Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-16-1997 Planning Packet
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 16,1997,7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Charles Kelley ATTENDANCE Applicants presenting proposals before the Commission are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their application b announced by the Chairman. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS 1.#2233 Walter Holzer 1130 North Shore Drive West Variance/Conditional Use Perrmt - Continuation of Public Hearing 2.#2238 Chic Dwight and Fred Guttormson 1220 Tonkawa Road Variance - Continuation of Public Hearing 3.#2242 Wayne A. Johnson 1225 Lakeview Avenue Variance - Public Hearing 4.#2243 John D. Black •1030 Dahl Road Variance - Public Hearing 5.#2244 WilUam W. Wear 2160 West Wayzata Boulevard Variance - Public Hearing 6.#2245 Barbara Theisen and Clayton F. Freeburg 4465 North Shore Drive and 4485 North Shore Drive Vacation - Public Hearing #2246 Donald J. Currier, Jr. 60 Cygnet Place Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing 8 #2247 Wayne A. Holmes 1390 Park Drive. Variance - Public Hearing ------------- -j 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MONDAY, JUNE 16,1997 • 7:00 P.M. 9. #2248 Da\4d and Jodi Rahn 1385 Rest Point Road Variance - Public Hearing 10. #2249 Kelly Sullivan for U.S. Marshal 2245 French Lake Road Variance - Public Hearing 11. #2250 Maureen Bellows for Ellen and Steve Polansky 1900 Fox Ridge Road Variance - Public Hearing 12. #2252 Warren & Christine Bielke 2565 Dunwoody Avenue Variance - Public Hearing SKETCH PLANS 13. #2240 Jim Waters, LG A Investment Group, Inc. Wildhurst Trail Subdivision/Sketch Plan Review 14. #2251 Tracy Whitehead 1220 Lyman Avenue Sabdivision/Sketch Plan Review PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 15. Report by Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings of May 27, 1997 and June 9, 1997. 16. Other issues for discussion. 17. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the May 19,1997 meeting. 18. Planning Commission to select representatives to attend the Council meetings of June 23, 1997 and July 14, 1997.1 ADJOURNMENT * ’X’'—-*•“7 Public A ttendance Meeting D ate v\^k!>g'. l(c>i □ C ouncil Planning C ommission □ Park COMMISSION □ Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (firom agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1. 1. 1k)/v /a ^^ 3. //^n ^l&rc. (Ji%LUiT UJ /h)&^ C)^A^ 4. 5.. 6. ?/:• /Y^A'M. 4 .Z. SYJrC ■t/k dU\yUCt J - . tL^ A Pi ^.1 ^ 0^r<> t- lCWgA Oi^nwOi'fUy-ijni 8. 9. 10.. 11. 13. 15. •91319.4 fg |0 “ S3 3tp IST,g- 3 (D0! Q w !► !il i o I L'- /. TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator . DATE:June 9, 1997 SUBJECT: #2233, Walter Holzer, 1130 North Shore Drive West Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:39,700 square feet (.91 acres) Application: Applicant is proposing to construct a 30'x40' detached accessory structure that exceeds the height of the residence. Originally, the applicant intended to use the structure for storage of vehicles and supplies used in his plumbing business. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.02, 13 - Definitions, Building Height Section 10.24, Subd. 5 - LR-IB Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements Section 10.03, Subd. 9 - Accessory Buildings, B. Height Restrictions, C. Area Restrictions, 2 U2233 WalurHober 1130 North Short Drive H'tst 6/16^7 Page 1 \ ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 acre 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 30 feet Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Sick Yard Rear Yard 39.700 sq.ft (.91 acres) 100 feet 74 feet 24.2 for residence 30 feet for acc. structure 30 feet The subject property does not meet lot area or width requirements for the zoning district. The proposed accessoiy structure conforms to setback requirements. Structural Coverage Total Lat Area Total Structural Coverage Percentage 39,700 sq. ft.2059.6 sq. ft.5.19% The principal and proposed accessory structures do not exceed structural coverage requirements of 15%. However, lots with less than 2 acres are limited to a maximum individual accessory structure of 1,000 sq. ft. The proposed structure exceeds this size limit. (1,200 sq.ft.) H2233 WabtrHottr 1130 north Short Drive iVesi 6/16/97 Page 2 i Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75' 75'-250' 250'-500' 500'-1,000'16,250 sq. ft. (app) 859.6 sq. ft. (5.2%) 5687.5 sq. ft. (35%) 859.6 sq. ft. (5.2%) None The applicant's survey did not show the 1,000' setback from Jennings Bay. However, staff has estimated that the existing principal structure is entirely within the 1,000' setback area. The proposed accessory structure is not located within the 1,000' setback area. No hardcover variance is required. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has indicated that the zoning code restricts the allowed height of the accessory structure because of the height of the principal structure. The principal structure is 11 ft. 6 in. in height. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Any accessory building would have to be less than the height (>11'6") of the principal structure. The residence can continue to be used for residential purposes. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The landowner is restricted by: 1. The height of the principal structure. (11 '6") 2. The size of the proposed structure exceeds the size requirements for the lot. (1,200 sq. ft. vs. 1,000 sq. ft.) 3.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. However, the size of the proposed accessory structure has a larger foot print than the principal structure. U2233 Walter Holier 1130 North Shore Drive West 6/16/97 Page 3 The variance for height will not change the character of the area. 5. 6. 7. 8 Econonuc considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Orignally, economic considerauons were one factor because the applicant wanted to use the structure to store vehicles and equipment for his business. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of >^peals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The Zoning Code does not allow for an oversize structure on the zoning lot to exceed 1,000 sq. ft. on lots less than 2 acre in size. Additionally, the height of the accessory structure cannot be greater than the height of the principal structure or 30', whichever is less. The height would be limited to I r6". The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. There are special conditions that regulate the height of the accessory structure due to the height of the principal structure. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The variance being requested is specific to the existing height of the residence on the lot and its architectural style. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. *3233 WaberHoiztr 1130 North Shoro Drive H^est 6/16/97 Page^ \ The variance for height is necessary to construct an accessory struaure that exceeds the height of the principal structure. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The granting of the variance will allow the applicant to build an accessory structure on the lot that is greater in height than the principal structure. The proposed use of the accessory structure is a separate issue. Issues 1.The zoning lot does not meet the lot area or lot width requirements for the LR-IB zoning district. The principal residence is 1 I'd" in height. The proposed accessory structure is larger in area than the principal structure. 2. 3. Topography is not an issue with the placement of the accessory structure. The proposed accessory structure meets side and rear yard requirements. The proposed size (1,200 sq. ft.) is larger than what is allowed on a zoning lot less than 2 acres in size (1,000 sq. ft.). No previous variances have been requested on the zoning lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To amend or approve a variance for a maximum height of 30' to construct an accessory structure no larger than 1,000 sq. ft. Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Location Map Plat Map Survey Zoning Code Excerpt Exterior Elevations Floor Plans Building Sections Acknowledgment Forms t2233 Walter Haber H30 North Shore Drive Wett 6/16/97 Pages Application U _____ Date Received 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) ' x Variance for non-conforming structures $220ft/ ) i;' , •) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ’ PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress J/7>C? AhHTh)^flo(^tr D^L(^i3 OJ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.), Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired fT ________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: )C residential ___pother (specify)--------------------------------- Zoning District:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT Name U)^iT(P(l~ M^7\7trCl Phone fiiome") Ulls- h5*7 Phone (work) .^wtiT Address: y/-?0 0^10(T City:_ Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name .4;iv»t/g-_____________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimated Construction Cost $ ''10-000 (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES 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 preven compliance with Zoning Code regimements: -3nOir>0 Coue —IQ.OB, DaWa ^ —hr\^J^ of - ^ 4^’ -tiv hr,\cV\l- p>s^p^v=>/a ncr-pc^rxi^ \rVC—:pQQtLp2d— (atta.cn additional sheets if necessary ) ft4/pp/q7 p^y bi\‘vU- \r\ \(\io l^xx^ a u.4ir»Vv^ bw\diV)5* ^ / r REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All nf the fnllnwing information must be submitted bv the aDPtication jn nrder for vour application to be considered complete? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy %Vi x 11 for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/a" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/a" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the pinperty. 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 yftHE vnriance application is not complete if the above information has not been Ultiwdtd* APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng 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 t^ best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date *7 OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and v^fication of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Conunission 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 ° oJ ! 33. 3 "lx y 5*^0, 5S>_ A/ >>/*^ ‘ OyV V' ^‘V ‘"M^/'fir X>. A / i^5 ^01,93 i.r #« *> 3/.,,., O if 't ■a’ LS> \ro' CJ> iv> s 07-J/7-2J-2? •fV 09.3 -oi/'^ Aii S5> o 61^OCf._J - m RD NO 19 100 1 200 100 100 1 U1 s—^ •• OJ ro V------' z CD ^ s-<%j.|_ t y. A " 001 00/001 001 : CO 1.N (Ty A r\ !■ } <:■ ; r*^ V • U^6. I .<..« ikt M6 0<9 Q9i 0/1 t^'l o rt • I Survey for: _W^TCR description HOLZER •/^C. r, rnr, £.es ,«, „r. of«.. i« .f.«««>«'•its;? ;^M<i“St;!orw™Ers«ir ■ariditn described as follws. 402 5 feet thence Southerly a distance of 2,124.4 feetalong the Northerly Ur>e t^rwf • dlsunce of m along the North and Sooth line mt win lnterse« ine tasc « Section 7, 396.5 feet East of 100 feet; thence Westerly and beginning; thence to'the Westerly line of said Section; thence Horth- ^allel with the Norther y fllM drawn fro« the point of beginningirly along said Westerly Ine U> ^ ^er^tl^lth a lin^ra^^ i~^ ll‘•-r' ') v^. fi. 7. o e ^ jm * ^ 0 -• - Subd. 7. ^ 6ne BuiTLdihg"Per Lot. Except in the case of Planned Residential Developments as provided for hereinafter, no more than one principal building shall be located on a lot except that staff may issue a permit to use a manufactured home that shall meet all required setback standards or an existing dwelling while a new principal structure is being constructed. Such permit shall be issued for a period of 3 months, any extensions must be approved by the City and shall expire upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new structure and such structure removed. S 10.03 Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 Subd. 8. Lots to Face Streets. Each lot shall face on a public street or appropriate private easement. Subd. 9. Accessory Buildings. A. Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. B. Height Restrictions. No accessory building in the "R" District shall exceed the height of the principal building, nor shall an accessory building exceed 30 feet in height. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 C. Area Restrictions. In all ”R" Districts no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions; 1. Not more than one Oversized Accessory Structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. An "Oversized Accessory Structure" is defined as an accessory structure of foot print area in excess of 1,000 square feet, except that the following non-roofed accessory structures which exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area are not considered as "Oversize Accessory Structures", but are subject to the special setback restrictions of Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (D): - Tennis courts - Pools, when pool basin structure (excluding non encroachment-type patios) is greater than 1,000 s.f. - Paddocks or arenas ORONO CC 255 (4-1-84) S 10.03 Subd. 7. One Building Per Lot. Except in the case of Planned Residential Developments as provided for hereinafter, no more than one principal building shall be located on a lot except that staff may issue a permit to use a manufactured home that shall meet all required setback standards or an existing dwelling while a new principal structure is being constructed. Such permit shall be issued for a period of 3 months, any extensions must be approved by the City and shall expire upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new structure and such structure removed. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 Subd. 8. Lots to Face Streets. Each lot shall face on a public street or appropriate private easement. Subd. 9. Accessory Buildings. A. Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. B. Height Restrictions. No accessory building in the "R" District shall exceed the height of the principal building, nor shall an accessory building exceed 30 feet in height. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 C. Area Restrictions. In all "R" Districts no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: 1. Not more than one Oversized Accessory Structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. An "Oversized Accessory Structure" is defined as an accessory structure of foot print area in excess of 1,000 square feet, except that the following non-roofed accessory structures which exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area are not considered as "Oversize Accessory Structures", but are subject to the special setback restrictions of Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (D): - Tennis courts - Pools, when pool basin structure (excluding non- encroachment-type patios) is greater than 1,000 s.f. - Paddocks or arenas ORONO CC 255 (4-1-84) - .1 '.“■Tf. i- § 10.03 2. Oversized Accessory Structures regulated by the following table: are Lot Area 0-1.99 acre 2.00- 3.00 acre 3.01- 3.50 acre 3.51- 4.00 acre 4.01- 4.50 acre 4.51- 5.00 acre 5.01- 6.00 acre 6.01- 7.00 acre 7.01- 8.00 acre 8.01- 9.00 acre 9.01 acre or more Maximum Individual Accessory Structure Footprint Area 1.000 s.f. 1.200 s.f. 1.400 s.f. 1.600 s.f. 1.800 s.f. 2.000 s.f. 2.200 s.f. 2.400 s.f. 2.600 s.f. 2.800 s.f. 3.000 s.f. Maximum Allowed Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas* on a Property 2.000 s.f. 2.400 s.f. 2.800 s.f. 3.200 s.f. 3.600 s.f. 4.000 s.f. 4.400 s.f. 4.800 s.f. 5.200 s.f. 5.600 s.f. 6.000 s.f. * Excluding non-roofed tennis courts, pools, paddocks, arenas 3. Any Oversize Accessory Structure shall be subject to the following conditions: a) Mo such accessory structure shall be located within a required yard area (principal structure setbacks must be met). Further, no such structure shall be nearer the front lot line than the front line of the principal residence on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located less than 30' from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure setbacks apply. b) The maximum height for such accessory structure shall be 30* or the defined height of the principal residence structure on the property, whichever is less. c) Such structure shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the City as follows: i. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the City in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized iccessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in >rder that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of Sis time period the oversized accessory structure must be removed no principal structure has been constructed. ORONO CC 255-1 (8-14-89) § 10.03 ii. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. iii. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure as defined herein shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 D. Location. No detached garages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot except 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 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B), Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) except that detached garages may be located 10 feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and a turn-around is provided on site. This section shall not apply to lakeshore lots divided by roadways or corner lots. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 1. Location of Principal Building to Lakeshore. No principal building shall be located closer than 75 feet to the natural ordinary high water mark of a lake abutting the property. This lakeshore setback shall be determined as the mean horizontal distance between the natural ordinary high water mark on the lakeshore and the allowable building line. 2. Variance From Lakeshore Setback. Any application for a variance from the requirements of Item 1 above shall be referred to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for its approval before final action by the Council. Source: Ordinance No. 155 Effective Date: 2-14-74 ORONO CC 255-2 (4-1-84) 4 n e- *. t ■ :-'iavrss:c I m n iui'f.ZIi'HKiV. fDHfil/4*«f ^ ' MlNNEfiCTNKA INC. so W. 76th. 5t. 5ute 210 Chmimtm. MN $9^7 1BU6I2) 9^-74-10 PAX (612) 9i>^'AK» W^^TBR MC?L-Zeie I3SM 5Ht» tws ^e5f ao»w 4 h 4 *■4^ 1' r ►r-r* n ':£v,vv;rjsi L: r Tiy.'y.uJi ir4"ai^. •» l' . '<* - I fUNNSi I 1 X"': u1 .1 ' 1 fi'i'i'i'i 1 i fa.v4*SFS!aK */0‘mt.m VJ0 '^;i N R-99 » wrcoHc.%^naMmi'^uxrmf€9mm gmmm. imnm!ur i-if S2iSniWflMIKM B-lf i*/t# imt • i/r #NONOiian«r<r oc K.#"0»C.II«.#<a^coc.fu.xrxi7*c0ic.pia. WLPt^stcno^ scM9/er*v # ^ fUNNP.OG0OM Fii'lAi i'i'iia r.i«f.rc^rrrrt #UMM«IfMOfi twfWfCHtl f/^nff-ror.fp. mfiM i-ift-42 (»-4m imi •i/j- ^09c.%rnMmmiH9iMP¥Ufffmm Si i ■ lll= -F l<.#«O0NC.iU. #<.9*a»CA^xrx9*03ic.m ai^CTNgj sectiON m fUNMC7.aO»OM ^4 ''•J Q (' . /«• ■••i t ">J -r;r. J •*%') Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form I (we) m • . ^ \[print name(s)] of llXd AJoUX^ ^u»2g. |31.u3» [print address] f'Vdwi^.’O. ' have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located atll20 ftogtM ^ke«e» Qgal^o.referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aw-are of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. erty'Dwner Date Property Owner Date *♦♦*♦♦*♦♦♦♦♦♦♦•♦***♦•****•**************'■* ***********^*********'^************** V 0 W'fc\\I (we) 0LfA*'A/» t Prr>\ [print name(s)] cf POnrui gxo 0(y, ry [print address] nvtf (^ocA^ have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at _____also referred to as Land Use Application No.------------- I (we) understand 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 neighbors project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date review of this Land UseIf you have any information that may assist the City in the review ol tms Lana use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ---------- To: From: Date: Chair Lindquist & Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator June 12,1997 Subject:#2238 Chic Dwight & Fred Guttormson, 1220 Tonkawa Road - Variances Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B Single Family Lakeshore Residential Application:A. Request for after-the-fact lakeshore setback, 0-75' hardcover variances for enclosure of room below pre-existing deck. B. Request for 75-250' hardcover variance for construction of detached 30' X 32' garage. Lbt of Exhibits: A - Planning Commission Minutes of May 19 B - Memo & Exhibits of May 14 Staff and applicants met on the property June 3 to discuss further options. A number of concepts were discussed including: Re-orienting the proposed garage to allow a revised driveway loop with less encroachment into the 0-75' zone. Relocating the driveway loop nearer Tonkawa Road for the same purpose. Eliminate the loop in the yard, develop a second access to Tonkawa further south. Parking and access are the applicants' greatest concerns, as is property security given the proximity of the new Maxwell Bay access. Staff and applicants reached no specific conclusions. Planning Commission and applicant should discuss whether any of the new concepts have the ability to solve applicants concerns and meet Planning Commission's goals for this property. The staff memo and exhibits of May 14 are attached for reference. i #2238 June 12, 1997 Page 2 Summary of Items Needing Approval and Potential Tradeoffs Need Approval:- Reconstruction of deck (0-75* hardcover, setback) - Enclosure of room under deck (Setback) - Addition of detached garage (75-250* hardcover) Potential Tradeoffs:- Remove 8* gravel driveway to lake in 0-75 ’ - Remove 4*x9* shed in 0-75* - Remove 8* x 12* shed in 75-250* - Remove 120 sf deck at shoreline - Remove loop portion of driveway in 0-75' zone - Remove portions of parking area in 75-250* - Re-work driveway to decrease hardcover in 0-75* Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation or with additional or revised conditions. Recommend partial approval. Recommend denial. Table for further information. Other. 2. 3. 4. 5. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19.1997 (#13 - #2237 Jim and Roxanne Stasik - Continued) The ^plicant requested the application be presented to Council at their May 27 meeting. (#14) #2238 CfflC DWIGHT AND FRED GUTTORMSON, 1220 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBUC HEARING - 9:56-10:27 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Fred Guttormson was present. Gafifron rqwrted that the application was a two-part request The first request was for an afler-the-fiict lakeshore setback and 0-75* hardcover variances for an endosure of a room bdow the pre-existing deck. The applicant received approval for tWs endosure last year with the condition that particular bedcover be remov^; the condition was not met. The second request is for a 75-250' hardcover variance for construction of a detadied 30*x32’ garagfe Thc garage will be located to meet the 15' side setback. The garage meets the 10' street setback with ade fiicing doors. Hardcover exists at 36.4% in the 75-250' setback where 25% is allowed. The proposal would result in 35.9% hardcover with removal of a shed and portion of the driveway. A portion ofthe garage is over gravd. The 0-75' hardcover«dsts at 10.9% which includes an 8' gravel driveway which exhibits new c^vel, and a 4'x9' shed. Another shed appears to have been removed. Gaffiron noted there is a loop driveway located in the C-75' setback. The deck exists at 34' from the shoreline. The enclosure did not meet building code standards and was completed without a permit If it is approved, the enclosure would require rdniildUitg. A hardship statement was provided for the garage. No hardship statement was presented for the deck enclosure, but the enclosure had been approved previously but e^ired because the resolution was not signed and no permit was issued. Gaffiron pointed out that the lakeshore deck and gravel driveway are still present on the property. Their removal was required in the previous resolution. Gaffion asked the Commission to consider whether hardship is demonstrated and if other removals should be required to reduce the hardcover. He questioned whether the loop driveway should be in the 0-75' setback. He asked the Commission to verify that conditions of Resolution 3611 should be applied. He suggested the possibility of allowing the applicant five years in which to remove the lakeside deck. Gaffion said Staff does not necessarily recommend ^proval of such an amortization period but recommended conditions 1-4 as outlined in the packet. Guttormson said he had added windows placed on the existing railroad ties to enclose the deck. He believed this would not be considered permanent as the windows are removed in the summer months. He then found he needed an approval and the work performed to building standards. Guttormson said he would like to maintain the lakeshore deck. 1 ! • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19,1997 (#14 - #2238 Chic Dwight and Fred Guttormson - Continued) Schroeder was informed that Guttormson has owned the property for three years. Smith questioned the original resolution was not agned and the gravel was not removed. Guttormson said he parks his motor home on the gravel driveway but would have removed H if the enclosure was made permanent. I,ln4ip ri«er asked if the ^licant intends to finish the enclosure and remove the gravel driveway noting the ne^ for a building permit Guttormson said he would if allowed. He would also remove the driveway and reseed to the lakeshore. I itiHgnijU inquired if the lakeshore deck would be removed. Snuth noted h was a condition of the prior resolutioa The applicant stated he did not complete the proposed improvements and would like to maintun the deck. Hawn suggested removal and sodding of the loop portion of the driveway with a back<out area behind the garage. The parking location of the RV was discussed. The applicant sud the garage doors would have to be hd^tened. He would prefer to park the RV in the loop of the driveway. Lindqmst informed Guttormson that the intention is to eliminate hvdcover in the 0-7S* setback. Guttormson said he would store the RV elsewhere during the winter months but park it on the property the two weeks each month that it was not bdng used. Smith inquired of the time frame if the applicant were to remove the driveway to the lake. The applicant said he would request 60 di^s. There were no public conunents. Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2238 subject to Staff recommendation #1, elimination of the loop driveway in the 0-75' setback noting sufiSdent pacing for a turnaround elsewhere, conditions #2 and #3. Guttormson said he would like to remove the proposal for the garage and mdntain the loop drivewt^. Guttormson was informed that he could present that request to the Council. Gafifron indicated the garage request could be r^oved from the application. Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to eliminate the loop, with conditions 1,2,3, and 4. If the applicant chooses to eliminate condition #4, a permit would be required to reconstruct the garage. The applicant said he wanted to maintain the loop driveway. ’ i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19.1997 (#14 - #2238 Cfaic Dwight and Fred Guttonnson - Continued) Lindquist informed him that h is the intention of the Planning Commission to reduce hardcover in the 0-75' setback and any dianges would indude the loop driveway. Stoddard said he would support the drivews^ in the 0-75' setbadc due to the configuration of the lot. He would recommend clutter be removed, gravel driveway to lake eliminated, and dieds removed. He noted the loop driveway cannot be seen. Hawn said she fdt the applicant wants the loop drivewt^ to park the RV. The ai^licant said he would park it elscn^ere. Sdiroeder suggested the garage door be heightened to house the RV. The applicant said this could be done. Hawn stud she felt it was inappropriate to house the RV on the driveway. Lindquist informed the applicant that the loop driveway would have to be elimiiuned before any fiirther improvements are allowed. The ai^licant suggested tabling the application. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2238 to dlow applicant to consider the loop driveway, garage, and deck enclosure, and wotkirtg with Staff on options. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#15) #2241 KYLE HUNT AND PARTNERS, INC, 1185 FERNDALE ROAD WEST - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 10:28-11:00 P.M. The AfBdavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants, Cheryl and Gary Costley, were represented by Kyle Hunt. Van 2^meren reported that the .887 acre property is located in the LR-1 A, one femily lakeshore, Zonirtg District requiring two acres. The proposal requires variances to side yard, hardcover, and lakeshore setback for construction of an addition to the readence under the existittg deck for an exercise room, a third stall addition to the garage redudng the side yard setback to 19.1', and increasing the 75-250' hardcover 137.5 s.f. to 25.5%. Lindquist read a letter from the neighbors, Bradlo^ and Mary Bowman, expressing objection to the garage location. It was noted that the adjacent properties are located closer to the side property lines than that proposed by the applicant Van Zomeren rq)orted that the lot width measures 200' at the setback, 245' from Fecndale Road, 45' fiom the west, 14 from east, and 71* from the lakeshore. The building pad is limited by the 26' separation requirement from the pond reducing the pad to approximately 92' in width. The property is firmer liniited by the location of a well in the yard. n To: From: Date: Chair Lindquist & Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaf&on, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator May 14,1997 Subject:#2238 Chic Dwight & Fred Guttormson, 1220 Tonkawa Road » Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B Single Family Lakeshore Residential Application:A. Request for after-the-fact Inkeshore setback, 0-75' hardcover variances for enclosure of room below pre-existing deck. B. Request for 75-250' hardcover variance for construction of detached 30' X 32' garage. List of Exhibits: A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List, Adjacent Owner Acknowledgements D - Survey E - Garage Construction Plans & Elevations F - Resolution #3611: 1995 Conditional Approval for Below-Deck Enclosure (Expired) G - Building Inspector's Letter/Notice of March, 1997 and Memo of 8/8/95 H - Staff Sketches, Selected Exhibits from Prior Application #2049 Pertinent Code Sections: 1. 10.22 Subd. 1; 10.55 Subd. 8; 10.56 Subd 16(L): Hardcover limited to 0% in 0-75' zone, 25% in 75-250' zone. E2usiiag Proposgd 0-75' 3609 sf (10.9%) 2691 sf (8.1%) 75-250' 4879 sf (36.4%) 4815 sf (35.9%) 2.10.22 Subd.l; 10.55 Subd. 8; 10.56 Subd. 16(C): structures allowed within 75' of shoreline. Pre-existing upper level deck setback: 34' Proposed setback of room below deck : 34' No temporary or permanent 3.10.22 Subd. 1; 10.56 Subd. 16(C)6: No average lakeshore setback encroachment allowed. Existing and proposed encroachment: (Deck is 34' from shore; adjace home to the north is approx. 50' from shore; there is no adjacent house to tne south for defining the average setback line). #2238 May 14,1997 Page 2 Summary of request: In 1995 applicant requested variance approval to enclose the area under his existing 8*x24' deck on the east side of the house. The Building Inspector noted this would require continuous 42" frost footings, and that the existing deck could not be used as a roof. Variance approval was granted by Council on October 9,1995, subject to a requirement for specific hardcover removeils including an 800 sf gravel driveway and the 120 sf detached deck located at the shoreline. Applicant never signed the approval resolutions and the variance ^proval expired on October 9,1996. In March 1997 the Building Inspector, during an inspection of other remodeling work on the house, found that applicant had in fact enclosed the area under the deck without permits, without the appropriate variance being in effect, and without having completed any hardcover removals. In fact, the gravel driveway to the lake now has new gravel added to it. Applicant now requests afrer-the fact tqiproval to allow the enclosure under the deck to remain; and is concurrently proposing a 30'x32' (960 sf) detached garage (which will be located to meet setback requirements). This building will provide additional inside storage for a number of items currently stored outside. It is not known whether the large RV stored at the site will fit inside, but storage of this vehicle might be more appropriate outside the 0-75' zone. The removal of the two remaining sheds on the property will be an improvement. Structural coverage on the overall property will be 2887 sf or 6.2%. Enclosure As Constructed Does Not Meet Building Code The construction of the enclosure under the deck does not meet building code standards, and there is no building code defuiition of a "temporary structure" as suggested to staff by the applicant. Even if the enclosure is ultimately granted variance approval, it will have to be dismantled in order to be rebuilt to meet the building code. Applicant has not provided construction plans for the enclosure. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement regarding the need for inside storage for vehicles and other equipment, and he notes a security concern due to the new Maxwell Bay public landing. Applicant has not provided any hardships in regards to the deck room enclosure. Hardships and justifications for this enclosure were enumerated in Resolution #3611 (Exhibit F). Hardcover Applicants surveyor has provided a revised hardcover worksheet which does not reflect a shed that has been removed in the 0-75' zone. The 800 sf gravel driveway in the 0-75' zone has been re graveled rather than revegetated. This driveway appears to have been in place in the past, but its % r #2238 May 14, 1997 Page 3 hardcover status was always questionable. Proposed hardcover removals include the small shed near the lake, the shed near the house, the 800 sf gravel driveway, and additional portions of the loop driveway. The current hardcover appears to be as follows: 0-75' Zone (Area = 33,050 sO Structural: Non-Structural: Structural: Non-Structural: Existing Proposed House 770 sf 770 sf Deck/Room/Stair 240 sf 240 sf Deck at Shore 120 sf 120 sf 4x9 Shed 36 sf (Remove) Loop Driveway 1530 sf 1480 sf Sidewalks, etc.113 sf 81 sf Driveway to Lake 800 sf (Remove"! 3609 sf 2691 sf (10.9%)(8.1%) = 13,400 sO Existing Proposed House 797 sf 797 sf Shed 12.6x8.2 103 sf (Remove) New Garage 960 sf Driveway 3680 sf 2830 sf Sidewalk 126 sf 126 sf Other Concrete 89 sf 56 sf Misc Decks, etc 84 sf 46 sf 4879 sf 4815 sf (36.4%)(35.9%) Issues for Discussion 1. Has adequate hardship been demonstrated to support approval of the additional structural hardcover associated with the new garage? Does Planning Commission accept the proposed gravel hardcover removals as well as the shed removals as adequate mitigation? As an alternative to the applicants plan, can the loop driveway be eliminated in the 0-75' zone, leaving a larger parking pad in the 75-250' zone? 2. Do the findings and conditions of the prior approval (Resolution # 3611) still apply as regards the deck enclosure? If so, is there any reason to allow the 120 sf lakeshore deck to remain? Applicant's attorney has suggested a 5-year amortization regarding removal of the lakeshore deck. If applicant was not asking for variances to add structure in the 0-75' zone, absent other issues an #2238 May 14,1997 Page 4 amortization might be attractive. However, this is a variance request to add to the bulk of structure in a non-conforming location and the lakeshore deck is an obvious and relevant immediate trade-off in the opinion of staff. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following: 1.Approve hardcover variance in 75-250' zone subject to the proposed removals, with exploration of the possibility of removing the loop driveway in 0-75' zone, or at least defming its maximum allowed width in the 0-75' so it doesn't expand... 2. b. Approve deck enclosure only per conditions similar to those under which it was approved in 1995: a. The deck and screen porch shall not extend past the southerly wall of the house. The stairway may be in addition to the 8' x 24* deck and shall be located at the north end of the deck, and shall not exceed 4' in width, and shall be only of the length necessary to accommodate the stairway and landing. This approval allows excavation in the 0-75' zone only in the amounts to accommodate construction of the deck and screen porch. The proposed low boulder walls between house and lake are specifically not approved, and shall not be constructed. Prior to footing inspection, applicant shall remove the grade-level wood patio 3' X 8' portion that extends outside the existing deck footprint. Applicant shall further remove the small accessory building located at the southeast side of the property, and shall remove the 120 s.f. detached deck structure located at the lakeshore. prior to footing inspection. c. d. 3.Applicant shall remove gravel from the driveway areas to be made non-hardcover, and shall topdress and revegetate these areas by seeding or sodding, such work to be substantially com-pleted prior to final inspection of the additions. 4.Applicant to obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage and an after-the-fact building permit prior to reconstructing the deck enclosure. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation or with additional or revised conditions. 2. Recommend partial approval. 3. Recommend denial. 4. Table for further information. 5. Other. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION f- s, .0 Initial Application Fee ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) 'X ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address y Propeity Identification Number (P.I.D.)___(3^ ' JJirrupCllY iUCiluxiv^auwAi x^u****v^^* --------X--------ss----------:—-- Attach legal description to application if Mt deluded on required survey. Date ^opcQy Acquired / / ' H I (do)rtdo n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. PresemS^propeny: residential ___other (specify). Zoning District: (month/year) Addresir Phone (home) ^/ i_____ c*rtsoK. Phone(work) 34 QtJ City: d.' OA o________Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name______________________ Phone(home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request indetail: a */vc.r^rt <A <-yca^— T (attach additional sheets if necessary) Estimated Construction Cost $ • ------- VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Setback: ___Lot Width Front __Side y Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage ^ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) compliance with Zoning Code requirements:__ \ A (v c g g- ^ ^'. VVv\ f )U. \ ^ --- s (attach additional sheets if necessary) ' \ I I r REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following fnfonnation must be submitted bv the api)lication_de3dluie dat^ in Qfder for vour application to be considered complete; 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V4 x 11 for reproduction. Toposraph.- survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 x 11" for reproduction.^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8V^" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Propert}' Owner must sign this application. Please remember that isjur variance application is not complete if the above inforiiiation has not been incly^edf. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE . The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, a-'i certifies that the information supplied is true.JHyl correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNA* /x The owner hereby acknowledges and agreesm this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purpos^^^^M^^an^^^tion of this requwt. Owner’s Signamre Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each nionth. 