^U tt K m at • rv ^ 4 HJU i,'tf /«f» -^tir , Kf^l u/t/< ■ ■fi.v -r tia —---------. ^,,,( r,Jr .f sr..., „h,t is your view of the role of the Comeissioov wr ........ r.-fo.«Mnv< ^ ----------------------------Tt Z ^ .K n r c^r i»A .,.. .M rt ''i ^ ; --------'"V T? , IV., ..•.il'.-,' ^tgn >/« »t g'g-«-t» g — /---------------------------------- -— r«r-fe;^ -----■ / —-------------------------^ I , / V oj^ I f / <f 4-^ *Z4t» H.# yj Ct^'+ •' ‘'S'??' this space to include any ‘“'thet inforaation you would like “■« j t you are seeking. Tou may riso"“ttUb'%\\« ma°ter\"a?ryou would like the Council to Consider., ^ 4-..^ “'i -f ^----------------------- o,.r.^wr c f Wo - ■-J------^ ^ , i/ > Jt. ,V <>6uam S • ... r.,.. ^d-j^ "" h ^(( .|C/| _ -^L (>r rovrr.it'-.^'*' '. I understand this appointment may be discussed at a P A ^.|rt(>(J^ < meeting >/t»/^A Date 7 Sicnacure r Miinfdpal CScb* Pc3st Of2c« Box 6o Coral Bar. MIraesoci . TELEPHON-E -475-7357 • EOC - 473-0510 - S " • 0»% * ^ ■ -olication for citizen advisory commissions CoHL-ission Applying For: Parks Cor-nission ^ Planning Conunission Q Corxr.unity Task Force (Nar.e) Name "7 hi /V7/V7 Address post office s zip co'^e jS"^ J ?/ Telephone (H) (W)^T/zlLlL Resident of Orono /years Work Experience: r,<rn (°r <>rpt''!y-n). Civic and volunteer Activities (past and present) .H—e. - - -- ■- ^ sv-r— e- - -, _.- • 1» • _ A <» £> ^ o n t hi X s C> o csn X s s x o n T Vos"=ible'. Dse additional sheet if 7 / V ^7 x:»9^. ^roy\^—---------- jr/,oj;nJ ^ ^^....... .......-V-X ^ /O'fpf' f^i e n ^ 7f ^^^^-r.--/- frr ^rglLC--------- <t ♦•>,£» rnle of the Contmission? m>at is your vie- of the ^ ' . r\f'Ae.‘'^y a»iC^ fo.s/.; g rams —r—i7 7^ r e S / J^n'TS . ^ 4nr«Ttide any fuirth^^^ other comments: (Ose this sf«®oun^il to consider, or that coosidci^ -) I un derstand this appointment may he discussed at a pabli j - p.r- 9^ Date 11 \ CITY of OKOF Mun-dpal 02ces Past 0f:« Box « CnTjJ Bar. Mi.-Jie»ota £=^23"00oo _ T7T yoHQNE - 4T3-Tj57 • E\X-47>0510 APR 4 1996 ATION FOR CITIZSi^ ADVISORY COK>*ISSIONS Tnnission Acoiyinc For: Parks Ccnrr.ission A Planning Cotmission Q Comr.unity Task Force (Manie) Narae • Bruce ?.• Kelley Address 2340 Fox Street post Office & Si? Code Orono, MN 55356 Telephone (H)473-6554 (W)930-5810 Resident of Orono years • • worfc Experience: Consulting Civil Engineer i land Surveyor sin^ 1950 Designer of nuniclpal improvesients. Hydrologic studies,^ ^.IRIIIUI -Jlilli I'irn tsiaud i-iarina. Currency _____ to SUPERVALU on site development._ _ _ Education Bachelor of Civil Engineering, University of Kinnesota _ Civic and volunteer Activities (past and present) nv>-.:^rter mea^ber of Orono —Li - n wantinq to serve on this Commission possible! Dse aaditional sheet if necessary.) • • fi9 q >>r.nqiilting engineer. I nave Tr«as-n «»ince With num 11S9 S8 . ^Ever 3in_c --------------b . . mpmher Kost commission memberswanted to participate as a comrusion member, l-o^- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -r; with loc^-l government when they start. Mosthave very little experience with loc g- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,- - have 9ome kind of problem they want the City to solve. .Vith my years o .. . . . . . . . . . work load. e v>,e» rnie of the ConmissioD? „.3t is your t.ew Of the . . in dealin.^th The -Planning Cor^^ssion shonid t^e -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -^ , nnlic. sct_^„ ' ^-nodinr and be ayai^ t-rt help when needed..- - - Other Comments: \be Council ”to consider, consider.)%ings and . ...n have th - tin.a tn attend an ................ ^ ' !_• -u tr> thf Cnmmi SSigJXe L-Mi" .................. I uodG^stsnd this appointment may be discussed at pub X1 4^ — 3 -9 Date APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION GITYofORONO Municipal Offices StTMt Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0G66 Commission Applying For: □ Parks Commission 133 Planning Commission □ Community Task Force (Name) _______________ Name Willaim F. Mil1er {/h. V/) Address 2G91 Casco Point-. RnaH Post Office & Zip Code Wav2ata. mn 55391 Telephone (H) 47i -7ssq (W) -7-^c;7 Resident of Orono Five years. Work Experience: I am currently employed hy a PprFormanrp* mmpany in Plymniihh as their CFO. I have over twelve years of experience in accounting and finance. I have extensive experience in the commercial development, financial» retail and service industries. I can read a blue print and read and interpret highly complex contracts. I have worked with city planning departments from the developers side and fully understand the role of the planning commission in the community._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Education: I have an undergraduate degree in Business/Accounting from California State University at Northridge and an MBA from the University of Saint Thomas in Management. Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): I am a volunteer Big Brother in the Big Brothers and Sisters Organizati’ of greater Minneapolis. I have also volunteered time with the University of Saint Thomas in developing an avenue tor Graduate bevel students to oecome actively involved in volunteer programs in their communities. I have also been actively involved in an annual United Way Campaign for the last five years. Telephone (612) 47M357 • FAX 4734)510 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. (Please be as specific as possible. Use additional sheet if necessary.) See attached. What is your view of the role of the Commission? I view the comirissions role as being a non-biased intermediary between the residents of the conununity and the city council.It is the planninc commission's role to view each and every request for variance in relatic to the city's general plan and the specifics of the area the property itself is located within. It is up to the planning commission to determine whether the granting of a variance is within the best interest of the whole community while at the same time trying to be fair with tht individual requesting that variance. Other Comments: (Use this space to include any further information you would hke the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach other materials you would Hke the Council to consider.) I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting. Signature Date **NOTE:Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number wilt become public information. 040896 2 August 26, 1996 RE: Application for Planning Commission Member City of Orono William F. Miller I have lived in Orono since June ofl991, and can’t imagine myself ever living anywhere else. I live on lake Minnetonka, on Casco Point Road. I have a great affinity towards w'ater and am constantly amazed at just how beautiful the lake is 1 consider the lake to be a great natural resource and believe in its protection Since moving to Orono, I have had a good deal of contact w ith the city, planning commission and the city council. I have personally been through the process of requesting and ultimately eceiving two variances. In addition, I uave been actively involved in the support ot two other variance applications submitted by neighbors on Casco I am a very motivated individual and have the time and energy required for this position. I am a strong believer of supporting the community you live in. 1 would like the opportunity to give back a little of what I have gotten from living in Orono. I also think that Casco Point needs some representation of its own on the commission I would like to be that representative Now that you know my reasons for wanting to be on the planning commission, let me tell you a little about myself I am thirty frve, married, and have an eleven year old step-son attending Grandview Middle School. I am a CPA, and work in Plymouth for a Performance Marketing Company as their CFO 1 have an undergraduate degree from California State University at Northridge, in Accounting and an MBA from the University of Saint Thomas, in Management. I have extensive experience in the commercial building, property management, financial, and retail industries I can read a blueprint and am very comfortable reading and interpreting contracts, ordinances, etc. . I think that I not only have the energy and time required to make this commitment to the city, but the experience to make me good at doing what is required. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. William F. Miller 2691 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: sQ<to|ter 3,4%i : /ITExM NO Department Approval: Name Dorothy Hallin Title City Clerk Item Description: Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administrator’s Report Appointment of Additional Election Judges for the Primar>^ Election - September 10, 19% Attachment: Proposed Resolution Appointing Additional Election Judges for the September 10, 19% Primary Election Background At the meeting of August 12, 1996, Council adopted Resolution #3752 appointing election judges for the September 10 primary election. At that time staff had not received confirmation from all contacted residents regarding their interest in serving as election judges. Since August 12 one appointed judge has indicated that she is unable to serve as an election judge and staff has now received confirmation from seven persons who indicate a willingness to serve as election judges for the September 10, 1996 Primary Election. With these additional seven judges each precinct will have enough judges to handle the voting public, although there are no alternate judges. A larger number of judges are being used this election because some of the judges are not working a full day; some are working only in the morning and others are working in the afternoon until closing. This change was made in an effort to get more persons to work as election judges and to accommodate persons who feel they can not work the entire day. Recommendation It is staffs recommendation Council adopt the attached resolution listing the names of additional qualified persons who have indicated their willingness to serve as election judges at the primary election September 10, 19%. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve Resolution No.appointing additional election judges for the September 10, 1996 primary election. Ayes_, nays A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 19% BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Minnesota Election Laws 204B.21, Subd. 2, the following persons are appointed as election judges for the Primary Election to be held September 10, 1996. Randi Carlson Norma Jean Dickey Doris Finn Carol Frommelt Susan Jellison Joyce Shemanek Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held September 9, 1996. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk • fSr -'■ztt: •' ‘ ..-.-^7 — ; r LtaBasi Sep ^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ DATE: SeiWfeAerS. 1996 ITEM NO = /^ Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Establishment of Dates for the Truth In Taxation Hearines Attachment: Calendar of Dates Available for Truth In Taxation Hearings The City is required to select dates for an initial Truth in Taxation (T in T) hearing, and for a continuation hearing. Based on the available dates, it is staffs recommendation to set the initial (T in T) public hearing for 7;00 P.M. on Wednesday, December 4, 1996 at the City Council Chambers, and to set the continuation hearing for 7:00 P.M. on Wednesday, December 11, 1996 at the City Council Chambers. If a continuation hearing is not required^ the final tax levy and budget will be adopted at a subsequent hearing to be held at 7:00 P.M. on Monday, December 9, 1996 prior to the regular council meeting on that date. (In this case the council will announce the time and place for the subsequent hearing, to officially adopt the final tax levy and budget, at the initial T in T hearing.) If a continuation hearing is required, the council will then decide on a subsequent hearing date and time to officially adopt the final tax levy and budget and must announce it at the continuation hearing. (The hearing to officially adopt the tax levy and budget must be at least one day after the continuation hearing.) COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to set the initial Truth In Taxation public hearing for 7:00 P.M., Wednesday, December 4. 1996, at the Orono council chambers, and to set the continuation hearing, if required, for 7:00 P.M., Wednesday, December 11, 1996, at the Orono council chambers. 1 \ December REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^4 DATE: Scptemfeft^9^'% ITEM NO: / ^ ^ Administrator Reviewed:Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Item Description: Adoption of Preliminary 1997 Budget and Tax Levy Agenda Section: Administrator’s Report Attachments: 1. 2. Resolution Adopting the Tax Levy Required to Fund the 1997 Budget Proposed 1997 General Fund Budget Expenditures and Revenues Background State law requires cities to adopt a preliminary budget and tax levy by September 15 of each year. The levy approved as of this date will be reflected in Truth-In-Taxation information provided to all property owners. The levy cannot be increased but can be reduced prior to final budget adoption after the Truth-In-Taxation hearings in December. The budget itself can also be changed during this same time period. Proposed 1997 Budget The proposed 1997 budget is fiscally conserv'ative in that it maintains current service levels while positioning the city to address a number of long term fiscal issues. These issues include the following: 1. Funding for storm water drainage projects. 2. Funding for street repair and replacement. 3. Funding for priority sanitar>’ sewer projects. General Fund Expenditures The proposed 1997 General Fund Expenditures, those with the greatest impact on the tax levy, are $3,447,605. This is an increase of $99,850 or 2.9% over the 1996 General Fund Budget. This reflects an effort to hold the line on expenditures while maintaining and improving current service levels. Tax Lew The tax levy required to fund the total 1997 budget is $2,161,630. This is an increase of $80,790 or 3.88% over the 1996 levy. The portion of the tax levy required to fund the General Fund Budget is $1,680,980. This is an increase of $33,040 or 2.0% over the 1996 General Fund Levy. The major reason for the 3.88% overall levy increase is a levy of $45,500 to enable a substantial increase in the city ’s street repair program. This levy amount positions the city to address both short term and long term street repair needs. '* * Request for Council Action Continued page 2 of 3 September 5, 1996 Adoption of Preliminary 1997 Budget and Tax Levy Because of a significant increase in the city’s tax base, the proposed tax levy will result in a reduction in the city’s tax capacity rate from 14.743% to 14.246%. This 3.36% reduction in the city’s tax capacity rate will enable Orono’s tax capacity rate to remain one of the lowest in Hennepin County. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the resolution approving the 1997 collectible tax levy at $2,161,630, and to establish the proposed 1997 General Fund Expenditure Budget at $3,447,605. i A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED 1997 BUDGET BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota that the proposed 1997 General Fund budget is determined to be as follows: ESTIMATED REVENUES Taxes - General Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Fines and Forfeits Interest Income Miscellaneous Transfers From Other Funds TOTAL $1,680,980 195,000 453,710 950,590 64,400 63,950 38,975 -0- 3.447.605 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES General Government Public Safety Street Maintenance Parks and Recreation Recycling Program Engineering - Unallocated Reimbursable Expendimres Special Projects and Contingency Transfers To Other Funds TOTAL $ 762,575 1,853,975 495,170 52,555 73,805 14,420 42,050 58,055 95.000 $3.447.605 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held September, 9, 1996. ATTEST:Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PROPOSED 1996 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 1997 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the following sums; as reduced by HACA, be levied for the current year, collectible in 1997 upon the taxable property in the City of Orono, for the following purposes: General Fund - Operating PIR Fund - Infrastructure Replacement (Storm Sewer) PIR Fm^ - Infrastructure Replacement (Road) G.O. Sewer Improvement Bond 1992 G.O. Sewer, Water, Street Improvement Bond 1982 G.O. Refunding Bond 1995 - (Debt Fund) G.O. Refunding Bond 1995 - (Operating Funds) Public Facilities Revenue Bond 1991 - HRA $1,680,900 40.000 45,500 30.000 4,500 30,000 105,650 225,000 TOTAL ALL LEVIES $2,161,6^ The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held September 9, 1996. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION "V X DATE; ITEM NO: /Q 9 j ber'%!?1996 ■% Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title Citv Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: Carbon Monoxide Alarm Response Agenda Section: Administrator’s Repon Background-Increase in Carbon Monoxide Alarms The general public’s interest in and use of carbon monoxide detectors/alarms has increased substantially in recent years. Carbon monoxide detectors provide an alert if the level of carbon monoxide reaches a point at which it could be a health hazard. In the winter of 1995/96 the number of carbon monoxide alarms received by the Hennepin County Sheriffs Dispatch Center increased very dramatically. Public Safety Response to Carbon Monoxide Alarms When a carbon monoxide alarm sounds, the citizen generally calls 911. The general public safety response has been both a Police response and a full response by the fire department. This has substantially increased the amount of resources used by the fire departments. In an effort to manage the amount of resources required to respond to carbon monoxide alarms, various cities have requested that the Hennepin County Dispatch Center provide a set of response options, in addition to the full fire response, to match the needs and desires of individual cities, fire departments and police departments. In response, Hennepin County has set up three levels of response from which cities can choose. These are as follows; I.Police and fire service (and where illness is indicated, an emergency medical unit) responds to all carbon monoxide alarms. II.Police and fire duty officer service (only for agencies with "duty officer" program) to all carbon monoxide alarms. Any indication of illness results in a level 1 response. III. Police given routine radio call to contact complainant either in person or by phone and advise complainant on course of action. Any indication of illness results in level I response. It is important to note that under each of the response level alternatives, if any signs of illness are indicated. Police, Fire and an Emergency Medical Unit are dispatched. In responding to a carbon monoxide alarm, it is import?nt first to determine whether anyone in the building is experiencing the effects of carbon monoxide exposure. If so, it is very important '•1 — T* "if 2 :------ Request for Council Action Continued page 2 of 3 September 6, 19% Carbon Monoxide Alarm Response that those persons are removed from the building as quickly as possible. It is also very important that those assisting take proper precautions to avoid carbon monoxide exposure. Th«c is the key element in the fire department response, since the fire department has the breathing apparatus to allow fire fighters to enter a building that has high levels of carbon monoxide. Although a fire department response is important in cases of carbon monoxide exposure, the vast majority of carbon monoxide alarms do not involve any carbon monoxide exposure or related physical symptoms. The alarms are either false alarms or an early indication of increasing carbon monoxide levels; which simply require the property owner to vacate the building until the actual level of carbon monoxide can be confirmed, and the source of the carbon monoxide identified and addressed. The source of the carbon monoxide generally is the furnace which requires a call to a heating contractor. Recommendation It is staffs recommendation that the city select the level III response. This level of response enables the type of response to be matched to the type of situation, rather than calling for a full fire department response for every alarm call. The level III response has also been selected by Spring Park, Minnetonka Beach, and the South Lake cities. The city of Long Lake has selected the level 1 response which involves Police and Fire Department response on all carbon monoxide alarms. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the selection of the level III response for carbon monoxide alarms in the city of Orono. f \ I July 25, 1996 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE Courthouse Room 6 Minneapolis, MN 55415-1369 Patrick D. McGowan, Sheriff Ron Moorse City Administrator P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Dear City Manager: The fall and winter seasons are fast approaching. Last >vinter your police and fire agencies saw a sharp increase in call demand for carbon monoxide alarms. You may already be aware of this issue as a result of increased calls for fire service, and the increase in costs associated with those calls. As a result of this increased demand, the Communications Division has brought this issue before your representatives on the Sheriffs Users Advisory Board in order to seek input on how to best serve your needs. As a result of those discussions it has been determined that many cities wish a continued fire response on all CO Alarm calls. Some cities have implemented an on-call "duty officer" status for the fire service, and have requested that the CO Alarm calls be handled at that level. Finally, a few cities have requesic-? that, absent any indication of illness, there be no response to CO Alarm calls other than to have a police officer call the complainant and advise the caller to contact their furnace service company for evaluation and possible repair. As your Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), ve need to know you- wishes on this subject as it relates to your city, and more specifically, how you wish your police and fire services to respond to CO Alarms in your service area. Enclosed you will find a response form for your city. Please discuss this issue with your police and fire chiefs, select a Level I, Level II, or Level III response (described on the form), and return the completed form, in the enclosed envelope, no later than September 6, 1996. Your requested response level will be programed into the Computer Aided Dispatch program for implementation on October 1, 1996. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (612) 525-6206. Thank you. Sincerely, PATRICK D. McGOWAN, SHERIFF By: Captain Richard Esensten Sheriffs Communications Division cc: Police Chief Cheswick Fire Chief Brown, Chief Erickson, Chief Klapprich Hennepin County is an equal opportunity employer HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM RESPONSE FORM CITY/TOWNSHIP NAME CITY MANAGER NAME (Please Print) Cm^ MANAGER PHONE NUMBER Select One Level I Response Police and fire service (and where illness indicated, an emergency medical unit) response to all carbon monoxide alarms. Level n Response Police and fire duty officer service (only for agencies with “duty officer” program) to all carbon monoxide alarms. Any indication of illness results in a Level I response. Level in Response Police given routine radio call to contact complainant, cither in person or by phone, and advise complainant on course of action. Any indication of illness results in Level I response. CITY MANAGER SIGNATURE Return in enclosed envelope no later than September 6, 1996. F S^p i99eREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION C/ry ^ DATE: September 5,^'f^96 ITEM NO; / Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Item Description: Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administrator’s Rvport Resignation of John Gerhardson, Public Works Director John Gerhardson, the city’s Public Works Director, who has been with the city for 30 years, had indicated some time ago that he planned to retire at the end of 1996. John has now officially submitted his resignation to be effective January 31, 1997. His letter of resignation is attached. As Public Works Director, John Gerhardson has played an important role in providing for the infrastructure needs mx city during a time of substantial new development. John is currently playing an important i '■-y *n developing and car. j ing out plans for maintaining the infrastructure that has been developed over the past 35 years. This is sure to keep him busy right up to his last day with the (-r;. COUNCIL ACTION liEQUESTED Motion to accept the resignation of John Gerhardson as Public Works Director effective January 31, 1997. 1 r ajTWT^-*—»TT—r-r:T T r .■t’ TO: FROM: DATE: Ron Moorsc, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director ' i August 19,1996 SUBJECT: Resignation My last day of employment with the City of Orono will be Januaiy 31, 1997. My last actual working day will be the first or second week in January considering vacation time accumulated. REQUEST FOR COUNCH. ACTION ■«4f. C^TE; Se|!tteij^r 6, 1996 ITE.% Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Item Description: Reconveyance of a Portion of a Tax Forfeit Parcel to the County Administrator Reviewed:i±Agenda Section: Administrator’s Report Several months ago, the new owner of the property at 3860 North Shore Drive, Dan Handlin, approached the city about resolving a title problem that involved city propeny. The problem was that the former owner had installed a driveway that was partially on city property. Mr. Handlin requested that he be allowed to acquire the portion of the city property on which the driveway was installed to resolve the problem. The City Council approved this solution. The parcel has now been subdivided to create a separate parcel to be acquired by Mr. Handlin. Because the city property was acquired through the tax forfeit process, the city can not directly sell the property to Mr. Handlin. The propeny needs to be reconveyed to the County for sale to adjacent property owners. The attached resolution accomplishes this reconveyance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the reconveyance of a portion of a tax forfeit parcel to the County for sale to adjacent property owners. A RESOLUTION TO RELEASE A PORTION OF TAX FORFEITED LAND FOR PRIVATE SALE TO ADJACENT OWNERS WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the city acquired several contiguous parcels of property in Block 7 of the Crystal Bay View Addition that had become the property of the State of Minnesota for non-payment of real estate taxes; the westerly most parcel of which was Lot 23, and WHEREAS, the city has determined the public use for which the parcels were acquired can continue without the need to retain all of the property originally acquired, and WHEREAS, the city has completed a subdivision of Lot 23 that has created two new parcels - one to be reconveyed to the County for public sale to adjacent property owners, the other to be retained by the city. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby authorize the reconveyance of the parcel as listed below to the County, and approves the public sale of said parcel of land to adjacent property owners. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby retain the remainder of the property for public use. The parcel to be sold remains subject to applicable zoning ordinance provisions, including those regulations providing for minimum lot area and minimum lot width. Substandard parcels may be usable only in combination with other adjoining parcel(s). Parcel to be released for sale to adjacent owners only: The south 100.00 feet of the west 20.00 feet. Lot 23, Block 7, Crystal Bay View, Hennepin County, Minnesota Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of September, 1996. ATTEST: Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; Se^eiW^19^ ITEM NO: / ^ Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administrator's Report Item Description: Selection of a Date and Time for a Work Session to Review the Performance of the City Administrator It is time again for the City Council to conduct the annual evaluation of the performance of the City Administrator. The Council may at this time want to select and date and time for a work session to conduct the evaluation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to select a date and time for a work session to conduct the annual evaluation of the performance of the City Administrator. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION c N.N, DATE: 5, 1996 ITEM NO: () Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Dorothy Hallin y/" ' Licenses Title City Clerk Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval Home Occupation License Ben Meinhardt Annual Review 3585 6th Avenue North i CITY OF ORONO inspection notice PERMIT NO calueoin SC mEOULEO completed OATC - .Time address JP ----(S—^ H z*f- ^77 P->^- Uj Li. 5 Q Uj MUUn&OVJ ------------------------------------------- OWNER CONTR. telephone no . _—------— jfi / >»—vv*? t ^description 01 FOODNO 02 FRAMING 03 INSULATION OAWAUBO 06 FINAL 07D€MO—SITE 07 DEMO—final 00 PLUMBINO Rl 10 PLUMBING FINAL OWNER/CONTRACTOR ^ ~z:^ COMMENTS: r 11 mechanical Rl 13 mechanical rnal 24,-25 WOOD burner /fireplace 12 WATER HOOK-UP 14 SEWER HOOK-UO 27 SEPTIC MAINT. 15 SEPTIC INSTALL 23 SEPTIC FINAL 16 EXCAVAiRADINO/FlUJNO 19 LAKESHORE/WETLANOS 34 THEE removal 17 SITE ;nspection 06 PROGRESS 21 COMPLAINT 22 FOLLOW-UP 35 hard cover removal 36 foundation removal 4/0 C WORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED C CORRECT WORK & PROCEED C CORRECT WORK, CALL FOR HElNSPECTlON BEFORE COVERING □ CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN---------HOURS. inspector WILL RETURN D STOP ORDER POSTED CALL INSPECTOR D inspection required call to arrange access . ~ PROJECT COMPLETE Z ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY _______TEMPORARY ________PERMANENT C PHOTO TAKEN C CITATION ISSUED Call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance. 473“7357 Owner/Contractor Inspector. —o Wbtlt Copy/lntpeclor ’i F«lt Canary Copy/SItf Notica APPLICATIO>^ FOR ANNUAL HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE cm' OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY, P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 A A • NAME: BUSINESS NAME: ADDRESS: 3.