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 iu your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 RUN DATE 07/ia/95t \ BATCH BM } ■ f f * PMP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR S8 08-117-23 13 0005 01200 TONKANA RD NZLFRED PERPER 8 NXFE NXLFREO PERPER 1200 TONKANA RO LONS LAKE IM 55355 PROP ADOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 08-117-23 13 0018 01205 TOMCANA RO THOMAS H SMITH A NXFE THOMAS H SMITH 1205 TONKANA RO LONO LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 08-117-23 42 06^ 01365 TONKANA 6 A J PUTNAM SALE L PUTNAM 1365 TONKANA NAYZATA NN « ■ • # •. . r ! • V: HErflEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 08-117-23 13 0006 01180 TONKANA RO R E EN6EBRETS0N ET AL RICHARO E ENBEBRETSON 1100 TONKANA RO LONO LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 42 0001 01220 TONCANA RO F E eUTTORMSON/C J 8 ONIGHT F E eUTTORNSON/C J 8 ONXOHT 1220 TtMCANA RO LONG LAKE rtl 55356 TOTAL BATCH 504 00007 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 10 38 08-117-23 13 0007 01160 TONKANA RO R K HOLLANO A E SULLIVAN RANDY HOLLAND/ERIC SULLIVAN 1160 TONKANA RO LONG LAKE Tt4 55356 38 08-117-23 42 0003 03366 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MINNESOTA STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPT NAT‘L RESOURCES 500 UFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155 • 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AM ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS 0A1E ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEW«PIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST 'OF MY KN0NLED6E AND BELIEF. ^ ^ DATE 0 1 • .1 ) i • iJ \ m r-v*-.S-^ \ mm i^; V hi ,^41 |r!;'.'.'. ,'.r. 1^ M:- Ka'-.V' •^•• ' l^CAL DESC^IPTIOfl CF PREMISES .^5 ^ t>-l m Ilidt part of Lot 9. Auditor's Subdivision flumb^'r ,' Minnesota, lyiny Southerly of a line parallel witl easterly at right angles froni a line described as at a point on the Easterly line ol County Koad No. feet Southeasterly along said Easterly lin.' f n.m 1 thp North line of Lot 10. said auditor's subdi.isi easterly ia3.2 feet to a point di'^iant ioul.29 fe* angles 'rum the North line of said Lot 10; thence easterly on the ej^tenslon of the 1 ast-desrriPod li Maxwell's Bay, and there terminating. ■ ■*. . • ‘. V- •>'b v’ •I: ^ • : dentites iron marker found dcarings shown are based upon an .assumed d.itua. S l‘7lV- "isV*h* i \' • r* ' ‘ ^ ■ 'A |V Hi I j survny intends to Show the ljou:»darles of 1 he property, the location uf an exisiirt*} hou r .inn '■ tion of all existing “hardcover ** iiie*»‘on. it dues Shew any ot'ier Inprovenj^nt s or en« r!j-i*.h‘^ei»i s . J* P ■ I I'rsnurnoN .it.. llAff • I ? * I P1t it2 V / f- I I I 1 t <- f:I . • I i? P 1 I il 1 0 z. Ii ■« I f- «'■ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) • • EXTSTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE HARDCOVER CALCULAJ4tMiOVUKK5llJbl' (E) 0-75’ Os-25^^ 2S-S0«: A. House B. Garage 6RA^fU C. Driveway D. Sidewalk CTH£«2 CQua^BXC *• • E. Patio/Deck Lengch ‘7.6 7. r F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric • G. Other X X X X X X X X X \ X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _________ B . Width 2^^ 2. L X 100 SOO-IOOO’ * 797 S.F. 3^30 V /2 6'tu ■to S.i3s':--. • *... 4“.JO /o3 S.F. ^3 7'! S.F. H 4 CO S.V. 3S. 4/___% A It •' i J % cn.1 I. I f•• > •I PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House________________ Length B. Garage/<•< ,) ? Z. * • C. Driveway ____________ D. Sidewalk co,^c^crf_ E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 7. C Q. Other ___ X X X X X X X X X X X X Width So total hardcover in zone total property area in zone A ------------------------B X 100 • ' 14 . .1 77/ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2830 S.F. S.F. /PG S.F. .7^_S.F. S.F. 'S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • I S.F. » t • I . 48/5 ■ .S.F. i.^o ^ ^ —' A D i3 .1 I I *1/ •« I fReo HARDCOVER-GALCULA'l’lOiN VVUKK^HJl * SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) VJP-75V 75-250’ 25-50 EXISTING HARDCOVF.R IN ZONE A. House ____ - * Length X X B. Garage <lRAv/r.t-C. Driveway ra ijttrf D. Sidewalk __ OTHfii co^cf^nc_ /. At «* X X X X X E. Patio/Deck'X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric X X X r / /* I r G. Other ///."/ V /O TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A __________ B . PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _______________ X LcngUi B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk r<( 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 . • • • • • Width • • • • • X 100 sss Width X 100 - • • 14 • ^ — 7 —^7 fi• **\i 500-1000’• • yvo s.r. S.F. S.F., S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F Sc>£> yo mS.F. .y 4^ S.F. S.F. /20 .s.p. c/ J ^75-3 S.F. OS a S.F. //.3SL 7 70 __i' P- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 1^3 0 S.F. S.F. 7i/ // S.F. S.F. 2^C yzo S.F.' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2.^ i / S.F. S.F. ' % 7i .00 d s?. • • *i* F \hMrji .-;ii GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 B 1 I* ^ ESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION.® 16 (C, J, & L) FILE NO. 2049 WHEREAS, Fred Guttormson and Chic Dwight (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of tlie property located at 1229 Tonkawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: That part of Lot 9, Auditor ’s Subdivision No. 217, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying southerly of a line parallel witli and 125 feet southeasterly at right angles from a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the easterly line of County Road No. 135 distant 1141.25 feet southeasterly along said easterly line from its intersection with the noith line of Lot 10, said Auditor ’s Subdivision; thence northeasterly 143.2 feet to a point distant 1004.29 feet south at right angles from the nortli line of said Lot 10; thence continuing northeasterly on the extension of the last-described line to the shore of Maxwell’s Bay, and there terminating (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) to allow construction of a screen porch and replacement of an existing deck within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no structures are normally allowed; and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L), to allow hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone where no hardcover is normally allowed; and a variance to Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J) to allow excavation and retaining wall construction within the 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone where grading, filling and excavating is normally not allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Page 1 of 7 ■of^a GITYof ORONO 1. 2. 3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 611 FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2049. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakcshorc Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 21,1995 and recommended partial approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A.The existing 8 ’ x 24' deck and 4' x 6' stairway (216 s.f. total) arc in poor condition and need to be replaced. Since there are existing doors opening to this second level deck, it would be appropriate to replace the deck in kind to preserve a substantial right of the property owner. Construction of a new 8' X 24' deck plus a stairway at the north end of the new deck will result in no new encroachment of the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. B.Construction of an 8' x 24' screen porch directly below the proposed deck will have minimal visual impact as viewed from the lake, due to partially being below grade and due to existing screening along the shoreline. Further, the existing and proposed deck constitutes hardcover under the City's hardcover policies and therefore no new hardcover results from the screen porch addition. C.Neither the deck nor screen porch will have an impact on neighboring properties' views of the lake. D.Excavation along the south wall of the existing residence to allow installation of walkout doors to replace existing windows is minor in nature, involving the removal of only 4 cubic yards of material ranging in depth from 0-3' along a small portion of the foundation wall. The excavation is necessary in order to allow access via the proposed patio doors. The visual impact of the additional facade opened up to lakeview is very minor. Page 2 of 7 Co^ GITYofORONO lUi^esHO' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 611 ^ 4. 5. E.Replacement of the existing 8' x 24’ deck and relocation of the stairway to the north end of the deck will result in an overall structural hardcover increase of less than 10 s.f. in the 0-75’ zone. Further, structural hardcover on the property can be reduced significantly by removing the 120 s.f. non- conforming deck structure at the Lkeshore. Further, 0-75' hardcover has b'^en reduced by removal of two sheds and a remaining small shed approximately 10-15 s.f. should also be removed from that zone. F.Other hardcover in the 0-75' zone includes a circular gravel driveway, an addition to sidewalk and walls adjacent to ihe house. Applicants have recently removed an 8' gravel driveway leading to the lake which constituted approximately 800 s.f. of hard surface. That is a positive improvement to tlie property, although that area has not been revegetated and should be. Further, the portion of grade-level wood patio extending outside the footprint of the existing deck, i.e. 24 s.f. of wood patio, is unnecessary and should be removed. G.The removal of the detached 120 s.f. deck structure near the lakeshore and concurrent removals of other structural and non-structural hardcover, are an improvement to the property. H.No adequate justification has been presented to support granting a variance for construction of low boulder walls between the house and tlie shoreline. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and 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 zor:.;j, 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 3 of 7 GlTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 8 11 demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping vdth the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) to allow construction of an 8' x 24' screen porch and reconstruction of the existing 8' x 24' deck plus stairway structure; and grants variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to allow construction of said structures which constitute hardcover in the 0-75* setback zone where no hardcover is normally allowed; and grants a variance to Sections 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J) to allow excavation in the 0-75' zone where excavation is normally not allowed, to accommodate said screen porch and additionally to allow alteration of grades to accommodate a walkout door on the southeast facade of the residence, subject to the f ’’owing conditions: 1.The deck and screen porch shall not extend past the southerly wall of the house. The said stairway may be in addition to the 8' x 24' deck and shall be located at the north end of said deck, and shall not exceed 4' in width, and shall be only of the length necessary to accommodate said stairway and landing. 2.This approval allows excavation of fill in the 0-75' zone only in the amounts to accommodate construction of the deck and screen porch, in addition to approximately 4 cubic yards of removal at the southeast wall of the house to allow access to the proposed walkout doors, including the necessary retaining wall adjacent to the front stoop. 3.The proposed low boulder walls between house and lake are specifically not approved, and shall not be constructed. Page 4 of 7 ClTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 6 11 4. 6. 7. Prior to footing inspection, property owner shall remove the grade-level wood patio 3* X 8' portion that extends outside the existing deck footprint. Appliermts shall further remove the small accessory building located at the southeast side of the property, and shall remove the 120 s.f detached deck structure located at the lakeshore, prior to footing inspection. Further, applicants shall topdress and revegetate the area of the previously removed 8' x 100' gravel driveway by topdressing and seeding or sodding, such work to be substantially completed prior to final inspection of the additions. Final hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall not exceed 2,645 s.f. as follows: House - 770 s.f. Attached deck and screen porch including stairway - 232 s.f. Loop driveway - 1,530 s.f. Sidewalks, etc. -113 s.f Total - 2,645 s.f In the 75-250’ zone, hardcover shall not c.xcced the existing 900 s.f of structural hardcover including house and shed, plus 3,979 s.f of non-structural hardcover including driveways, side- alks, etc. for a total of 4,879 s.f or 36.4% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. Property owners are advised that any future proposals to add hardcover on the property will likely not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover to result in no net hardcover increase. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 9,1996). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 5 of 7 pimM GlTYof OROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S fi 1 1 8.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of October, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk dward J. Callah^, Jr., Mayor Property Owner (s) STA'I E OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing inst.-ur .ent was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of October, 1995 by Fdward J. Callalian, Jr - id Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 6 of 7 r GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Mdress; 2750 Kelley Perlway Orono, MN 55356 Memiil Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 March 4,1997 Fred Guttoimson 1220 Tonkawa Orono, Minnesota 55356 Re: Work Without Building Permit Dear Mr. Guttormson: It has come to the attention of this department that you have recently enclosed the area under the deck on the lakeside of your home. On October 9,1995 the City Council conditionally approved variances to allow this addition; however, the resolutions were not signed and the variance expired. A building permit was not issued and the conditions of the variance were not followed. The structure also does not meet the requirements of the building code in respect to foundation construction. Therefore the City must require you to remove the structure as soon as possible. Your failure to contact the City with a removal schedule before March 17,1997 will result in legal action. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official LO/ch cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Bruce L. Vang, Field Inspector Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planner/Zoning Administrator Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 TO:Michael P. Gafixon, A»t. Planniog & Zoning Administrator FROM:Bruce L. Vang, Building Inspector 6^ DATE:August 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Variance Request - 1220 Tonkawa The existing deck at 1220 Tonkawa is quite old, rotting, and poorly built in the first place. The building department could not allow this deck to be used as a roof for the proposed screen porch. Is a new roof to be built under existing deck or perhaps to replace existing deck? New footings and foundation for proposed porch must be continuous 42" deep footings to replace present post footings under deck. The existing house foundation adjoining the proposed porch must be replaced at 42” deep when earth cover is removed along wall. 1 <1 1 ! \ \ y v-v { i^;>- >-<■ jn^'sn ...............^- <V ^C'i>V------A Ifc-.-.... ! ■V’l'' , {L--------- PLANMNG COM>nSSION COMMENTS *j]jCTC was no Planning Commission report. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments ZONING .ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (.#3) «044 GEORGE OL50N. 2773 SHADWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION »3610 to the existing residence. Ayes 5. Nays 0. tm #2049 cmc DWIGHT/FRED GDTTORMSON, 1220 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3611 The applicants were present.I I 1 I J M a - 2 riid^nc^buiid a scraenad porch balow tha deck_araa^ ^ _variancas for a dack ara^ on the lakeshore sioe of me • ^ j construa low boulder residence and 34' from the deck. and stairs. ii f. retaining walls to allow a window to reaidence. Ex^a 7^* Plannins Commission did not r«ommend become a <^f batwaao tha deck and shoralma as Aare was no the installation of xhe approval was based on the condition that the small justification or J/u as tha small accessory buOding on the southeast patio below the dac^a recommended to be top dressed section of the -faoolicant was also asked to remove the deck by the MINUTES OF TIIF. REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 9,1995 (#4 • #2049 Chic Dwight/Fred Guttorrason - Continued) Gaffron said Stafif does not totally agree wth the recommendation of the Planmng Commission as it is felt the new screen porch located so near the shore^e would only increase the bulk structure of the property within 75' of the shore. Staff is also concern that the approval of the excavation to create a walkout would possioly be precedent setting. view. It is his roain concern that this lakeshore deck remain. willing to eUminate the gravel road, had no problem with changing the sttirs from front fo the back of the deck, would remove the small s^d, and noted that the lO'xlO' shed had already been removed as weU as the centw s^io the driveway, which was sodded. He is willing to proceed with the recomme^auons if the lakeshore deck can remain. The applicant said it was then intention “ upkeep on the property. The rip rap has been found to be erodmg and needs to be reconstructed in order to save trees. Chic Dwight commented that neighbors present at the Plannmg Commission me^g were not Sren the opportunity to comment on the application. She said .hey were in favor of the proposed projects. Goetten responded that she also w« present« meeting and felt their inability to speak was unintentional, an oversight, and apologized for the applicant's feeling ot mistreatment. rsalsaifsf: cSf He noted that the area was more than likely filled in when the house was built and is not in its natural state but was probably flat and buUt up to accommodate the spht-entry Style home. The aooUcant said the area where they are asking for excavation for the tv^out is on the 2lt end and receives very little Ught. Their purpose is to gain more Ught into the lower level of the home with the walkout door. KeUey asked and received confirmation that there is an entrance to the inside of the residence from the screened porch. KeUev asked if there were any hardships for the requested variances. The their^esire was to improve on the aesthetics of the home, to gain the e.«ra hght into the lower level, and to repair the deck. i minutes of the regular orono crry council MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 9,1995 (#4 - #2049 Chic Dwight/Fred Guttorrason - Continued) Jabbour inquired what the applicant would be allowed to repair on the deck if the reconunendation was not approved, noting that the current railing does not mc^ ^ , Gafifron said boards could be replaced without a variance. The quesoon is at what level of replacement a variance is needed. If a deck is totally removed, it would require a variance to rebuild it. The City would likely approve a variance required to maintain the safety of an e.xisting deck. Jabbour asked if the change from a window to a walkout d(^r requires a variance. Gaffion said the variance, as well as a conditional use permit, is required because of the excavation Hurr said she was concerned with the deck ’s encroachment on the lakeshorc. Th« appUcant noted that if the deck was asked to be removed, he would not proceed with the other proposed projeas. Hurr said, even if the appUcant would not proceed with the other improvements, she could not support the lakeshore deck remairung. urr suppon of the other recommended projeas; though, she did voice some concern of th excavation. Goenen said she was also concerned with setting a precedent by aUotmg eacavalion for a walkout and would not support it. She emphasized the majority of the home being within the 0-75' zone. Goenen said she would suppon the seteened porch and deck but not the deck at the lakeside. removal and 99?'. of w hat the City would like removed. Jabbour said he would not support the boulder walls unless they were to stabibze the ground. He did support the w^out. in 1975 He was not aware if the deck was there at that time nor whether its value had been estabUshed. The applicant said the house w^ built in 1970. I ^ey ^ed if a gradi^plan had been presented at that time. Gaiiron said probably not. The applicant said he has the original plans. .1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING ttft.D ON OCTOBER 9,1995 - #2049 Chic Dwight/Fred Guttortnson - Continued) KeUqr «id he would support the walkout, and supported the and tL Planning Commission with the lakeshore deck remainmg if the dnveway was removed. The applicant noted that 1OOO s.f. of hardcover has already been removed on the property. ^ .0.; Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Applicarion #2049. Resdmion #3611, p«r the Planning Commission recommendation. Vote. Ayes , i ay , y. (•#5) #2051 MIKE HELBELINK, 2760 WATERTOWN ROAD - ROAD N.AME APPROVAL 0. iiU^ #2058 RON RANTZ/AUTOGRAFS, INC, 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD - PI^N REVIEW - RESOLUTION #3612 The applicant was not present. Mab^sth noted the amendments to the -olutior. by ^ will be made aware of this minor change. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Re»lntion #3612. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstain 1. CaUahan, who was unaware of the proposal. 55 ELM STREET - VARIANCE KwAL - RESOLUTION #3613 tS ^' wd K'ien piler-Fe^o for property located at 4055 Elm Street d, Goetten seconded, to adopt Reso’ idon #3613 granting a lot arw van Ayes 5, Nays 0. I MINUEES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21,1995 /S (#9 - #204^ames & Joann Jundt - Continued) / Mabusth said u\e septic is non-conforming, and h is being questions what affect the apartment would^ve on the septic. Mabusth said it is a good id« to ask for se^c inspections. Peter^n agreed that the goal is not to allow the septic to fiul. Crawford noted that tWs property was considered a hot spot for sewering at one time, and the applicant been de^ng wth this issue throughout all the applications. Schroeder added that Acity cannot allow more people to reside on the pro^ septic can handle. He is id^vor of inspections; and if the system fails, Schroder said that would affect the conditionu^se permit. The property has two separateyptic units, one for the main r^dence and one for the accessory structures. The septi^nits do not meet the separation requirements. Peterson commented that normal i^j^ons ^r every two years. This property, according to Peterson, should be insFwed more often. Schroder moved. Undquist seconded, f^oproval of a studio within ** accessory structure, subject to condition/ofthe CUP with mspeaions of exisung relevant s>stem every two months to show its c/pabilify^m haiidling the increased usage. A charge will be incurred by the appli':ant for ^ra inspcctmn time. Gailfon remarked that the earliest Lt. for sewering pf the property °f,. 1996. It is Staffs sense that the s^c is not running out onto ground, but not^ separation is not met. It is posntte that the system my,not he able to hanrUe vLta during this period of to4. If this is found to be true, the septic would need to be pumped out on a regular basa. There were no public comments. Ayes 6, Nays 0. Mabusth commented /n an issue with tree removal in the 0-75' W for waterproofing of a ^el that was not4pproved by Staff. AU of the earth around themnnel was moved drS he waterproofing process. Staffwill ask for replanting of these trees. Crawford commented that to'e elms were deteriorated, and tree roots were mendmg Part of the tunnel encroaches the 0-75' setback. An amended apphcauoit ^ k cormng _before the Plarming-eoiumissionon ----------- risim «2049 FBED GUTTORMSON AND CHIC DWIGHT, 1220 TONKAWA VA mSc ES - PUBUC HEARING - 9:25.9:48 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of PubUcation were noted. \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION meeting held on august 21,1995 (#10 - #2049 Fred Guttormson & Chic Dwight - Continued) The applicants were present. Gafiron reported the application was to replace an easting deck, along with the construction of a screened porch under the deck. A walkout area would also be excavat^ from what is now a split entry area. The existing deck is in poor condioon. Repla^ent would be done of the total foundation as footings have been found to depths less than the frost line. This would all occur within the 0-75’ setback area and require hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances. The residence is 42' from the lake, and the 8x24 deck would be located 34' from the lake. Drainage on the property comes from the mature trees toward the proposed screen porch area. It is questioned whether this could be flattened out, retaining walls about 1' in height be constructed, or ground cover established to aid the drainage. A letter from the DNR was read into the minutes recommending denial of the apphe^on based on the existing house being within 75’ of the lake and proposed porch wd dwk increasing the nonconformity of the house. The porch and deck would also be withm the 37.5' shore impact zone. Gafl&on noted that the hardcover would be at 8.48%, resulting in a minimum increase in the hardcover from existing. It would, however, lend more permanenc>'. Two have been removed as well as an 8' gravel driveway locat^ in the 0-75' zone, which has not been revegetated. New gravel has been placed for the loop driveway. lakeside. Peterson said the appUcation has several issues. He felt the fiUmg on the top dr^sing down to the lake should meet approval. The accessory structure to the south should be removed It was felt the retaining walls would create problems and not solve any. The applicant said she has seeded three times and erosion has wash^ it out. It is so shaded^that sod will not grow and thought a wall would help. It is the applicant s desire to keep the property natural. Peterson fell the sliding doors wetJd meet his approval but found the deck and screened porch were issues needing discussion. MINUTES OF IHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21,1995 (#10 -'#2049 Fred Guttormson & Chic Dwight - Continued) Lindquist asked why the deck and porch would be beyond the bouse. The applicant saiJ there was surface hardcover there already. Lindquist said the desire of the Planning Commission is to remove as much hardcover in the 0-75' zone as possible. It was noted that there is a 1x6' patio extention leading from the patio doors. Lindquist said the deck could be replaced but the extension removed. The deck should not extend beyond the house. Gaffron asked the Comr"ission if approval were given for the walkout, would this be setting a precedent by allowing a change to the grade. The applicant said her purpose was to gain light into the lower level of the home and modernize it. The applicant said it appears the grade was put in when the home was built and not originally there. Peterson said he saw a problem with the bench by the dock and asked applicant if they would be willing to eliminate the accessory structure to gain the deck. The applicant said about 1000 s.f of ..ardcover has been removed and felt they were being sensitive to that issue. The applicant said the property was purchased in part because of the deck structure by the lake. Peterson said it would not be allowed today. The applicant said she would be willing to remove the shed by the lake. Lindquist asked if the deck could be 8' instead of 8'6". Schroeder said the strucniral coverage should not exceed the amount on the property as it exists now. He suggested ;he driveway extension and outhouse-size shed be removed as mediation for the deck. Any additional hardcover In the loop driveway that is unneces^ was also asked to be removed. The applicant said this was required to turnaround noting the inability to park on Tonkawa. Berg said she used the loop area in which to turn around. Peterson said the applicant should be concerned with the problems being created by beavers gnawing on the trees. Major erosion problems could occur in the future due to the loss of these trees. Peter'm asked if the issue is altering the lakeshore if the grading is changed. Gaffron said it would be a conditional use but Staff saw no need for this to be done and would not recommend approval for this or boulder walls. Smith asked what could be done to maintain the shoreline, Gaffron said the boulder wall would help erosion from coming to the house and rip-rap could be done to prevent shore erosion. A Watershed District permit could be obtained to rip rap. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#10 - #2049 Fred Guttormson & Chic Dwight - Continued) There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve replacement of the deck and screened porch in the existing footprint, not to exceed the footprint. Approval was recommended for the grade cut to allow a window or walkout door as proposed on the southeast side. No boulder walls would be allowed. Removal of the concrete slab on the east side, removal of the existing accessory structure to the south, removal of the old access boat ramp and resodding of same, and removal of the dock at the shoreline to include the bench-deck area were recommended. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #2050 WILLIAM TOLES, 3165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:48-10:12 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was present. Gaffion reported the application is for hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances to construct a pool o:> ‘.H? lake side of the propeny, which was purchased by the applicant in July of 1995. The pool would create a 15' average lakeshore encroachment but would have no visual impact. A net decrease in the hardcover would result in the 75-250' zone firom 33.1% to 32.6%. • Gafifron compared the application to a 1988 variance approval, the hardcover square footage of which was allowed at that time, today, is now exceeded. There continues to be no hardcover in the 0-75' zone. The 75-250' zone was approved in 1988 for 29.5%, but exists at 33.1%, and is proposed at 32.6%. The 250-500’ zone was approved m 1988 for 24.1%, exists in 1995 at 20.4% and proposes no change. The two surveys from 1988 and 1995 each use a sUghtly different base lot area for each zone. What Gaffron thinks happened is the driveway portion was eliminated but rock beds that are in place were not looked at and the overhangs were Usted separately. The 1988 circular driveway has been changed with not as much loop and the garage addition built. The applicant will take out the rock and plastic to be replaced with hard surface. The 1390 s.f. of land in base area calculation change and 400 s.f of concrete patio would be in exchange for the pool. When the pool is built, there would be no hardcover within 115' of the lake. In looking at the hardcover as a percentage of the entire lot, there was 21 7% before and as approved, in 1988, now existing at 22.1%, and proposed at 21.8%. M PHONE NO. STATE OF C^[M[iS<0)Trz^ ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN SSIO^leno 772-7910 August 21,1995 ? ^ Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Fred Guttormson and Chic Dwight Variance Application, Lake Minnetonka (27-133) City of Orono, Hennepin County Dear Ms. Mabusth; We have reviewed the above-referenced lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance proposal (received August 8, 1995) 1220 Tonkawa Road (City #2049) and we recommend denial of the proposal for the following reasons; 1.The existing house is within the 75' setback from the Ordinary High Water level (OHW) of Lake Minnetonka and does not conform with the shoreland standards adopted by the City of Orono. The proposed screened porch and deck are unacceptable because they will increase the nonconformity of the house. 2.The proposed screened porch and deck are within the 37.5' shore impact zone of Lake Minnetonka. According to State Shoreland Standards, only water oriented accessory structures should be placed within the shore impact zone. 3.There are reasonable alternatives available to placing the screened porch and deck within the shore impact zone of Lake Minnetonka. An examination of the plat Indicates that sites for screen porches and decks exist which are outside on the 75' setback to Lake Minnetonka. 4.Hardship must be demonstrated to justify receiving a variance. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites: The proposed use is reasonable. B.It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to "functional and aesthetic concerns" and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER i Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth August 21.1995 Page 2 C.The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar topography. If the problem is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered unique. D. E. The problem must not be created by the landowner. The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. In accordance with the city ordinance, the Department should be advised of the action taken on this request within 10 days of final action. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these variances. Should you have any questions please contact me at 772* 7910. Sincerely, Joe Richter Hydrologist c:City of Orono shoreland file Ed Pick, Shoreland Hydrologist Dale Homuth, Regional Hydrologist 4 i O'tO' . » mm mmm « •• • i;5 A ' ' vn *t 15-C'-r I lo’-c.'ta-o- . 294«.| ou .-.^ • «5CJ-1 •«.• • • •; ‘ *1 •* ■ ’1i*/A ,.. . *n*-o* . • .•.i.ajx IKO^IL COUO ruc^ 14. • ^ ¥*•«• 0-W J .f, •• • . • * . •u—u :•*•.: feS^^rrS^^ • •r .*tv VWUYW* • »*'k ^ . • . DUM \ Ki O' ' i: .• »J.♦ • .••: •• S u« V ^ rt •-%* !• % ^ «»i«ftu<T fwoon MA#i-6V6rt- Ha Sf ipl 1 \33D~VoOVifVbCA P(4 • •: : . j- • » j j.. . I. --- ■ ------------- 1 ' * • ■ :% A4VO** , >« » •• *. * j < ■ ■* I I • . • • i‘t •'•# • •V; ^ * 9 f. ■i ■ . . i - •* *■•••• • i; . ^I S^’^i^C=>(^\THoyj(r- &d%rtnu be>cA UI««-»_» o#z UD\'|1aOo4- 0<?o *^fi. Qoof^'<b omI' . i % r j • » . y cd^Jctcj . . ^9 **•••»* «x , . • Ai O) Sr c\? • »■« » r3,i;c: ^.'*;: «• :iry. •; rv ••?irv r.*«. •»**. • • • • - • •&': '•■ • :•> -.w ; •2 •■*. ■*. ,• . U -— ^•* • 4 ^--------------------- 1 • • ••# •• •• • •^*■I ■I • •.. • : i . 1 • 1 mm •• ■ *«•• • »«•••«• > ■••••-• •: • : • . V • .•••*• •! k f •• •- #. r - I - ;• ^ * ••. . M IJ • I .Li_ ■; .HI. |J(WI.. I II " y bD JlimillllllllMIIIITTTT] ^-4 ' '.y/. 1' » / . 1^ * * 'j>C^r ^0 >*; ■' M \L <e a.^-py- /-/vi-f- on. £.r.W*a.*av» u>»'^V\ Dp«.U 1 \3 30 ■ Or*' iV fs: irrr: • — II I • I I 1I f 1 «. 1 1 1 ...- _i! •-.^i=:=T r-na- \A/V : 1.T I • f “—! -J ‘. I ■ !l ._ _J iN PftON'K \J^9\aJ h « . P . i •I TT^rnr1'" :l 1 j:... y m m mm nn: i 1 ’! j • ■mmmt M.. w Jj ev 4 > . »'^" I u?ool<k UW» *fo ^ O \330“Tbnvia;Cf^ ?d OCcoo 3 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator June 9,1997 SUBJECT: #2242 Wayne A. Johnson, 1225 Lakeview Avenue Variance(s)—Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-1B One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acres) 20,436 square feet (.469 acres) Application:The applicant proposes to construct a 569.88 sq. ft. addition to an existing residence to add a new garage. A front yard variance to reduce the required front yard from 50 ’ to 34.06' where 34.06' is existing is required. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.28, RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District Subd. 5, Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards RR'IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 2 acres 200 ft.50 ft.30 ft.50 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 20,436 sq. ft.150 ft.34.06 ft.18.03 and 31.71 ft.50 ft. U2242 Wayne A. Johnson 1225 Lakeview Avenue 6/16/97 Page 1 Structural Coverage Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage Percentage 20,436 sq. ft.2,011.11 sq.ft.9.84% The proposed addition complies to the structural coverage requirements. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has stated that he has a small, single stall, tuck-under garage with a two-car family. He also notes that he has an irregular-shaped lot and the house was constructed in the late 1950's before the current zoning requirements. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used imder conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can continue to be used for a residence, however, most residential structures in the community have more than one enclosed parking stall. 2. 3. 4. 5. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The situation is due to the style of the house and its location on an irregular-shaped zoning lot. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for front yard setback will not change the character of the area. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this applicatioiL Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. U2242 Wayne A. Johnson 1225 Lakeview Avenue 6/16/97 Page! 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The proposed garage is a permitted use in residential districts. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The special conditions that apply to this zoning lot are due to the style of the house and the date of construction which occurred before the current ordinance's setback requirements. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structm^s in the district in which said land is located. Other zoning lots in this area do not meet lot area or lot width requirements. Some properties may not meet front or side yard requirements. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The granting of the variance is necessary for the applicant to provide enclosed parking for more than one vehicle. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to dlcviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. U2242 Wayne A. Johnson 1225 Lakeview Avenue 6/16/97 Page 3 m I The ^plicant has a small building pad that conforms to the setback requirements. The garage could be located farther back from the front property line but it would not be in line with the house. Issues 1.The zoning lot does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The existing house does not meet front yard or side yard setbacks. The residence was constructed in the late 1950's. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To approve a front yard variance to allow the proposed garage to encroach into the front yard setback the same distance, 34.06', as the principal structure. Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Location Map Plat Map Survey Elevations Topographical Map Hardcover Calculations Wetlands Map U2242 Wayne A. Johnson 1225 Lxikeview Avenue 6/16/97 Page 4 f-) i Application # ,-2^-4 ^ Date Received 7^/7/^^ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) ^ ^ Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 i|v. (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.0(1^^^? i '- After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ... y <-i V' • - • '• • .4' Property Identification Number ^.I.D.) (month/year) Attach legal description to MpljcatiOT if no^ncluded on required survey. Date Property Acquired \Jl)y«VA/7^------------------------------ I (do) (do not) also own ^ a^acent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify)------------- —. ------- Zoning District: ------- APPLICANT Namv _ Address OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____________________ Phone (homeX Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. Describe request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ v/Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Lot Coverage Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description of unusual property conditions Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty^ unusual property J compliance with Zoning Code requiremeiUs: AZOVS' ^ S/^a// 'TA^r 7 ti. mthamn^ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for vour applicarion to be considered complete; 1 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Propert>' OwTiers List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels aiii map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surv'eyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/2" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review ^this application, and certifies that the information supplied is tru/ a^ correct tcXjthe jbiMs/btr knowledge. na.eApplicant's Signature O / / / OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consult^s, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes^f/mvestigatic^ and V^^ation of this request. ^ Date My .Owner's Signature ~ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 ^ 22.42 Jo^vton i^ :> Laic-vituw a j (16) ^ -j 14 /(11) 54. 11\ 3 'J . C;CL“'' c'^yX^ \'^N ^(33) M0\( • 55 /X N •.g 04 /j^ .\ 140 \ \ (18) \ (7) ^ 140 K ■^d\ \(19) \90 g 23pl) 55 : a 140 r a 140 CO ^ <'AK"T 20) / CQ^,N / 140 a 19 \'a J) 9 ;\70) 'fo i // / ^6- 50 5?V X / 1 Nm)/ V S V 10 140 ''^Amw^m / 16 '40 C74) 11 '40 (71) ^ o V (69)- 2 '4 ^ 8 140 140 /. 65) XjWY/mAL^^; ; 14 140 13 . /I .\ a a \149 lirntfi '49. 