^ . TYPE OF BUSINESS TO BE OPERATED: C’rnnin'.^oc WirV^'H Operation* Check One: Initial Review Fee S50.00 _ (Provide names of employees on back of application) Annua! Review Fee S30.00 ^ License may be revoked if any violation occurs. City staff shall have five (5) business days m which to investioate and make a recommendation pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.02 & 5.03. If a site inspection is required bv City staff, the review time will be extended to ten (10) business days. The 1‘ceMe application with staff recommendation will be scheduled before the Council at the next regularly scheduled meeting held on the second and fourth Monday of each month. ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS ON HOME OCCUPATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.20. SUBDIVISION 4 (C) Prohibited Home Occupation Practices , 1. It is unlawful for any business operating as a home occupation to engage m operation without proper licenses. All persons engaged in the business must reside in the dwelling. No commercial signs permitted other than signs permitted in the residential zone. No excessive stock in trade may be stored on the premises. Over the counter retail sales is not allowed. Entrance to the home occupation must be gained from within the structure. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ... .1,. —j:.:— oKov** Crorr, O'-nno Mumcical Codc and anyThe unoersignea nereoy agrees ----------------• • additional conditions the Citymay require.additional conaitions me cii^ay rc4uu^ ^ ^ Signanire of Applicant: ^Date: FOR cm’ USE ONLY: After review of application, staff recommends the following: ^___Approval of application ___________Denial of application Date: ^ ~ ^9 Date: 6 ' _Signature of Zoning Official: ^ Signature of RnildingOfficial: c^(a Application Date:Date License Approved:Date License Expired: • < r'-- f\j *■% LISTING OF EMPLOYEES: r/NAME: ^ ADDRBSS: iSAmE: ADDRESS: CITY & ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: CITY&ZIP:, DATE OF BIRTH: NAME: . ADDRESS: CITY & ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: !'^AD NAME ADDRESS: J9/.^. CITY & ZIP: '/ DATE OF BIRTH: ^ NAME: ADDRESS: CITY & ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: DATE OF BIRTH: ziyz^ N/ ME:PO/. address CITY&ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY&ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: -9 V ^ / % 27 Aug 1996 Tuc 6:09 AM Check Regifter City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Humber 52092 52092 cm COUNTY CREDIT UNION 28-Aug-96 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Totals Check Number 52092 CITY CO^’NTY CREDIT UNION Check Number 52093 FIRST BANK OP LAKES 52093 52093 52093 28-Aug-96 28-Aug-96 28-Aug-96 FIRST FATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATION/X BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Totals Check Number 52093 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Check Number 52094 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO 52094 28-Aug-96 GREAT WEST IIFE ASSURANCE CO Totals Check Number 52094 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO Check Number 52095 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT 6 COLL 52095 28-Aug-96 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT & COLL Totals Check Number 52095 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT 6 COLL Check Number 52096 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL 52096 28-Aug-96 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL Totals Check Number 52096 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 52097 ICHA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 52097 28-Aug-96 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Totals Check Number 52097 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Check Number 52096 LAN ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 52098 28-Aug-96 LAN ENFOROCNT LABOR SERVICE Totals Check Number 52098 LAN ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Numb.-'r 52099 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 52099 28-Aug-96 m DEPT OF REVENUE Totals Check Number 52099 DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 52100 MN MUTUAL LIFE 52100 2&-Aug-96 MN MUTUAL LIFE Totals Check Number 52100 MN MUTUAL LIFE Transaction Amcwint 5.744.00 5.744.00 3,042.03 3.042.03 7.237.04 13,321.10 1,190.00 1,190.00 164.82 164.82 184.50 184.50 100.00 100.00 462.00 462.00 3.055.03 3.055.03 55.00 55.00 Page 1 C«.mments SAVINGS N/H k TRAI!SF£RR£D FICA k MEDICARE W/H FICA..MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP W/H THCMTON 8C0266780 SKREEN 8C0262310 DEFERRED COMP W/H UNICOI DUES W/H <TATE TAX W/H DEFERRED COMP W/H i 27 Aug 19?6 Tue 8:09 AM Check Regittei City of Orono Check Nufflber Date Name Check Number 52101 52101 FCI STATE rjBTIRD^OT-DEF COMP 28-Aug-9S KN STATE RETIRMNT-DEF C©4P Totals Check Humber 52101 KN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF CCM? Check Number 52102 PEBSCO/OBRA 52102 20-Aug-96 PEBSCO/OBRA Totals Check Number 52102 PEBSCO/OBRA Check Number 52103 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS 52103 20-Aug-96 PEBSCO/OS CONF OF MAYORS Totals Check Number 52103 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Check Number 52104 PERA 52104 52104 28-Aug-96 28Aug-96 PERA PERA Totals Check Number S2104 PERA Check Number 52105 ST. CROIX COUNTY 52105 28-Aug-96 ST. CROIX COUNTY Totals Check Number 52105 ST. CROIX COUNTY Check Number 52106 IPIITED WAY 52106 28-Aug-96 NITEP WAY Totals Check Number 52106 UNITED WAY Grand Total Transaction Asount ISC 00 150.00 215.25 215.25 1.892.50 1.892.50 3.827.44 5.033.44 8.860.88 6 B. .86 29.00 29.00 35.506.94 Page 2 Comments DEFERRED COMP n/H OBRA DEFERRED COMP W/H USCM DEFERRED COMP W/K PERA EMPLOYEE W/H PERA CITY SHARE CHILD SUPPORT-SCHULTZ CHARITY DONATIONS W/H 1 ! S Sep 199€ rni 3:44 P« Check Register City of Orono Check Wumber Date Name Check Nutr±>er 52217 52217 A-1 RENTAL CS-Sep*94 A-1 RENTAL Totals Check Ifumber 52217 A-1 RENTAL Check Number 52218 AlkTOUCH CELLULAR 52218 04-Sep-95 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR Totals Check Number 52218 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR Check N’jmt-r 52219 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 52219 05-Sep-96 ALL STAR ELECTRIC Totals Check Number 52219 ALL STAR ELECTRIC Check Nurr^er 52220 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. 52220 04-Sep-96 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO Totals Check Nufr^er 52220 ASPFN EQUIPMENT CO Check NumLer 52221 ATRT 52221 52221 52221 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 ATRT AT6T AT6T Totals Check Humber 52221 ATRT Check Humber 52222 ATRT WIRELESS SERVICES 52222 52222 52222 52222 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 04-Scp-96 ATkT WIRELESS SERVICES AT4T WIRELESS SERVICES ATiT WIRELESS SERVICES AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES Totals Check Number 52222 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES Check Number 52223 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF 52223 04-Sep-96 AUGIES MOb. E CHEF Totals Check Number 52223 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF Check Number 52224 BEACK. SCOTT 52224 04-Sep-96 BEACK. SCOTT Totals Check Number 52224 BEACK. SCOTT Check Number 52225 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP Transaction Amount 67.16 67.16 414.85 414 85 86.45 •6.45 477.54 477.54 5.30 15.05 29.19 49.54 41.33 7.10 7.09 75.03 130.55 68.08 08.08 228.00 228.00 Page 1 Coements EQUIP FOR MANHOLE REPAIRS CELL PHONE CHARGES WTRTCWN RD 4 ’IWY 12 REPAI SOLENOID VALVES LONG DISTANCE LONG DISTANCE LONG DISTANCE CELL PH(^ CHARGES CELL PHONE CHARGES CELL PHONE CHARGES CELL PHONE CHARGES SANDWICHES FOR RESALE GOLF BALLS FOR RESALE S Sep 1996 Thu 3:44 PM Check Number Check Number 52225 Check Register City of Orono Page 2 Date Name 52225 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP 04-Sep-96 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP Totals Check Number 52225 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP Check Number 52226 BIFFS INC. 52226 52226 52226 52226 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 BIFFS INC BIFFS INC BIFFS INC BIFFS INC, Totals Check Number 52226 BIFFS INC. Check Number 52227 oUDGBT PRINTING 52227 04-Sep-96 BUDGET PRINTING Totals Check Number 52227 BUDGET PRINTING Check Number 52228 OTUNRS LAKESHORE AUTO 52228 52^28 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Totals Check Number 52228 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Check Number 52229 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 52229 04-Sep-96 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH Totals Check Number 52229 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH Check Number 52230 CITY OF WAY2ATA 52230 04-Sep-96 CITY OF WAYZATA Totals Check Number 52230 CITY OF WAYZATA Check Number 52231 CITYVIEW PLUMBING fc HEATING 52231 04-Sep-96 CITiVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING -^Otals Check Number 52231 Cirr/IEW PLUMBING k HEATING Check Number 52232 COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE Transaction Am>' ant 1,433.19 1,433.19 130.52 130.52 130.52 65.26 456.82 25.94 25.94 63.40 184.29 252.69 - 43 158.43 2,824.40 2,824.40 76.49 76.49 Cofiwents SEPT SERVICES BEDERNOOD PARK SUWITT BEACH HACKBERRY PARK GOLF COURSE SCORE CARDS 8172 RADIATOR 8176 TRANSMISS. RADIATOR CERTIFIED MAIL-CAFR 2ND QTR WTR CONSUMPTION REPAIR TRIP LEVER 52232 04-Sep-96 COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE 0.85 SEPTEMBER INSURANCE 52232 04-Sep-96 COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE 2.66 SEPTEMBER INSURANCE 52232 04-Sep-96 COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE 1.14 SEPTEMBER INSURANCE 52232 04-Sep-96 COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE 295.53 SEPTEMBER INSURANCE Totals Check Number 52232 COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE 300.18 S S«p 1996 Thu 3; 44 PM Check Register City of Orono 3 Check Number Date Name Transact ion Aflount Conwients Check Number 52233 52233 CONNELLY INDUSTRIAL ELEC. C'5-Sep-96 CONNELLY INDUSTRIAL ELEC Totals Check Number *.2233 CONNELLY INDUSTRIAL ELEC, 266 45 266.4S STARTER POINTS - L.S. #2 Check Number 52234 CRVSTEEL 52231 04 -Sep-96 Total® Check Nu?riber CRYSTEEL 52234 CRYSTEEL 6«€I7.10 € 4f7.l0 DUMP BODY, PLOW Check Number 52235 CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY INC. 52235 04-Sep-96 Totals Check Number CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY INC, 52235 CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY INC 201.32 201.32 REPAIR CUSHMAN Check Humber 52236 CYS UNIFORMS 52236 52236 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 Totals Check Number CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS 52236 CYS UNIFORMS 261.45 22.21 203 66 JACKET. SERVICE BARS Check Number 52237 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 52237 04-Sep-96 Totals Check Number DAY DISTRIBUTING CO 52237 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO 74.40 74.40 BEER FOR RESALE Check Number 52238 EARL F. ANDERSON k ASSOC. 52238 52238 OS-Sep-96 05-Sep-96 Totals Check Number EARL F. ANDERSON k ASSOC EARL P. ANDERSON k ASSOC, 52238 EARL F. ANDERSON k ASSOC 442.38 3,790.97 4.233.35 STREET SIGNS HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE EQUIP Check Number 52239 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS 52239 52239 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 Totals Check Number ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS 12239 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS 14.52 16.65 31.17 BLUEPRINTS-2675 SHADYHOOD REPRINrS-4030 DAHL RD Check Number 52240 ESI COMMUNICATIONS 52240 04-Sep-96 ESI COMMUNICATIONS 118.00 REPAIR PHONE Totals Check Number 52240 ESI COMMUNICATIONS 116.00 Check Number 52241 ESS BROTHERS k SONS 52241 05-Sep-96 ESS BROTHERS k SONS 249.21 ADJUSTMENT RINGS S Sep 199€ Thu 3:44 PM Check Humber Check Humber S2241 52241 52241 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 52241 ESS BROTHERS k SONS OS-Sep-96 ESS BROTHERS & SONS 05-Sep-96 ESS BROTHERS k SONS 05-Sep-96 ESS BROTHERS k SONS Totals Check Number 52241 ESS BROTHERS k SONS Check Number 52242 EXPRESS MESSENGER 52242 04-Sep-96 EXPRESS MESSENGER Total** check NunJoer 52242 EXPRESS MESSENGER Check Number 5224 3 FEED RITE O>NTR0LS 52243 05-Sep-96 FEED RITE CONTROLS Total* Check Number 52243 FEED RITE CONTROLS Check Nun^er 52244 FERGUSON-KELLER ASSOC. INC. 52244 05-Sep-9S FERGUSON-KELLER ASSOC. INC, Total* Check Number 52244 FERGUSON-KELLER ASSOC. INC, Check Number 52245 FROST, SHERRY R. 5^^245 04-Sep-96 FROST. SHERRY R. Total* Check Number 52245 FROST, SHERRY R. Check Number 52246 G k K SERVICES 52246 52246 52246 52246 52246 OS-Sep-96 05-Sep-96 05-Sep-96 05-Sep-96 05-Sep-96 G a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES G a X SERVICES G a K SERVICES Total* Check Number 52246 G a K SERVICES Check Number 52247 GALL'S INC. 52247 04-Sep-96 GALL'S INC. Total* Check Number 52247 GALL'S INC. Check .Number 5224 9 GOLF CAR MIDWEST 52248 04-Sep-96 GOLF CAR MIDWEST Total* Check Number 52248 GOLF CAR MIDWEST Check Number 52249 HALLIN, DOROTHY 1.324.*6 149.10 281.16 2.004.33 12.37 12.37 392.63 392.63 24.00 24.00 460.00 460.00 10.28 4.73 10.28 71.75 4.73 101.77 86.98 86.98 270.38 270.38 ADJUSTMENT RINGS ADJUSTMENT RINGS ADJUSTMENT RINGS DELIVERY CHARGES CHLORINE NADERS MINUTES AT raSETXKGS RATHBLTl STEFFENHAGEN RATHBUN STREET E.MPLOYEES STEFFENHAGEN BOOTS REPAIR GOLF CARTS S Sep 1996 Thu 3:44 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 52249 52249 KALLIH. DOROTHY 05-Sep-96 HALLIN. DOROTHY Totals Check Number 52249 HALLIN. DOROTHY Check Number 52250 HAMEL BUILDING CENTER 52250 52250 52250 05>Sep>96 05-Sep-96 05-Sep-96 HAMEL BUILDING CENTER HAMEL BUILDING CENTER KAMEL BUILDING CENTER Totals Check Number 52250 HAMEL BUILDING CENTER Check Number 52251 KASEMAN, CAROLE 522SX 04-Sep-96 MASDIAN, CAROLE Totals Check Number 52251 KASEMAN, CAROLE Check Nurriber 52252 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE 52252 05-Sep-96 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE Totals Check Number 52252 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE C'.cck Humber 52253 KUEHN. THOMAS 52253 05-Sep-96 KUEHN. THOMAS Totals Check Humber 52253 KUEHN. THOMAS Check Number 52254 LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY 52254 04-Sep-96 LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY Totals Check Number 52254 LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY Check Number 52255 LAND CARE EQUIPMENT 52255 04-Sep-96 LAND CARE EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 52255 LAND CARE EQUIPMENT Check Number 52256 LOF'b OIL COMPANY 52256 04-Sep-96 LOE'S OIL COMPANY Totals Check Number 52256 LOE'S OIL COMPANY Check Number 5225*7 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES 52257 04-Scp-96 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES Totals Check Number 52257 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES Transaction Amount 18.22 18.22 146.65 136.75 537.09 820.49 10.50 10.50 143.78 143.78 86.10 66.10 44.76 44.76 335.31 335.31 65.00 65.00 44.30 44.30 Page 5 Comments MILEAGE REIMS LUMBER FOR L.S. CABINETS LUMBER FOR LIFT STATIONS LUMBER FOR L.S. CABINETS HASEMAN MILEAGE REIMS ATHLETIC GRASS MILEAGE REIMS. OFFICE SUPPLIES REPAIR STEINER MOffER OIL FILTERS LEASED EQUIPMENT S Sep 1996 Thu 3:44 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number S2258 52258 MRP UTILITIES INC. 05-Sep-96 MRP UTILITIES INC Totals Check Number 52258 MRP UTILITIES INC. Check Number 52259 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 52259 0S-5ep-96 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT TotalN Check 52259 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT Check S2260 MEDZCA CHOICE 52260 52260 52260 04-Sep*96 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 ?®DICA CHOICE MEOICA CHOICE KBDICA CHOICE Totals Check Number 52260 I^ICA CHOICE Check Number 52261 KITHEST ASPHALT 52261 52261 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 MIDNEST ASPHALT MIDWEST ASPHALT Totals Check Number 52261 MIDWEST ASPHALT Check Nurher 52262 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO 52262 04-Sep-96 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO Totals Check Number 52262 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO Check Number 52263 KILLER. CHRIS 52263 04-Sep-96 MILLER. CHRIS Totals Check Number 52263 MILLER, CHRIS Check Number 52264 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 52264 05-Sep-96 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Totals Check Number 52264 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Check Number 52265 MINNEGASCO 52265 52265 52265 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO Totals Check Number 52265 MINNEGASCO Check Number 52266 rCi BENEFIT ASSOCIATION 52266 04-Sep-96 .MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Transaction Amount 47.50 47.50 522.28 522.28 262.03 112.29 10.777.17 11.IS2.19 4.980.05 2.807.45 7.787.50 198.50 198.50 37.20 37.20 45.00 45.00 11.33 4.43 130.46 146.22 74.22 Pigs € Comments LOCATE SERVICE - O.S. 82 REPAIR ELGIN SWEEPER SEPT HEALTH INSURANCE SEPT HEALTH INSURANCE SEPT HEALTH INSURANCE HAND PATCH HAND PATCH POP FOR RESALE MILEAGE REIMB. ACETYLENE GAS CHARGES GAS CHARGES GAS CHARGES SEPT INSURANCE S Sep 1996 Thu 3:45 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name QiecX Number 52266 KN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Totala Check Number 52266 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Check Number 52267 MN DEPT OP hEALTH 52267 04-5ep>96 MN DEPT CP HEALTH Total# Check Number 52267 MN DEPT OP HEALTH Oieck Number 52266 m DEPT OP REVENUE 52266 52266 04>Sep-96 04-Sep-9€ MN DEPT OF REVENUft MN DEPT OF REVENUE Totals Check Number 52260 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 52269 MSP COMMUNICATIONS 52269 04-Sep-96 MSP COPieJNICATIONS Total# Check Number 52269 MSP COMMUNICATIONS Check »um)>er 52270 NSP 52270 52270 5*270 52270 52270 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 NSP NSP Nsr NSP NSP Total# Check Number 52270 NSP Check Number 52271 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC 52271 04-Sep-96 OLD DUTCH FOODb TNC Total# Check Number 52271 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC, Check Number 52272 OTTEN BROTHERS 52272 05-Sep-96 OTTEN BROTHERS Total# Check Number 52272 OTTEN BROTHERS Check Number 52273 PERA LIFE INSURANCE 52273 04-Sep-96 PERA LIFE INSURANCE Total# Check Number 52273 PEPA LIFE INSURANCE Check Number 52274 PIONEER 52274 04-Sep-96 PIONEER Transact ion Amouxit 74 22 1.056.00 1.056.00 2.819.00 35.00 2.854.00 194.00 194.00 263.89 3.244.37 649.39 2.044.28 -52.67 6.354.60 16.17 16.17 T9.77 29.77 132.00 132.OC i'0.75 Page 7 Comraent# 3RD QTR TBSTIKS FEE AUGUST SALES TAX AUGUST SALES TAX ADVERTISEMENT NSP CHARGES NSP CHARGES NSP CHARGES NSP CHARGES HWY 12 6 WILLOW CHIPS FOR RESALE 3245 WTRTOWN RD REPAIRS OCTOBER INSURANCE ORD #151, SECOND SERIES r I S $«P 1996 Thu 3:45 PM Check »jrr5ber Check Wumber S2274 52274 52274 52274 52274 52274 Check Register City of Orono Date 52274 PIONEER 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-94 04-Sep-9€ 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 Name PIONEER PIONECT PIONEER PIONEER PIONEER PIONEER Totals Check Hun±>er 52274 PIONEER Check Number 52275 PRO TIRE k EXHAUST 52275 04-Sep-96 HtO TIRE k EXHAUST Totals Check Number 5227S PRO TIRE k EXHAUST ^eck Number 52276 RC IDENTIFICATIONS 52276 01-Sep-96 RC IDENTIFICATIONS Totals Check Number 52276 RC IDENTIFICATIONS Check Number 52277 52277 REED VENDING 04-Sep-96 REED VENDING Totals Check Number 52277 RFED VENDING Check Number 52278 52270 SNYDER DRUG STORES 04-Sep-96 SNYDER DRUG STORES Totals Check Number w2270 SNYDER DRUG STORES Check Number 52279 52279 STAR TRIBUNE C5-Sep-96 STAR TRIBUNE Totals Check Number 52279 STAR TRIBUNE Check Number 52200 52200 T.L. STEVENS 04-Sep-96 T.L. STEVENS Totals Check Number 52280 T.L. STEVENS Check Number 52281 52291 TENNESSEE VALLEY TECHNOLOGIES 04-Sep-96 TENNESSEE VALLEY TECHNOLOGIES Totals Check Number 52291 TENNESSEE VALLEY TECHNOLOGIES Check Number 52282 52292 THE SIGN AGE 04-Sep-96 THE SIGN AGE Transaction 152.44 152.44 12.78 12.70 71.90 71.90 13.76 13.76 264.00 264.00 48.00 48.00 35.00 35.00 Page 8 Amount Coaments 49.00 ORO 9150. SECOND SERIES 45.50 ORD #149, SECOND SERIES 21.00 APPL. 12170. NELSON 24.50 APPL. 92174 45.50 LAND USB APPLICATIONS 14.00 OPTICAL SCAN VOTING SYST 250.25 •174 OIL CHG. BRAKES ID CARD PROCESSING CmNDY for RESALE FILM DEVELOPING AD FOR POSITION-PLANNER SERVICE CALL REPLACE GASOLINE CARD 125.00 MARKINGS FOR SMART TRAILR S Sep Thu 3:4S PM Chec*c Re9ister City of Orono Check Somber Date Name Check Number 52282 THE SIGN AGE Totals Check Number S2262 THE SIGN AGE Check Number 52283 TWIN CITY STRIPING 52283 05-Sep-96 TWIN CITY STRIPING Totals Check Number 5.'283 TWIN CITY STRIPING Check Number 52284 US WEST Cai>#WNICATIONS 52284 52284 52284 52284 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 US WEST COWUNICATIONS US WEST COW1UNICATIONS US WEST COWUNICATIONS US WEST COM^T^ICATICNS Totals Check Number 52284 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Check Number 52285 VEE, LIN 52285 04-Sep-96 VEE. LIN Totals Check Number 52285 VEE. LIN Check Number 52286 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 52286 52286 04-Sep-96 04-Sep-96 WRIGHT HENTiEPIN ELECTRIC WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC Totals Check Number 52286 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC Grand Total Transaction Amount 125.00 500.00 SCO.00 281.28 29.38 12.59 684.66 1.007.91 84.63 84.60 8.50 9.00 17.50 57,178.97 Page 9 Comment s STRIPE PARKING LOT US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES VEE-MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT SECURITY LIGHT SECURITY LIGHT - , INFORMATION ITFMS COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL MEET1NQ SEP 9 1996 OF cmroFORONO TH 12 MEETING LOCATION:MN/DOT Metro Division - Golden Valley Office Conference Room 4 2055 N. Lilac Drive Golden Valley. MN 797-3000 From the Orono/Long Lake area go east on I-394 and exit on TH 100 north. Traveling north on TH 100, exit on Duluth Street. Turn west (left) on Duluth street, passing under TH 100 to N. Lilac Drive. The MN/DOT office is in the north/west quadrant of Duluth Street and TH 100. TIME:3:00 - 5:00 pm PURPOSE:The purpose of this meeting is to provide an opportunity for communication and discussion regarding Mn/DOT’s proposed TH 12 project with the cities of Long Lake and Orono. Mn/DOT will provide information on the following: 1 . Alternatives evaluated since the April 1996 announcement to terminate the EIS on the four-lane alternatives. 2. Direction and process of the project. M *T SEP 3 September 2,1996 Mr. Ron Moorse Orono City Council Orono, Minnesota 55356 re: proposed internal trail system within Thoroughbred Meadows development (Tony Eiden Company) Dear Mr. Moorse: This letter pertains to the recent discussion between the residents of the Thoroughbred Meadows development of Orono ( Tony Eiden Company/ Putnam Development) and the Orono City Council pertaining to the proposed internal trail system within this sector. As you learned during that council meeting, virtually none of the residents of this development were aware of any such proposed trail system prior to the weekend preceeding that meeting. As you are also aware, there is profound frustration and unanimous concensus opposing such a system. Because of the above, we would very much appreciate furthur discussion regarding this matter with all members of the Council. Please find attached a general concensus regarding this matter, and our rationale. Please notify me of the meeting date to allow for adequate attendance and input from this neighbrhood. ^ Gregory Vif^, M.D. 2800 Countryside Dr. West 449-9621 page 1 of 3 RE: Internal Trails in Old Crystal Bav Road Addition (Dickev Prooertvi PETITION FOR VACATION OF TRAIL EASEMENTS BY THE RESIDENTS OF COUNTRYSIDE DR. WEST We. the residents of Countryside Drive West of Orono MN., respectfully request that the City of Orono vacate the following three designated trail easements: 1) Between lot #2 and lot #3 within block 2 of the Old Crystal Bay Road addition; 2) Between lot #6 and lot #7 within Block 2 of the Old Crystal Bay Road addition; and. 3) Between lot 6. Block 2 of the Old Crystal Bay Road second addition and Lot 1, Block 1 of the Old Crystal Bay Road addition. As citizens of Orono, we respect and fully support the City Council's intent to provide public access to the existing Luce Line trail, and to the proposed public park in Outlet A. However, as access is already provided for bo h the public and residents of Thoroughbred Meadows via: 1) the asphalt trail, which runs along Old Crystal Bay Road and connects with the Luce Line: and, 2) Watertown Rd. which provides access to Outlet A, we believe that additional access via internal trails is unnecessary. In addition, we feel that the internal trail easements, orig.nally designated as "amenities" to the development, are. in fact, a detriment for tne following reasons; The trails would increase the automobile traffic on a 2 lane, cul-de-sac road with a high concentration of children and no on-street parking capacity - this creates a safety concern. We already have vehicles parking on our street in order to access the Luce Line and have experienced some "near misses" with our children. We believe that internal trail access will exacerbate this problem. This street is not a public street maintained by the Orono tax base. If the trails are constructed at the behest of the city of Orono, pliability for accidents, injuries or property damage associated with traffic on this street that is in any way associated with non-resident use of the trails must evolve to the city of Orono. with full indemnification provided to the property owners by the city of Orono. The Luce Line trail is unquestionably utilized by a large number of non-Orono residents. It is. therefore, our belief that the internal trails would also be utilized by a large number of non-Orono residents. The resulting increase in pedestrian and bicycle traffic through the heart of the development would negatively impact the privacy of the residents. More importantly, we believe it could impact the security of the neighborhood. Further, the deterioration of this neighborhood ’s quality brought about by it’s use by non-residents, and the aforementioned safety, privacy and security issues, must result in a substantial and inimediate reduction in each property owner ’s property tax valuation. i page 2 of 3 RE: Internal Trails in Old Crystal Bav Road Addition (Dickev Property) PETITION FOR VACATION OF TRAIL EASEMENTS BY THE RESIDENTS OF COUNTRYSIDE DR. WEST While at the development plans stage, the inclusion of internal trails appeared to be an asset, now that homes have been constructed and the development has become a "neighborhood", it is clear that the trails would negatively impact the open, natural beauty of the area. ♦ Final point: At present there is no vocal public constituency seeking the trails. There is_a public constituency opposed to them. page 3 of 3 RE: Internal Trails in Old Crystal Bav Road Addition (Dickev Property) PETITION FOR VACATION OF TRAIL EASEMENTS BY THE RESIDENTS OF COUNTRYSIDE DR. WEST We the undersigned residents of Countryside Drive West unanimously support this petition. Name Address Date z.7^0 r s. I)A^7Tp^^ 2d tO C c\ u^'fyU Sj ^hdh(^ \ (ft. I*/ 0 > 0-Uk. /f*. ~7 3 ^ SI fvt 2 ~ (i/xn m'l^L /C2y 4/>/<?4 ___________ ■■ i>A. y£'3^ We the undersigned of Countryside Drive also support this petition. Name ?::>7 Address Date . zs9o /o-- Of ’_____ W^i/^7 4 ^Ac•>c/fr li'^'A^p^r^j^pchsiTfitrlJ 2GI5Cy>iMhr^^!rbjJC)ri))ej <Q-3/- YOU ARE CORDIALLY INVITED WHERE:Watertown City Hall 309 Lewis Avenue South WHEN:Saturday, September 14. 1996 TIME:10:00 a.m.- 2:00 p.m. On behalf of the Watertown City Council. Watertown Public Library, and Friends for Life Organization, you arc cordially invited to the grand opening of the Watertown City Hall to be held Saturday. September 14. 1996 from 10 00 a m. to 2:00 p m,. The official dedication ceremony and program b scheduled to begin at 10 30 a.m.. Thb project b the fulfillment of the vbion and hard work of many community leaders, city and county officiab, and city and library staff Please Join us on September 14, 1996 for refreshments and building tours to celebrate the completion of the city’s new downtown facility The favor of a reply b appreciated. Please R.S V P to Michael A. Ericson. City Admintsmnor at (612) 955-2681 or 44<^1711 prior to September 11, 1996. M I-N-N-E-S-O-T-A HEART OF THE LUCE LINETRAIL IMCCLAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DEEPHAVEN GREENWOOD LONG LAKE MEDINA MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETRISTA ORONO ST. BONIFACIUS SHOREWOOO SPRING PARK TONKA BAY VICTORIA WOODLAND i 540 SECOND STREET • PO. BOX 473 • EXCELSIOR. MN 55331-0473 612. 474-5539 • FAX 612. 474-0430 August 28,1996 Mayor Edward Callahan City Council Members City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 JUL 2 9 1996 EXCELSIOR Dear Mayor Callahan and Council Members: To begin with, 1 want to thank you for being flexible and working the LMCC report and the 1997 Budget into your busy city council agenda. Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the potential challenge to remove municipal control over rights-of-way/easements and the Needs Asse.ssment Committee activity to upgrade the Triax Cablevision system with state of the art electronics and service, will certainly guarantee a very busy 1997. We appreciate the support and ask that you continue to furnish valuable input to the LMCC through a Commissioner or your personal contact with Jim Daniels, our Administrator. The result of "future" technology in communications must meet the needs and desires of our residents, as well as the cities, police, fire, school districts and business. As in the past, we will keep you current on all important issues that may effect your city. Sincerely, Ann C.'Thies, Chair Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission cc Commissioner T. Pattrin • “ -A.- Hennepin County X. An Euual Orrortunitv Emplover / TO: FROM: Those Listed Below Jerry D. Smrcka, Traffic Operations Engineer August 29, 1996 SUBJECT: CSAH 146 (Brown Rd.) in Orono On September 9, 1996, the bridge structure on CSAH 146, located about Vt mile south of Watertown Rd., will have deck repairs done on it. Traffic will be confined to a single lane across the bridge and controlled by a portable temporary traffic signal. Motorists to experience some delays. The bridge work should be completed in approximately two to three weeks. Hennepin Countv Board of Corranissioners County Administrator Associate County Administrator Dept, of Public Works-V.T. Genzlinger Transportation Division Staff Sheriff’s Dept. Sheriff’s Radio Tower Library Director-Charles Brown G.S.l.S. - Stephanie McNamara Minnesota Dept, of Transportation Metro District Engr.-C. Siggerud Div. Traffic Engr. - C. Hudrlik Traffic Management Center - Operations Road Information & Permit Office Minnesota Highway Patrol East Minnesota Highway Patrol West Municipalities Cities of Orono, Long Lake Manager, Dir. of Public Works Fire Chief, Police Chief School District 278 - Orono Superintendent Transportation Director Department of Public Works JDS/saa Emergency Service Methodist Hosp.-Emergency Hennepin County Medical Center No. Memorial Med Ctr-Emergency Waconia Ridgeview Hosp.- Ambulance Service Health One Transportation Midwest Med Kab Media Star Tribune, Editor Sun Publications, Editor The Laker The Pioneer Radio Station - WCCO Metropolitan Traffic Control American Automobile Association Ken Mohr, Domestic Travel Transit MCTO Operating Division Dick Loeffler, Mgr., St. Ops. 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8496 (612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513 RecycUd Pap€r TDD:(612)930-2696 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 19, 1996 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Steve Peterson, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, and William Stoddard Charles Schroeder was absent The following represented the City Staff; Assistant Zoning and Planning Administrator Michael Gaffron, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Council members Jabbour and Goetten, along with Mayor Callahan, were present. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#1) #215« JOHN O’SULLIVAN/GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH PROPERTY, 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD - REZONING - PUBLIC HEARING 7:00-7:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. John O’Sullivan, Erwin Smith, and Dan Clausen of the North Conservative Baptist Conference were present. Gaffiron reported that the applicant has an option to purchase the 1.7 acre parcel owned by the church. The parcel is being considered for rezoning from LR-IC to B-5 commercial consisting of limited neighborhood businesses The conceptual plan is for light retail and office in a 2-story building, to include a bank with drive-thru, with stormwater retention pond on the property and vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane. At this time, the Planning Commission is to consider the rezoning issue and not the use itself Gaffion asked the Commission to consider five general issues for discussion; 1) Does the proposed rezoning fit with Orono's Comprehensive Plan for the Navarre business district? 2) If not, should the City consider a rezoning request absent a comprehensive zoning "needs" review of the Navarre area’’ 3) Is B-5 the appropriate district for the proposed uses? 4) Are the proposed uses appropriate for this location, adjacent to an existing single family neighborhood'’ and 5) If the property is rezoned, and if the parcel is ultimately sold to another developer, are all of the allow ed uses in the B-5 zone appropriate for this location? Gaffi-on cited some of the background and history of rezoning in the Navarre area. The last rezoning occurred in 1983. Gaffion said it was Staffs opinion that a comprehensive review of the Navarre area should be conducted before rezoning a specific site, but a specific application is before the Commission for review' and is asking for consideration. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#1 - #2158 John O'Sullivan/Grace Baptist Church Property - Rezoning - Continued) The site location is at the comer of Shadywood Road and County Road 15. An adjacent comer is being redeveloped in B-1 zoning. One acre residential is located to the east along with a wetland area, all part of the Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association. There is 1/2 acre single family residential zoning to the north of the proposed site. To the west across Shadywood is another commercial area of B-1 zoning. Gafiron read the purpose of the B-5 District as defined in the Zoning Code: "The B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The District may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls The District shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location ot the B-5 District as contemplated in the area knowTi as Navarre in the City of Orono, the uses are limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that property in that use district since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre." Galfron said it could be argued that there is no traffic problem in Navarre but acknowledged that it was indeed busy Gaffion then read the list of permitted uses and conditional uses within both the B-5 and LR-IC zoning districts. Gaffion reported on the potential uses of the site other than for the use as proposed. These were noted as a church and other conditional uses, plus residential to include single family and duplex. The site is of a size which would allow as many as 6 dwelling units in three duplex structures. Gaffron said Staff does agree that for the uses proposed by the applicant, the B-5 district is the best zoning fit. Gaffion reported that the Staff recommendations include a comprehensive study of the zoning and land use in the Navarre area before arbitrarily rezoning a parcel at the request of a developer He noted, however, that since a study has not been initiated by Council, and given the applicant's request to redevelop the site and his need of immediate rezoning, the Planning Commission is being requested to review the request for rezoning, its appropriateness to the area, and under what conditions. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNEMG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#I - #2158 John O’Sullivan/Grace Baptist Church Property - Rezoning - Continued) O'Sullivan said he considered the neighborhood, the intense use on adjacent properties, and the allowed uses in each district to determine that the best fit is B-5 commercial He continued that he found no offensive uses among those permitted in B-5 and noted they were uses that generated low traffic O'Sullivan reported that he held two public tent meetings the end ofJune He notified all property owners within 600' of the site, which is two times what is required by law, and also went door to door in a half mile square vicinity. 80 people, including 2 Planning Commissioners, attended the meetings. The comments received by O'Sullivan were favorable to the concept noting there would be no infnngement on the neighborhood. Petitions were available and w ere signed by almost all of those in attendance. All but a couple of people supported the concept. O'Sullivan also provided drawings of the plans and a petition in his nearby store in mid-July. He received 200 signatures of which the majority showed a telephone prefix of 471, which is that of the Navarre area O'Sullivan said he also spoke with about 80 business owners and received signatures of those favoring the concept Only 5 or 6 were said to not voice favor but asked questions about the proposal. Only one of the opposed was an Orono resident. O’Sullivan concluded that the B-5 was a great fit between the busier B-1 business district and the residential zoning He noted that no one adamantly opposed the project. The most concern was that of tearing down a church. O'Sullivan said the purchase option was soon to expire, and a decision needs to be made soon on whether to continue pursuing the property. General plans have been made but a comprehensive plan is awaiting the rezoning issue decision O'Sullivan said he has received numerous inquiries regarding the space to include realty offices, insurance, and floral shop. He, at this point, is unable to go any further in the application until the rezoning is decided. O'Sullivan noted that he owns two of the adjoining parcels and sees the joint development as an opportunity for the future of the area Peterson said he attended the neighborhood meeting and noted those in attendance were for the concept, who said they were tired of seeing the empty building. Peterson said the City does not change zoning without alot of thought but feels the concept w ould fit in the comprehensive plan of the City. He felt the question was whether the City should look at one parcel versus the long range plans for the Navarre area, noting there was no plan to do so at this time. Peterson felt if the application was in regards to another location, it would go through the long range analysis, but he sees this property as unique and lends itself to its owm development within the neighborhood Peterson said he would like to see the property rezoned to B-5 but w ould like to change some of the wording within the B-5 description and allowed uses now in the zoning code, i e removal of tobacco shop« Peterson asked if there is anyone w ho is opposed to the project? Lindquist opened the meeting to a public hearing and asked for comment. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19. 1996 (^i - #2158 John O'Sullivan/Grace Baptist Church Property - Rezoning - Continued) John Ericson, 1620 Shadyw ood, and owner of 2 lots located to the north of the proposed site on CoRd 19, said he had no problem with the plan but was concerned with a parking lot abutting his property and the traffic from the businesses. Ericson said he acquired his lots five years ago and was told by the County that they would not allow any more curb cuts off of CoRd 19 for homes His access was said to have to come from Olive Avenue. Ericson noted that the current church property has two curb cuts, and if he was not allowed any curb cuts, neither should this property be allowed any additional curb cuts. Ericson said there would be alot of traffic generated by the site with short term traffic coming in and out Ericson is concerned with the narrow residential streets behind the site and asked the Council to consider where the residential should begin and stop He questioned whether he should build any houses on the lots Ericson was concerned with people taking shortcuts through the adjoining neighborhoods to get to the proposed site and would like to see the roads improved. He said he had no problem with what is being proposed with controls noting it was better than what is there now. Janet Roshar of the nearby vet clinic said the area needs a face lift, and she is in favor of the pie IS. Janet Simons, in insurance sales the past 11 years, said the proposal would be a wonderful advancement to the area, and she would like to relocate into the proposed building. Jay Richards, 3243 Casco Circle, said he has dealt with O'Sullivan and Smith as businessmen over the last 22 years and viewed them as good people. He would like to encourage them to keep their standards, which he views as higher than those in the area at this time. Gaffron passed around a letter from Robyn and Brett Hallonquist, which was read into the minutes, voicing their approval of the plans. Smith asked O'Sullivan what kind of retail businesses he saw as being located in the building. O'Sullivan gave an example of a flower shop, a gift and card shop, personal services. He said he has not yet put out any notices in the marketplace but has received inquiries from realty houses and insurance agents, which would be good businesses for the neighborhood and fit in the P-5 zoning, adding that these uses did not generate high traffic. O'Sullivan informed Smith that there would be no 24 hour businesses. Smith asked O'Sullivan to comment on the residential traffic. A bike/hike trail was noted. O'Sullivan said there would be no direct outlet to Navarre Lane or Olive Avenue as the traffic pattern is designed to keep away from the residential area. Peterson noted that this was the subject of the only question at the public meetings. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19. 1996 (#I - #2158 John O'SuUivan/Grace Baptist Church Property - Rezoning - Continued) Smith asked Gaf&on if there was any way to place limits on the permitted uses short of amendment of the B-5 permitted use list in the comprehensive plan. Gafffon reviewed the permitted uses noting there would likely not be any record shops today but a video or CD store is possible No pet shops exist in Navarre but a vet clinic does, and tobacco shops are not too commonplace Gaffron said many of the permitted and conditional uses fit in a neighborhood setting Gaffron said if there was concern with a use for the property under the permitted use list, the B-5 zoning would have to be amended. It was noted that as the ordinance now stands, any of the permitted uses could occur. Peterson voiced concern with a conditional use of off-street parking. Hawn said she saw the issue as whether to approve the B-5 as it stands and encourag.* the review. She did not see any of the permitted uses as being obnoxious and any concei.i with a conditional use would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Hawn noted from *etters received from the neighbors, they are in favor of and want the developme.it, are frustrated with the site as it stands and would be gratified by an upscale building in the neighborhood Peterson noted that he has seen only 2 applications in 5 years for this property in its zoning as residential adding that this developer was the first person to come forward asking to change the zoning. Stoddard commented on a concept brought forward last month of a Navarre beautification program, which would be different than that of long term zoning He noted the last study was done in the 1980's and the determination made that involvement from the business owners would be necessary to accomplish anything Stoddard said he lives close to the area, attended the public meeting hearing favorable comments towards the proposal, and is open to reviewing the permitted use Peterson said he sees the dev elopment as a catalyst for redevelopment of the Navarre area. Berg said the development is long over due and lends itself to setting a standard of what can be done in the area. She also lives in the area and noted its need for improvement. Lindquist said the property was troubled with the church sitting there; and with the application in front of the Commission, he saw the need to deal with it at this time. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#1 - #2158 John O’Sullivan/Grace Baptist Church Property - Rezoning - Continued) Smith asked O’Sullivan what kind of energy was in the area regarding redevelopment, noting the need for funding, and whether a revitalization of the area was realistic. O’Sullivan said he couldn’t speak for others but saw improvements made in businesses cause other businesses to get involved or become lost O’Sullivan said it was a matter of individuals parting with funds He noted Berg ’s involvement in redevelopment project^ The need for special financing and problems with absentee landlords were noted. Smit said she was not encouraged that there would be any beautification plans occurring without special financing available Janet Simons reported that O’Sullivan, Rick Bloomquist of Rick’s Super Valu, and herself got together and purchased holiday banners prior to getting any support from others in the area. They then sent out mailings and raised several thousand dollars Simons said this shows a commitment by the business owners and their support She noted that such initiatives do get the ball rolling towards improvements in the area. Peterson moved, Berg seconded, to approve the rezoning of the property at 2380 Shadywood Road to B-5 as stated with the condition that the B-5 uses be amended to delete tobacco shops under permitted uses and kennels, home and garden rental, and oflf- street parking under conditional uses. Gaffron asked to review the existing B-5 areas in Navarre This includes a block where a Dairy Queen, a vet clinic, and Lowells Auto Parts, an office building; and B-5 to the west with a furniture store and a service station With only those B-5 districts, Gaffron said the suggested amendment to the B-5 would a, ,.car to not adversely affect those businesses already in place which was a concern to him. He asked that off-street parking be defined as there is a need for parking in the B-5 but serving some other primary use. Su^estions were of no unauthorized parking and no ’’for sale" parking allowed Peterson said he feared Lord Fletchers would use the lot for parking on weekends creating more traffic to the area which Peterson would like to keep down. Gaffron recommended that the Commission recommend to Council that an amendment to the B-5 zone be pursued as a separate application from the rezoning. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. The rezoning issue will be before the Council at the meeting of August 26, 1996 (#2) #2155 NANCY KRAUSE AND DAN HANDLIN, 3860 NORTH SHORE DRIVE AND CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - PUBLIC HEARING 7:45-7:50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#2 - #2155 Nancy Krause and Dan Handlin - Continued) Galfron reported that the application is a request for approval of a subdivision of a City- owned tax forfeit parcel. The parcel includes wetlands and once held a lift station. The applicants found that their driveway access is partially within this tax-forfeit parcel. The applicants went forward with their purchase of the property in spite of the encroachment after receiving conceptual approval from the Council for conveyance of a portion of the property to the County for resale to the property owner. The portion to be transferred is 20' wide and 100 ’ deep Gaffron reported that this would have no impact on the City's infrastructure and recommends approval The applicants said it is their desire to own their driveway. They will be moving it slightly to stay within their new boundaries. Smith asked if there were any costs to the City. Galfron said all costs would be at the applicants' expense. There were no public comments. Hawn moved. Smith seconded to recommend approval of Application #2155 per Staff recommendation to include conditions 1 and 2. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#3) #2156 MICHAEL AND THERESA EASTMAN, 4520 WEST BRANCH ROAD AND LAKEVIEW GOLF COURSE, 405 NORTH ARM DRIVE - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - (REGISTERED LAND SURVEY) - PUBLIC HEARING 7:50-7:54 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Eastmans were present. Gaffron reported that the application was a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement to allow for the Eastman’s to acquire a portion of Lakeview Golf Course to accommodate a garage addition to the rear of the Eastman house, which requires a 50' setback Lakeview Golf Course is in favor of selling the land and would suffer no negative impact. This proposal would add 7800 s.f to the Eastman property. There is generally drainage across this portion of the land, but Gaffron said nothing suggests any need for a drainage easement as it can be channeled on the Golf Course property. Gaffron said Staff recommends approval as proposed The applicant had no comments to add. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#3 - #21 56 Michael and Theresa Eastman/Lakeview Golf Course - Continued) Berg moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2156. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. ACTION ITEMS (#4) #2151 JOHN AND JANICE HURD, 2795 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:54-8:09 P.M. Jaruce Hurd was present, along with architect, Charles Coombs. Lindquist reviewed the application for Staff and reported that changes were made to the original application after review at a previous Planning Commission. The house was moved back 8' from the original plan to accommodate concerns by the neighbors over the average lakeshore setback. The house projection will still be 4-5' in front of this line. No structural coverage or lot area variances are required A hardcover variance for 400 s.f in the 0-75' zone is required for the existing boat house Hardcover in the 75-250' setback meets the allowed at 3292 s f proposed. The 250-500' setback area allows 30% or 2241 s.f The original proposal was for 45.7% or 3414 s.f The amended proposal is at 2912 s.f or 38 9% for a 671.7 s f or 8 9^'o variance 320 s f of driveway improvement is located in the Casco Point right-of-way. Peterson clarified that the issues at hand are the hardcover in the 250-500' setback and the average lakeshore setback. Gaffron reported that a letter from neighbors, Ken and Elaine Erickson, arrived today. Peterson read the letter into the minutes. The Erickson's favored the changes made to the house placement, had no objection to the boat house, and had only a possible objection to the portion of the house laying in area beyond their home's projection Hurd said this projection area is their kitchen eating area. Without that area, the home would have to be widened which would make It lay closer to the Grundeen's. Hurd also noted that the existing house in this same area is a 2-story and the proposed is a single story with a walkout under grade. Stoddard asked if this projection of the house can be seen from the neighboring property. Coombs said the look of the projection was softened and did not believe it had any affect. He noted that the Grundeen's were in favor of the changes made. In public comments, Todd Thielmann, 2799 Casco Point Road, located two houses to the left of the Hurd's, said the neighbors had met with the Hurd's. Thielmann said he and the Grundeen's liked the new softened look. An imaginary line was drawn from their homes to establish a boundary by which the homes would keep within in order to control any leapfrog effect Thielmann informed Peterson he is in favor of the application with the changes made. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#4 - #2151 John and Janice Hurd - Continued) Peterson reviewed the variances required of hardcover in the 250-500 setback and average lakcshore setback He noted his own view of being consistent in not voting for average lakeshore setbacks as a matter of principle The application was tabled from the last Planning Commission meeting in order to respond to the concerns of the neighbors This seems to have been rectified by the adjustments made in the plan to eliminate any leapfrog effect Peterson commented that the boat house is in excellent condition and seems appropriate to allow it to renuun. Stoddard was informed by Coombs that the new placement of the home will be held to a line from the Thielmann's home and recorded on a survey. Thielmann acknowledged that the approval should include the survey. Smith said she did have a concern over the lakeshore setback. Hurd said the home now exists much further into the setback. If the home was moved back any further, it would create an even deeper tunnel effect. Coombs said he believed the Gnmdeen's home would be remodeled at some point. With the draw ing of the imaginary line, it would keep their home within that setback also. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval as submitted with the addition of the survey line included in the approval. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 1, Peter^n, due to the principle of the average lakeshore setback. Lindquist did not participate in the vote as he conducted the review. (#5) #2159 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:09-8:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2159 at the request of the applicants. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. Berg was not in the chambers at the time of the vote. (#6) #2160 DAVID DOTZENROTH, 3225 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:10-8:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicant was present. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#6 - #2160 David Dotzenroth - Continued) Gafiron reported that the application is for side and street setback variances for an addition to the rear of the garage The lot area, lot ^v^dth, and hardcover allowances ^ all conforming The comers of the garage are at 4 4’ and 7 4' from the side lot line where 10' is normal With the proposed 750 s f footprint, the required setback is mcreased to 15’. The garage is now 1-2' from the street lot line and the concrete slab extends out over that The addition would include a roof change from a low pitch to a 12 ; 12 pitch The purpose of the addition is for storage The proposal shows an end load or possibly a side door to allow for backing up into the property This would allow the off-street parking to be out of the right-of-way Gaffron said Staff believes it would be more appropnate to have a side door configuration but noted it would add hardcover vvith the driveway apron for parking. This might have an impact on the trees on the wooded property. Gaffron added that the code for doors facing the street requires a 30’ setback This relates to busy streets which is not the case in this situation He noted there is no other option for parking under the current layout as the garage is against the lot line Dotzenroth reported that he has lived in the area for 43 years owning several homes. Letters from the neighbors noted approval of his application. Dotzenroth said the front exposed doors and concrete apron allows for a parking area for guests He noted that the property in the circle now owned by the City was once owned by his family Dotzenroth said if the road was improved, it would not infringe on the neighbors but to the park only. Douenroth said if he changed the doors to face the east, it might cause problems in the winter time He added that a 30' setback would require the probable elimination of a hickory and black walnut tree. If pushed any further back, it would also take out a 4 maple Dotzenroth said there is no traffic problem in the area noting the dead end strwt. Although he does not park on the concrete apron, his guests do, and this aids in keeping cars out of the park area. He said he is not in favor of trailers and brush being within the park as there now exists. Dotzenroth added that the expansion would allow the roof to be in the same style as his 1882 Victorian home and give him options for storage. Lindquist asked if there was a problem with keeping within the 1000 s.f. limit. Dotzenroth said the expansion is not much over that amount, and his benefit is in gaining the 12.12 pitch. Gaffron asked if the garage could be reduced 6" in length, which would keep the garage within the 1000 s.f Dotzenroth said this could be done MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#6 - #2160 David Dotzenroth - Continued) Smith asked what the use of the addition was for and who would construct it Dotzenroth said the expansion would allow his vehicles to be stored within and noted that he would contract out for the work Smith asked what the time frame would be for the home completion, garage, and yard cleanup. Dotzenroth said the home was started last year, and he is in the process of finishing the roof and walkway. He thought the home would be completed in a couple months The yard should be cleaned up of construction matenal at that time Dotzenroth said the garage would be done after the home and all should be completed by spring of 1997 He said all of the work including landscaping will be done within the time frame of the one year variance allotment Hawn asked if the entry to the side could be accomplished without destroying the black walnut tree. Dotzenroth said he has not measured it, and it would be close. She asked about the 3-car garage but 2-car design. Dotzenroth said two stalls are tandem. Berg asked if Dotzenroth intended on keeping the sheds on the property. Dotzenroth said one of the sheds would be eliminated Smith asked Doti.enroth for his choice of either the garage pulled back with a side apron or a steeper gabled roof Dotzenroth preferred the roof Smith asked if this was allowed, if Dotzenroth would be willing to orient the garage per the Staff recommendation. Dotzenroth said he would be looking at ice slides. Gaffron noted that this concern could be eliminated by redesigning the peak of the roof and showed Dotzenroth a sketch how that could be accomplished. The issue of the garage entry was discussed. Lindquist said the side entry was a matter of safety. Dotzenroth did not think this made a difference with the road being at the end of the point, Smith said it would improve the safety, not only for traffic, but for egress onto Casco Point and provide parking safety Dotzenroth asked if he had the door for access but be allowed two on the side. Smith said this would defeat what the Commission was trying to accomplish. Hawn said she was concerned with a variance allowing the garage so close to the roadway when this would not be allowed for others. She does not find the situation to be so unique as to compel approval of the resolution when there is another solution for side entry. She had no problem with the steeper roof Smith agreed that the steeper roof would be all right. Dotzenroth said he would like to measure the distances to see what effect it would have on the black walnut trees. There were no public comments. Lindquist said he preferred the side door entry. Dotzenroth asked if he could keep the concrete apron for guest parking. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#6 - #2160 David Dotzenroth - Continued) Stoddard said he w as in favor of the roof line to restore the Victorian look He noted the side entry would add about 4® o to hardcover. Dotzenroth said he was concerned with addition^ hardcover and prefers green. Smith moved. Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of the garage addition with the size of the addition to be maintained below the 1000 s f limit The steeper gabled roof was recommended for approval. The parage doors are to be oriented to the east and require a new driveway construction The apron in the right-of-way is to be eliminated. The exterior construction of the house is to be completed before the garage is begun. Gaffron noted that the permit is for two years, one year for the exterior and one year for interior completion. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Dotzenroth was informed that the existing concrete with doors could not remain. Smith said it was a matter of safety. Hawn noted that cars could still pull in without the concrete there but the concern of the Commission was for cars being in the roadw ay Mrs. Dotzenroth asked if gravel could be placed where the apron now exists. Gaffron said gravel constitutes hardcover and grass pavers also were considered hardcover. Gaffron said the application would be before the Council at their September 9 meeting. Gaffron informed Dotzenroth that the proposal would be needed prior to the meeting. Peterson noted that Dotzenroth would have one year from the approval of the variance by the Council to complete the work (#7) #2161 JAMES AND MELISSA EASLEY, 4105 HIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:40-9:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present, along with their Architect, Sarah Susanka. Gaffron reported that the property located on Highwood Road is about 40' wide. The proposal is to tear down the existing garage, which is located 2' from the right-of-way, and remove the parking area and stairway down to the house. It will be replaced with a garage within 3' of the side lot line and 25-30' from the street with parking in front of the garage. The future conceptual plan is to attach the garage to the house with a walkway vestibule. The garage and house are to be 3 levels each. Gaffron noted a height issue with the proposed garage The defined height is 26' and that of the house only 19’, though 26' from low point to peak. The garage is considered an accessory structure and by definition cannot be of greater height than the house. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19. 1996 (#7 - #2161 James and Melissa Easley - Continued) The side setback is proposed at 3' where 10' is lequired by code. The reason for this setback variance is tw ofold 1) to add to the drainage by extension of the garage wall to channel drainage past the house, and 2) there are mature trees on the other side It was noted that there is a 30’ setback required for the garage doors facing the street. A lot coverage variance is required. The existing structures are 16.8%, or 1401 s f, where 15% is allowed The proposal is for 19 7%, or 1646 s.f Gaflron noted that the zoning allows for 1500 s.f regardless of the lot size Calculations have not been done for the conceptual new house and may be found to be less than the existing lot coverage. There will be no change in the hardcover in the 0-75’ setback Existing hardcover is at 23.3%, which includes the house and deck The hardcover in the 75-250’ setback is at 38.1%, proposed at 40 8%, where 25% is allowed. Gaffron reported that the City Engineer has reviewed the proposal. By channeling the drainage from the garage roof and driveway. Cook was said to feel this would protect the house Drainage from the street currently travels along a 4-house area Gaffron said drainage is a concern in the neighborhood, and curb and gutter and retention pond arc future issues to be considered. Gaffron asked the Commission to consider the relation of the garage and house, the need for 3-stories, and the view from the lake from a height standpoint at about 50’ from lowest to highest points. Gaffron noted that a typical 2-story walkout would present a height range of42-45 ’. Lindquist commented that the problem with the garage was the need to go down 2 stories. Architect Susanka raised the issue of the "office space" being considered as part of the garage When the house is rebuilt in several years, the applicants would need to reside in the garage. Susanka asked if there would be a problem with that as the applicants would not invest heavily into the property if it was not allowed. She also asked about requirements of the planned house in order to gauge what the City would allow Susanka said the upper story of the garage would have 5-6’ sidewalls to allow a person to stand in it but to have minimal impact. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#7 - #2161 James and Melissa Easley - Continued) Lindquist responded that this would then become a problem with a tear down Gaffron said the garage would then become the principal structure. The time frame would be reviewed but Gaffron said it could likely be worked out Lindquist inquired if plumbing was added, would it remain once the house was rebuilt The applicant said it would possibly be used as a mother-in-law apartment Gaffron referred to the connection with the breezeway. Susanka said the plans were not totally formulated as they were only gathering information at this time Gaffron related scenarios of the space being heated, all one structure, or if a separate structure, or as a bedroom, and the requirement for a CUP. Lindquist was informed that the time frame for the completion of the house was 4-5 years. Lindquist suggested completing the garage and then making a decision on the remainder of the concept. Melissa Easley noted the hazardous condition of the garage as it now stands and concerns for safety and drainage. James Easley also reported a problem . nth the retaining walls. Lindquist asked what they would like approved at this meeting and Melissa Easley said to build a garage Stoddard asked what the issues were concerning the retaining walls Gaffron said the existing wall condition is poor The idea for the proposal would solve drainage by drawing it past the house There has been no suggestion as to how high they should be as of yet, but Gaffron said the Engineer thought the solution may work. Hawm commented that the small lots require smaller houses and would like to see the square footage keep to the 1500 s f allowed She asked the applicants to keep this in mind when considering the large garage as it would be irxluded in that calculation. Susanka said the garage is not large at 22x21 and includes a stairway to the house. She said they looked at an outside stairway but were concerned with water. Susanka said it was not the intention of the applicants to have a large house Gaffron said the existing house is at about 1000 s f Susanka said the new structure would be close in size to what exists noting her specialty in working with smaller sized homes. Stoddard asked the applicants to work with Staff regarding the pros of connecting the garage and house, which would be better than having a separate structure. Gaffron said the building inspector would review- it. Susanka was told it would be okay to meet with Staff to discuss the issues Stoddard asked how the planned house and garage would fit in with the neighborhood. Susanka said some of the homes are taller. Gaffron informed Smith that the peak would compare to those in the neighborhood. The Theobald house to the east was noted to be the lowest home. Melissa Easley said they were ttying not to create a change to the style of the neighborhood and their home would be similar to that of Theobald. minutes Or THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#6 - #2161 James and Melissa Easley - Continued) There were no put Tic comments. Lindquist commented tha. there were . number of variances with the size of the lot but agreed that the proposal was an improvement. Gafiron noted the 3' side setback was an essential minimum with a 2' overhang and the drip line f from the lot line He also noted the uniqueness of the propo^ due to dr^nage Gafiron said a fire wall w ould be required, but there would be a 10-11 separation from the neighbor ’s garage. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of “ proposed Smith noted that the garage space for office, plumbing, and spa L being considered in this proposal. Hawn asked if it would be aoDlicants said the use of the office terminology was only due to a lack of knowing to call the space Stoddard noted that the height variance could result in being more intense. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. Susanka informed the Planning Commission that she has worked with many different staff gejjjge from other cities and has found Gaffron to be excellent to work with and very (#8) #2163 LARRY AND SHARON GEHL, 1825 CONCORDIA STREET - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:05-9:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present Gaffron reported that an addition to the house has begun in the 75-250 ’ setback, but the applicants propose a second story deck above the existing one story screen porch, which encroaches the 0-75' by 12’ and would change the roof pitch of the porch to being flat but with a deck and railing above it. This would add height past the average lakeshore setback line and past the 75 ’ line. Gaffron also noted the existing grade level deck. The average lakeshore setback line was said to be in line with the house and possibly behind the setback with the survey line as shown. Gaffron said there are also *’ ubs with rock and plastic which normally would be removed within the 0-75' setback. A sidewalk has been taken out in the 0-75' area. I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19. 1996 (#8 - #2163 Larry and Sharon Gehl - Continued) The applicants reported that their neighbors were in favor of the proposal. Larry Gehl said the roof line was to be at a slight angle He noted that a leaking roof was the initiative behind the project, and they are attempting to gain more light into the house by dropping the roof line. The same footprint will be used as the existing porch. Gehl said the neighbor to his right will gain a better view as a k ’Su U of the improvement. With the trees on the property, views are limited. Stoddard said when the views are limited, the average lakeshore setback is a mute issue. Sharon Gehl said the proposal would result in a better utilization of their space She would like to see the deck remain for egress into the house Gehl said she was willing to remove the plastic, as she has already removed about half of it around the house. Gehl also noted that the sidewalk from the lakeshore halfway up to the house was removed. Gehl said it was not their intent to add to hardcover. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2163 with the condition that the remainder of the plastic be removed. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 1, Peterson, who noted the project was good but it was a matter of principle regarding the average lakeshore setback. Gehl was advised to speak with John Gerhardson after inquiring about standing water in the fire lane adjacent to his property. (#9) #2164 DOUGLAS J. OLSON, 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:14-9:26 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by Architect, Bill Michels. Gaffron reported that the proposal was for hardcover variances for two sides in the 0-75* setback, the 75-250' hardcover, lak eshore setback, and average lakeshore setback for an addition to the existing house. The addition is mostly located away from the lakeshore side of the house. The roof pitch would be changed to a 12 ; 12. A minor room addition in the center part of the house would add another story and be much higher than that which exists today. A portion of the roof pitch change is located in the 0-75' setback. The entire house is located within the average lakeshore setback due to its location on a point. There is considerable vegetation between this house and the next house to the west. The hardcover in the 0-75' setback exists at 9 1% and will not change. The change is the redefinition of the roof The hardcover exists at 31% in the 75-250' zone. The applicant proposes removals in the driveway resulting in an island effect and a reduction of 217 s.f to 30.25% Structural coverage would increase from 7.7% to 8.0%. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19. 1996 (#9 - #2164 Douglas Olson - Continued) Stoddard noted that the driveway is used to serv e others. Gaftron said the calculations do not include the area of driveway easements. Michels reported that the roof pitch was changing from a gabled to a hip roof The roof would slope away even with the increased height and would result in being lower as it starts lower Lindquist noted that the Planning Commission has reviewed several proposals and asked if this proposal would actually move forward. Michels was not sure He did note that this plan was more refined and scaled back in scope The home would change in square footage by 30%. Michels said they would like to begin construction soon He noted the tradeoff of drivew ay with the addition of hardcover adding that there may be room for more removal. Lindquist commented that a major reduction has already been accomplished on the property Stoddard said the applicant informed him of the removals made in the pool area already. He also commented that he was not concerned with the average lakeshore setback as this was a lot on a point. There were no public comments Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2164 as submitted. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays I, Peterson, the principle of the average lakeshore setback. (#10) #2166 JANET KIERNAN, 1491 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:15-10:03 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present, along with Architect, Maureen Stratton, and Attorney, Allen Christy. Gaffron passed out the neighborhood acknowledgment forms recently received expressing approval of the application. Gaffron reported that the application request is for lakesf ore setback, average lakeshore setback, side setback, and hardcover variances for both the 0-75' and 75-250 ’ setbacks for construction of additions to the existing residence. A street setback variance is also required f ir expansion of the existing detached garage. The driveway will be relocated. The garage is located on a triangular piece of property of which the ow nership background has been unclear. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#10 - #2166 Janet Kieman - Continued) Kieman said the abstract refers to the triangular piece as a part of the old road bed. The past owner applied for ownership of said parcel which had been condemned. Real estate attorney Christy informed the Planning Commission of the background of the parcel and the tracking of documentation to ow nership to Kieman. These documents were provided to Gaffron. Gaffron reported there are several factors requiring variances for this proposed constmetion including the large driveway, the addition encroaching the 75’ setback and average lakeshore setback, and the issue of location of neighboring homes related to this property The average lakeshore setback line is technically located through the middle of the house, although from a practical standpoint, there is no view to disrupt. The changes to the roof lines and existing rooms in house are partially located within the 0-75* and within the required 30 ’ side setback. The change is mainly in the roof line and not in stmeture The hardcover in the 0-75’ setback is proposed at 6% with removal of a fireplace, patio, and sidewalk and addition of a semi-circular patio area The proposal results in a net reduction of 54 s f Gaffron questioned whether a further reduction could be made. The applicants propose a 75-250' setback area reduction from 27 5% to 26.8%; however, the reduction is a result of taking less than 100% credit for the proposed ’’grass pavers". Gaffron noted that no application using grass pavers has been followed through in Orono. Once grass pavers are driven on, they are considered hardcover. Gaffron asked the Commission to consider whether this reduction should be credited. Gafiron reported other changes to hardcover. A major portion of tiie driveway next to the house will be removed. The driveway will be relocated to the side of the garage providing a safer access Dave Zetterstrom of Hennepin County said the new location was an excellent site. This would add hardcover, however, next to the neighbor’s serpentine wall. It also presents concern for drainage The survey shows the garage addition would be located at a 10.7’ street setback with the addition of two stalls The code requires a 15’ setback for a garage such as this that exceeds 750 s.f. Gaffron said options include reducing the proposal down to three stalls or offsetting the garage to the east. Kieman said the property is in need of major renovation. Her goal is to improve the property, and she is willing to make compromises. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#10 - #2166 Janet Kieman - Continued) Peterson inquired about the number of bedrooms with the current septic site. Kieman said the 4 bedrooms are more thai; "denuate, and she would not use the recreation room as a bedroom Gaffron informed Lindquist that the septic system was in conformance and functioning correctly It might, however, be too small for the number of bedrooms. There had been a guess on the percolation rate when the system was originally built. Gafiron noted that the property is in one of the designated "hot spots" for sew ering. Stoddard commented that the proposal was a great improvement to the property. He questioned the size of the terrace and its use. He also v oiced concern w ith the location of the garage addition proposed at a 10' setback noting the steepness of the road at that point He asked the applicant to consider bringing the garage addition back in on the property. Lindquist asked if Kieman would consider scaling the garage back to a 3-car garage. Kieman said she would prefer to do an offset by bringing it forward Gaffron said a 4-1/2’ offset is needed to meet the 15 ’ setback as long as the garage is kept less than 1000 s.f Kieman said she would keep the garage size within the 1000 s.f Lindquist asked about a reduction to the patio area located in the 0-75* zone Lindquist informed Smith that there was only the patio in which to reduce the hardcover in this zone. Stratton said they would be willing to reduce the size of the patio and asked for direction. Lindquist said, ideally, the patio would not exist Stratton responded with the access to the lake, the patio could not be completely eliminated. She noted that the stairs has been taken out Lindquist said he would recommend extending the patio no further than what now exists Stoddard asked about the columns being proposed Stratton said they were within the footprint and were taking out walls Kieman informed the Commission that a sidewalk was removed and another set of stairs on the other side of the house w as also being removed. Mayor Callahan asked where the sewer is proposed to be located on the property and neighborhood. Gaffron said it likely will cross the property. Callahan noted that there were drawings for both behind the house and along the lakeshore and consideration should be made for the two together Gaffron said there is some flexibility on where it can go, and he would review it with Engineer Cook. Callahan asked that he also consider an easement if need be. Lindquist asked Kieman if she understood what they were referring to, and she said she did. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#10 - #2166 Janet Kieman - Continued) Stoddard asked where the City was regarding the County's planned improvements to CoRd 15. Callahan said it was in a state of active consideration noting the different viewpoints taken amongst Council members. Lindquist asked for the size of the patio to be considered Kieman asked that it be large enough to accommodate a table and chairs. Stratton said it is currently proposed at 24 across and 18 ’ out from the house Gaffron reviewed the hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback and ^ggested cutting the size of the patio in half Kieman and Stratton agreed to limit the size of the patio to 240 s.f Smith asked about the plan for the gazebo Kieman said she would like to do it in the future The placement was unknown, but Kieman was informed that it should not encroach the septic system drainfield. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2166 with the following changes and conditions; The garage will be offset with a minimum of 15 ’ setback from CoRd 15. The patio will be reduced in size to 240 s f The property will not be allowed to have more than 4 bedrooms until such time as sewering is complete. The Planning Commission advised that no more structural coverage would be allowed in the 0-75 ’ setback zone as the property has reached its maximum limit. Gaffron noted that the change in hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback would result in a 3 .9% variance. He also informed the applicant that the drainage and grading plans and location of the sewer would be required before the application would go before the Council. Gaffron said he would provide what information they had in-house, and this request should not hold back the proposal. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1 , Peterson, principle of average lakeshore setback, concern with trading a fireplace and minor landscaping for major structure in the 0-75 ’ setback, and noted the property was at the point of no additional stmctural coverage. (#11) #2167 ALLEN AND JUDY SCHEFERS, "2540” CASCO POINT ROAD- VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:03-10:08 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing w ere noted. The Applicant was represented by Loren Brueggemann. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#11 - #2167 Allen and Judy Schefers - Continued) Gaffron noted the elusiveness of the application with the steady stream of changes made from the original proposal He reported that the original house was planned within the flood plain and with the lowest floor level below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) The 75-250' hardcover was also proposed at about 32% where only 25% is allowed The lot is vacant, and a new house is now proposed for which there is no justification for hardcover variances The house has now been raised to the required 935.5' elevation and out of the flood plain With the changes to the location, the size of the house, and the driveway, the house now will meet the 25®/o hardcover The only request remaining is for a CUP for fill importation in excess of 100 cubic yards It would require 300-400 cubic yards of fill for this proposal Gaffron noted there is also no defined average lakeshore setback to meet as there is no house to the south. The house will be located some distance back from the 0-75' setback The hardcover in the 75-250' setback is proposed at 24 97%. Gaffron said the plan is realistic. He said the fill would require around 30 truck loads Documentation by a survey showing hardcover calculations will be required Peterson noted that the normal precautions would be required regarding fill such as road clean up Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the request for a CUP for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards with the inclusion of a survey. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Hawn was absent from the vote. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#12) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 1996 No report was given. (#13) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 22, 1996 MEETDIG Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meetingof July 22, 1996. Vote Ayes 5, Nays 0. Hawn was not present for the vote. (#14) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 Stoddard will attend the September 9, 1996 meeting of the Council. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Peterson reported that he has tendered his resignation eflfcctive immediately due to a job relocation. He extended his appreciation for the support he has received. Callahan informed Peterson that he was sorry to see him go and thanked him for his service. ADJOURNMENT Lindquist adjourned the meeting at 10; 10 p.m. Dale Lindquist, Ch^r Person TO: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator A/ SUBJECT: Old Crystal Bay Road Trail Update DATE: September 6, 1996 The City has now received bids for the Old Ciy stal Bay Road trail and is in the process of revieNving the bids. Several issues related to the extent of trail construction need to be addressed prior to awarding the bid. 1. 2. 3. Extent of Trail of Construction. A. The bid includes two parts or trail segments. (1) The trail segment south of the Burlington Northern Railroad bridge. (2) The trail segment norUi of the Railroad bridge to Kelley Parkway. B.The Park Commission has also suggested that the trail be completed north of Kelley Parkway through the City facilities to the school property in 1996. Cost of Trail Construction. The Council has authorized $100,000 of expenditures toward the Old Crystal Bay Road trail construction in 1996. The cost of each of the segments of the trail as listed above is as follows: Easement Trail Segment South of RR Construction Cost $85,662 Engineering $8,500 Landscape COSL $33,000 Total Cost $127,162 North of RR to Kelley Pkwy $78,473 $7,800 $ 1,000 $87,273 Kelley Pkwy to $49,000 $4,900 —$53,900 School Property Timing of Trail Construction. The timing of the trail construction is related both to the level of expenditures authorized by the Couneil and to the timing of the acquisition of easements needed for the trail particularly for the segment south of the railroad tracks. I ----- • Memo September 6, 1996 Page 2 4. The status of easement acquisition is as follow s: A. Segment south of the railroad tracks (requires easements from four property owners). (1) Will property. The City had reached a verbal agreement with the Wills and were moving ahead to prepare easement documents when the Wills backed out of the agreement and indicated a substantially higher cost for the easement. Staff has reopened discussions with Mr. Will to reach a new agreement. (2) Brandenburg property. The City has reached an agreement with the Brandenburgs and have a letter of agreement from the Brandenburgs. Hile property. Staff has not been able to reach an agreement with the Hiles. The process has been initiated for a quick take condemnation of the Hile property. (4) Bruening property. The City has a reached a verbal agreement with the Bruenings regarding the easement. The agreement will be placed in writing as soon as possible. B.Segment north of the railroad tracks. (1) VanDale property. This requires only a temporary easement. We have reached a verbal agreement with the projjerty owner and will reduce the agreement to writing as soon as possible. Potential Construction Plan. Due to easement delays, it may be best to wait until the spring of 1997 to construct the trail segment south of the railroad tracks, and to construct the segment north of the railroad tracks to Kelley Parkway in 1996. The segment from Kelley Parkway to the school property could also be constructed in 1996. Staff will contact the low bid contractor to determine if there is a willingness to extend the trail north of Kelley Parkway at the same unit prices as the original bid. 4i IjI: Tod McMill an 26 August 19% Mr. Ron Moorse City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ron: I wish to express my interest in serving on the Planning Commission in the vacancy created by Steve Peterson’s resignation. I have considered the commitment involved in being a member of this commission and would welcome the challenges that it has to offer. My goal is to broaden my knowledge of planning issues building upon my four years of experience on the Park Commission. The citizens' desire, uncovered by the park survey, to preserve the rural character of Orono would be a main guideline for me in determining outcomes in planning. I would work towards creative solutions to the impacts of land use that would ideally benefit both the landowner and the overall community. I would especially support planning that protects natural resources without causing undue economic hardship. My knowledge of the Park Commission can be used as a "bridge" to coordinate actions involving both commissions. Truly yours, j;jL. AUG ?. 7 ’3'"' 1275 Lyman Avenue ■ Wayzata, MN 55391 ■ 612-476-8626 Lili 1 oJ McMillan 26 August 19% Mr. Ron Moorse City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ron: 1 wish to express my interest in serving on the Planning Commission in the vacancy created by Steve Peterson’s resignation. ! have considered the commitment involved in being a member of this commission and would welcome the challenges that it has to offer. My goal is to broaden my knowledge of planning issues building upon my four years of experience on the Park Commission. The citizens' desire, uncovered by the park survey, to preserve the rural character of Orono would be a main guideline for me in determining outcomes in planning. 1 would work towards creative solutions to the impacts of land use that would ideally benefit both the landowner and the overall community. I would especially support planning that protects natural resources without causing undue economic hardship. My knowledge of the Park Commission can be used as a "bridge" to coordinate actions involving both commissions. Truly yours. \k]-UL^ AUG Z 7 J3: 1276 Lyman Avenue ■ Way/.ata, MN 55391 " 612-4*76-8626 J.