6 ’' a''*' (73)''*'^ g 140 (72)V"^“ MO S 50 »'•' (66)v MINNETONKA AVE /0-//7-23-3// % 140 f'li"50-<sfr=50 3> '68-35 ,2 i 1 ^ (31) ^ (22) 7 (39) ^ 2 \' yj (32) ^ ZX) 00o ,„'60. ! 11 7 2 (30) 8/ (23) 7 10 140 (38) ^ «> . '5 '■<0 2;^33) S '51-86 10 1 »/ 3 7 s (29);''®/ (24) a/--,. 9 l-'O (37) \7 4 140 ,-N 140 55143.62 9 '•' "i/ 4 Co , MTKA" 8/ (25) X V/ 8 '40 .^^(36) ^ V 5^ (34) a A 135.33 8 “'/la?.65 5 / s (28) M (26) X / •/ / / ■MWl lyltTO WtaBOK-WAYMBADVANCE SURVEYINC A ENGINEERING CO.raiMisinioiT—V.V WAYNE JOHNSONiimtBtIWtAl aUOBLOsilvibMSJltSSKiS I. MAXWL** AOOmOM TO Ct YSTAL lAY. Op^mrwii ICAtl; ONI ICM «HMU It PUT I. TbltU QJd\ oP d. 3. 1 Exis^n5 s4mejuirc tk:pofe^ Mditw P^\Q se4*oad^^ P7t>l«c4ed) wo4e^‘ IF 5b>, ff/^CC-ooe^. ) m JOB Na 96m % 01 01 % I i ‘I . .1 • r “ *• ‘*V 4 ' ! '•^4 • . i ‘ ‘ .* . 't-• -• . • .• i .v ;• '. ■• c-;. • ., • ’^rpy.; ;• : :• ■■ ’: -V'V 'ofe'. • ■ • I ■ { . - < *• • ' jL^z .r \\ t . ‘ i ‘ < . . *•. • * * I I I ! I li 1 I I KI \ <• : •»«4 • r • ' ..V ' w ■i « Mt M •t ^ : s, ’i . ■\ ' ' * t V u %.• % 1 Mi • I II I * 1 ii Seat* In Feet too 100 200 Contour Intarval 2* NW1/4 SEC. 10 T1 1 7N.R23W HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR Orono* Minnesota Date of Photographyi 11**10*93 >« • % ■ f«0 I > HORIZONS. INC. AERIAL HAPPING PROFESSIONALS R»pl4 citr. SD 97709-3134 • 1609)343-0290 0PUS2 Hi.aoUnlii.HN 59343 • (6121931-9869 HORIZONS* FILE 3-7209 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’75-250’250-500’500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN A. House igib <5^ X X X B. Garage 6C. Driveway X X 3 D. Sidewalk £. PaiLQWr'M7 F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE •ERTY AREA IN Z B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X 100 Length Width X X B. Garage __________ C. Driveway /f,o D. Sidewalk X X X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE T^TA.,«.Oi*»TV AKH. .K X 100 = /j/PS-2i^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S-FT’S'. S.F. D } **o ‘i I S.F. : • • S.F. ' \ *1 • . •V S.F. ... S.F.'V- \ • / S.F. ^ ^ -------------------S.F. -Tn r ; u s f -WdS.F. S.F. ” S.F. • T F. S.F. % «.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.r: S.F. S.F. g// 5g ■ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B ^ T — »?««&! <T.: «Ti -W1 ^ TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:June 12,1997 SUBJECT: #2243, John D. Black, 4030 Dahl Road Variance(s)“Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:38,125 square feet (.87 acres) (sewered) Application: The applicant is proposing to change the lakeside of an existing residence by rebuilding the deck and adding a 12'xl8' room and a screened porch over the deck. A variance to encroach into the required 0-75’ setback and average lakeshore setback is required. A hardcover variance in the 0-75' setback is also required. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.24 - LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residentid District, Subd. 5. Area Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements Section 10.56 - Shoreland Management, Subd. 16. Shoreland Overlay District Standards. C. Average Lakeshore Setback Section 10.22, Subds. 1 and 2 - Lakeshore Setback, Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations U2243 John D. Black 4030 Dahl Rd 6/19/97 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.30 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside 38,125 sq. ft.354.2 ft.34.3 ft.41.9 ft.68 ft. (app.) to deck The subject property is .87 acres which does not meet the minimum lot area requirements. The lot does not conform to setbacks from the lake or the average lakeshore setback. Structural Coverag e Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage Allowed Percentage 38,125 sq. ft.5,718.75 15% The proposed structural coverage does not exceed 15%. 92243 John D. Black 4030 Dahl Rd 6/19/97 Page 2 Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'14,030 555.5 (3.9%)none 569 (4.06%)13.5 ft. (4.06%) 75'-250'23,555 5,132.8 (21.79%) 5,888.75 (25%) 5,160 (21.91%) none required 250'-500'540 none 162 (30%)none none required 500'-1,000' The applicant is proposing to add hardcover in the 0-75' setback where 555.5 ft. is existing and 569 ft. is proposed for an increase of 13.5 ft. The amount of hardcover proposed in the 0-75' setback represents 4.06% of the lot area in the setback. The applicant is also proposing to add hardcover in the 75-250' setback, however, no variance is required. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has indicated that the house was built in front of the adjacent properties. The applicant states that the proposed improvements will not impact the sight lines of either adjacent property. The applicant notes that on the survey ?he deck and stairway appear to be farther than 75' from the lakeshore because of the topography. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can continue to be used for residential use without the improvements. The applicant should provide testimony as to the reasonable use of the structure without the improvements. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. n2243 John D. Black 4030 Dahl Rd. 6/19/97 Page 3 i 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The lot is irregular sh£^)ed and has steep slopes to the shoreline. The house was constructed before the current regulations. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for hardcover in the 0-75' setback, average lakeshore setback, and lakeshore setback will not change the character of the area. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The proposed deck and rooms are permitted residential uses. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the stnicture of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The special conditions are unique to the location of the structure on the lot, its relationship to adjacent structures and the topography. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Some of the zoning lots in this area do not meet the minimum lot size requirements and have steep topography. 92243 John D. Black 4030 Dahl Rd 6/19/97 Page 4 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant vvill need to provide testimony regarding the proposed improvements to preserve his property rights and use and enjoyment of the residence. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The hardships are created by topography and location of the structure on the zoning lot. Issues 1.The zoning lot does not meet minimum lot area requirements or front (street) setbacks. The house is located forward of the average lakeshore setback and encroaches into the 0-75* setback. The applicant is requesting increases in hardcover. 2. 3. 4. There is steep topography from the residence to the shoreline and the lot is irregular. There is a 25' utility easement across the lake front yard. The residence was originally constructed in 1968 (see Exhibit I) and remodeled in 1986. No pievious variances have been requested. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To amend or approve: 1. A variance to further encroach into the average lakeshore setback where no encroachment is allowed. (The entire residence is forward of the average lakeshore setback). 2.A variance to encroach approximately 6' forward of the 75' setback where no encroachment is allowed. 3.A variance to increase hardcover in the 0-75' setback from 555.5 sq. ft. to 569 sq. ft. which is 4.06% of the lot area in the setback. Stairs are necessary to provide access to the shoreline. U2243 John D. Black 4030 Dahl Bd. 6/19/97 Page 3 Attftchments A B C D E F G H I Application Location Map Plat Map Topographical Map Hardcover Calculations Proposed Survey Proposed Elevations Permit Record Original Survey §2243 John D. Black 4030 Dahl Rd 6/19/97 Page 6 \ Application # Date Received Amount Paid ^ o -7 rs— Initial Apolica ti) ”(550.00 e CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ition Fee 5220.00 iO.OO 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) PROPERTY INFORMATION _ . SiteAddress ^ CO fJoL! Ii "]LJ A/ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on lequired survey. Date Property Acquired ^ / f / ^ ^(month/year) I (do) (do not)' also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of prooerW: ^ residential ___pother (specify) ict: Z.2-Zoning District; APPLICANT . Name h Address?^^^ /Q - On/* DIs4^ ( / Phone (home )y^/2^ V ^3 V / _______ Phone (v\oik)__25_^£22jtj_______ City: ^ "D. T:>h /~t tvn />Zip: S OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUES Describe request in detail: ted Construction Cost S 7^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Other (specify) y Average Lakeshore •fc o~*7<r HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or imusual property con compliance with Zoning (^de requirements: » /~7 a- S lotions ] compliaMe witn zoning i^ae reqmremems: . f t ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 4 “ M eAifCij^a r\np£jriJ:i^—L preventing fit* ie. c ^ ^ riA>. If*—*---1 ^ a .---------1 (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ ^ ^ ^ A r. O'» <l.~ jrwk:—Qp»»’jv rz^ ■ * REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. Completed Application Form __ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Heruiepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govl Center, 348-3271). •— Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. ___ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 814" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the propert}'. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 5. 6. addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. ___ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true ^d correct to the best of his/hen knowledge. Applicant's Signature c DC51 ijL nis/nc^ KJiowieagc. y , ^ Date /f OWNER’S SIGNATU: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Coimcil members for purposes><M investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date St /I /y y Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Plamiing Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 'I evAcjc SETBACK zone : EXISTING HARDCOVFR wynisrr 250-500' tr A. House LenSlh B. Garsge C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X X E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlay By Plastic Or Fabric * • X X .’x X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER RI ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE SSS‘,S PROPOSED Ha RDCOVEH in ynjsff; A. House _______ Length X X B. Garage C. - Driveway p. Sidewalk *• • E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 2^ G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 61^9 ♦ B Witith 4-//-T7, _ 500.1000' _______S.F.i- Z7i //4- '^IS B _ X100 - Width 274 7£/9 14^50 X100 - 14C2CL .Oh S.F. _S.F. .S.F. .S.F. S.F. .S.F. SF. .S.F. . s.f! ,S.F. S.F. §.F. S.F. .* * ^ i ol * •' « • •• S.F. S.F. A ♦ « • S.F. . a S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 4 . 'I S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. .S.F. S.F. ,S.F. • ' S.F. S.F. S.F;. 5.F. • I .• •» V S.F. A S.F. B % i • y tlk4 ‘t > HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 ’ 75-250' EXISnNC HARDCOVER IN ZONE 500-1000' A. House Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain ■ By Plastic Or Fabric X X G. .O^er TOTAL HARDCOVER W ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A O_______ B ?ftfCW»OSED HARDCOVER IN 7.0NF * House Length 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 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A_ _ _ _ _ _ __ + B Width xIOO - £40 Width xlOO - •S.F.I |4 S.F. , S.F. S.F. *1* S;F.. *t S.F. S.F. S.F.’ S.F. •tao S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.' S.F. .* * S.F. S.F. A S.F. ’ B % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • ' • S.F.i i. ‘s.F. S.F. * S.F. • J S.F. l.S F. ,i. S.F. S.F. ‘ S.F. V A s;f. a S.F. B y* like •*< • • .» h V,«' •• ^1* .t ' ^ ^ #f*»» ^Vt\'**'» |>V I T - i_ IIf•' U'—f. j rr <5c€ften I.i A-.*' %• *tj t » .>/ -|'5« ll’o** dle.c.\<w 2»*8jjCoc.9«t»io ^ Vs"‘1*0 “ I .!«-iVd \o \«kV<. aV'tv. Ou^^tv- V i£ I^L c* •i* iT 5t' : :r ^ t I Vji'AcV*^ 1 1 i f f.: \’A **7.—^r i'/ - ^ J5 C) •*^' -4. • #. '•../ /.* /..i ■■ 1 •• •• <• •* <^- c* -Sv j/ .V ?\>( 0\'V l9\ St*v> ^ ^HCe^tf'-j. ^C«‘«tV'*t^ M** C.O^n\\t. ^V*c- ,a'* bwv.- ft ^ ““-J: o \ .^h , • •• •• • • «• . I • t i i ----------1- Oec\C V, • •• . . ♦ i 4n J • _4 • > •• ■ ••• • / / » w t r • • * • t?oas=iEGAN. FIELD A NOWAK SURVEYORS 1IZ9 HARRIET AVE. Survey for: Ecklund & Swedlund Description: Lot 18, Block 1, PIRATES COVE. Scale: 1" - 50* f ws m* IB BOH ■CBUnUIIEII We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Dated this day of July 1968 . EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK File No. 5746 Book No. 1818 - 56 by ngi/eers &^rvwors^ ! /^£>2)0 Permit No. PERMIT RECORD Date Type of Permit N TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator June 11,1997 5 ”, SUBJECT: #2244 BUI Wear, 2160 Wayzata Boulevard Variance(s)--Public Hearing Zoning District:B-i Retail Sales Business District Application:The applicant proposes to instaU a canopy over an existing gas pump island. The canopy is 3.6 ft. from the highway right-of-way where a 20 ft front yard is required. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.40, B-1, Retail Sales Business District Subd. 4, Conditional Uses, (B) Motor Fuel Stations • Section 10.61, Special Provis Subd. 18, Gas Stations, A-J • Section 10.4''>, li-l, Retail Sales Business District Subd. 6, A. a, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yaids B-1 District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 20,000 sq. ft.100 ft.20 ft.10 ft.30 ft. 92244 William Wear 2160 Wayzata Boulevard 6/16/97 Page I Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 364.31 ft 3.6 ft. from canopy proposed 69 ft. from west property line 54 ft. The lot conforms to required lot width and side and rear yard requirements. A front yard variance is needed. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has indicated that the State took property for the highway right-of-way that makes it necessary to seek a front yard variance for the proposed canopy. The applicant also states that he needs a canopy to be competitive. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The applicant does not currently have a canopy over the gas island pumps. He believes he needs a canopy to be competitive. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The applicant's property is impacted by the highway right-of-way over the firont of his property. 3. The variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for front yard setback will not change the character of the area. The canopy will be an improvement if it has appropriate signage and lighting. M2244 William Wear 2160 Way’zata Boulevard 6/16/^^ Page! 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an un-iue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are a consideration with this application, because the applicant believes that the canopy is necessary to be competitive. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A canopy is a p ermitted structure accessory to a gas station. fhe Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Property in the area was impacted by the highway right-of-way. However, the locction of this building and the gas pumps is more significantly impacted than adjacent property. The conditions do not apply .lerally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Generally, other structuies in the area comply with the front yard requirements. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant will need to provide testimony indicating that the variance is necessary to preserve a substantial property right. 02244 William Wear 2160 Wayzata Boulevard 6/16/97 Page 3 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Staff is waiting to receive comments from NSP and Mn/DOT regarding the canopy. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serv e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The variance will alleviate the hardship created by the existing building and the right-of-way. The canopy will be a convenience to customers. Issues 1 . The zoning lot conforms with lot width and side and rear yard requirements. 2. Topography is not a factor with this application. 3. Staff is concerned about the height of the canopy, lighting and signage. This information has not been submitted. 4. 5. Staff is concerned about the proximity (3.6 ft.) of the canopy to overhead power lines and the highway. Staff is also concerned about the ter’porary portable sign and oUier signage on the property. The amount of signage on the canopy should be minimal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To approve a front yard variance to reduce the required 20 ft. setback to 3.6 ft. from the highway right-of-way contingent on favorable consideration from NSP and Mn/DOT. Further, the applicant should reniove the portable sign and reinstall the pylon sign in compliance with Zoning Code requirements. * m Attachments A B C D E F Variance Application Location Map Plat Map Revised Map Showing Front Property Line Survey Drawing of Canopy x:\lin\Iiz\memo2244 U2244 William Wear 2160 Wayzata Boulevard 6/16/97 Page A Application # Date Received ^/aj /9 7 Amount Paid - tn> . V • ytf • CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 -‘f • * '• (no change fix)m original application) /i . i Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) • PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal descriptio Date Property Acquired SW. Wai/^BIvi . Attach legal description to application if. not induded on required survey. NpyfcYy^ejr, I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. .(month/year) Present use of property; Zoning District: residential y o ther (specify) toYT)rmeX'dia.I APPLICAOT. I I \ I Name Williapg W. - Address?5L Mi[T led-f Phone (home ) An3 ’~A0'^0 Phone (work ) City: Loao uUCg^_____ no4n Zip: 5535 6 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name __^swte.. Address: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City;Zip;, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ^ Elated Inscribe^quest in detail; Omno .Self ‘ D/Jryir\ tach additioiial shebts i +- TTo pjiT a■p flL (iztiiDp/ oVtjr (OTi iipated C^nstructioii Cost $ ^hOOOtOO hi4 Abtiijrt.An'i" VlPV drVlfiJ. OU)fl if hecessdry) VARIAIVCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Lit Width Hardcover Lot Coverage ^ Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difBculfyor unusual property qondipons preventing compliMce wth Zoning Cod^quir^ents :Stifc. Oh- l^m>1g5nTdL’~' ootl "Tq CUXJr p>tncfl£ffa Wf(llL~tNrp^ (L^fiMinc . (lariQQ/i Vb\AAd ItLCXckriLQnopn pugJr-Tfigyupq>np 0 5 (attach additi(attach additional sheets if necessary) i n REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 f//A 7. 8. M Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by. a .licenced sunreyor) 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'A" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8Vj" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an 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 be«fn included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and ‘Coimcil members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature __z Dote 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 kheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a schedule meeting;, ple^e make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the P lilding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. .•••»-.'/;• o 8 1 Jt LocPmoN haP 4 ZzM4 William \Ntexr 6lv4. -35 SEE MAP 7G • »«• r < L C15)5.C^ 153. 4 *•*»•*• 0 m 0 w g OUFLOT £ 5 \*0*t*m* 000mm0mmm09 • • ■ ji « & « 0 0 0 » m n m % A 0 f 0 w m m • 0P ••««»»■«•«• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0m000900m00000 0 000099000990900000g • '*‘i*»**"»"»^**»’’«*«*«*» • » «< m •■'■>< • o> (Ooc UJ hi ::-^>x»yxvX-x-:-x .. . . . . . . . .. taaavataacaaaaaaaaava ■"» •*«*■*• »* *■"■ • •*■*•*■ rNji 2 o 200 587*41'F a«aa»«Ca««aaaaaa«^<«««a« • ataavaatasaattaase a « ■ m « ivataavaavpav vs* • v w m s^ «^asvava'v*»s*«vssiis'«»spi N- OO #^asvava^*»s*«vssiis'«»spi 9090000000 000000000000ss«aaas*0sssa|issw«a*jas4 < •ataaasvssvtfvT'assaaVl « assasv^^^vcsBssps L *«**#sspasrii«c a ¥ i W^9 * 00909900 0 a a s * s • a • 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 a If 0 PARCEL 24?B a outlot (58) IS. Ui o ^ .WAYZA (2) (48) 50 cn 119. 50 55.6 332 1 —Ho (36) 1 (39) g 80.01 175 'i*' c n 1 O vD •V >- CO CO UJ or:)cn: CO 205 S ' a(46) - 205 in 7 50 or CO CO LU Z IE CD 1 2605.55 RES P’A -S-'■?m: V wfiw 3t2. T? omcot * (23)N«r*35'l2-« lifiTM <7.6I\ 5 *194 liTT^ 11109 iT.'•?9 t39.y viS) R OUT l OT c \ "y: H9.07 709. U feoa ; /' 15*. M IV. M |3 Iie9*36'07*£ 15 s 100.19 &' a B (19) R 5 9 (13) ^ L!3 (10) (12) R IV M /30.09 4?. 13..- Si •• 3 90.09 ;.••■ L CSL>GAf^,VQQD • ••■ iTi.'sf”- ! 8 e.22' sToT 101.0}-rSTT) ISS^st^ \ oe,^m OUUOT C \S (23) S (24) g (25) I S :1s ^os 1 437.4? ® C0~C NO 2C»792 (31) ^353.42 sa7*4l*W 2C0 OK) 171.C4 ^3.' ^ <ar V <Tf ^ V — • 7 ®.'? (26) 8 (27) s; 19.79 130. ?4 ISO 153.42 230.6 . 2 Is wniOT E 5 ?l5 (32) g 4M \ 1^ ZOMING Uor Ik JJ2.C8 OUTlOt F (58) SI Jo OT 10-13-94• PA.<IC£l 242B — gN-'N WA' OT 10-13-94 278.74 7 _• PARCEL 242A«n I r 1 i (53)R/W |B WAYZATA BLVD W r! PLAT i a- , ■l.?S » ;63.6 V >40 • • s • • % no. l’-'1 •• •/ •• b-'i:/' ;• • .^i•• 4*74-^^ - . ••■ ' V’ ■// ... f., ?; S'^ 7r CERTFICATE OF SURVEY FOR WILLIAM WEAR N .THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34-118-23 hennepw cou'fnr. mnnesota * t s fi‘Vi’ X*j VU.JT' i hh^ Con^/vteu;h' ® (Ujuv'eu^ M p (3) 5 ‘i0nas«. P ^ Q) U^K-hvvsj ^ “n y»"»/ 4 pos^ TO;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE;June 12,1997 SUBJECT: #2245 Barbara Theisen/Clayton Freeburg, 4465 & 4485 North Shore Drive Proposed Street Vacation - Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, sewered. Application: Request for vacation of alleyway paralleling North Shore Drive. List of Exhibits A - Applicatiori B - Plat Map C - Property Owner's List D - Survey, 4465 North Shore Drive E - Survey, 4485 North Shore Drive F - Composite Survey G - Composite Survey with Topographic Overlay H - Zoning Code Section 10.12 Vacation of Streets, Alleys and Public Grounds I - Sample of Letters Sent to NSP, Triax Cable, Minnegasco, and GTE Telephone J - Responses from Utility Companies K - Responses from Hennepin County/DOT L - County Road Recon ’ Plat Drawing M - Original Plat of Beigquist's Addition N - Original Plat of Tonkaview Gardens Summary of Issues 1.This has been a public alley since 1889 when Bergquist's Addition to Saga Hill was platted. Parts of the alley as originally dedicated, have become part of County Road 19. 2.Between County Road 19 and this alley is a remnant tract known as "Lot A, Tonkaview Gardens" which is a tax forfeit parcel picked up by Hennepin County apparently for future road expansion purposes, potentially needed for future straightening of the road curvature at this location. 3. While the alley proposed to be vacated is not continuous, it is feasible that at some future date the County would need it for road expansion purposes. i Zoning File #2245 June 12,1997 Page 2 4.There is a drainageway located generally within the County Road right-of-way. Some portion may bi in Lot A. The County has recently installed berm curbing and a catch basin with culvert to redirect drainage away from the garage and adjacent parking area.The alley proposed for vacation is generally flat ground. 5.Applicant Freeburg at 4485 North Shore Drive has an existing 20' x 24' garage structure that is located partly within the alley, and partly \vithin Lot A. No part of that garage is within Freeburg's property. The vacation of the alley would place approximately 2/3 of that garage within his property boundaries. It should be noted that the entire alley would, if vacated, be attached to the applicants' properties. 6.It is conceivable that at some future date the alley and parts of Lot A could be needed for additional storm water facilities or other public purposes. While no plans for such improvements exist, vacation of the alley increases potential future costs of land acquisition should such facilities or roadway expansion be needed. 7.Both applicants' properties are approximately 2/3 acre in area, substandard for the LR-IB, 1 acre district, but typical of lots in the area. Adding the alley to their total acreages does not result in applicants' lots becoming significantly less non-conforming. Requirements for Vacation In order to recommend approval of the vacation of public right-of-w'ay. Planning Commission must be able to make the following findings: 1. The vacation is in keeping with the public interest. 2. 3. The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve or use the dedicated right-of-way as a road except for utilities and access purposes. 4. The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it exists serves no public purpose. Public Purposes Served by Existing Right-of-Way A number of public purposes are or might be served by the alley proposed to be vacated: 1. Potential expansion of Hennepin County right-of-way. 2. Potential use for storm water management. Zoning File #2245 June 12,1997 Page 3 3. Potential use by utility companies. Summary of Impacts of Proposed Vacation The following represent potential public and private impacts if the proposed vacation is approved: Applicant Freeburg will have more flexibility in any future relocation of the non-conforming1. garage. 2. 3. Both applicants will gain area within their homestead lots. The City or County may have to expend public funds to purchase the alley property if needed in the fhture for public puiposes. 4.Utility and drainage easements will have to be granted over the alley way to protect the interests of the utility companies and the public. The City would not approve construction of a building over a drainage easement. 5. No properties will lose any access to public roads or public waters if the alley is vacated. AgencyAJtility Comments As of this writing, none of the utilities has responded other than U.S. West who indicated they dont serve this area (notice was re-sent to GTE). Hennepin Public Works has discussed this briefly with staff but has not responded in writing as of yet. Discussion Since there are a number of public purposes served by this alley way or which may be served m the future by this alley way, staff questions whether it is appropriate to vacate this alley. While it may seem to the property owners that the alley serves no public purpose, the fact that Lot A in combination with the alley has a width of approximately 30-35 ’ within a flat ai^ of a drainage way, suggests that this area may have potential drainage control value to the City in the future. Because this is the inside of a curve on the County Road, there is a potential ^t additional right-of- way could be needed someday in order to straighten that curve. While this is not in any current plans, it may be shortsighted to give up the right-of-way now and then have to buy it back later. t Zoning File #2245 June 12,1997 Page 4 It is difficult for staff to recommend approval when there is a potential need for acquiring future right-of-way for as yet undefined public purposes. The alley was "donated and dedicated to the public use forever" and the adjacent property owners ’ use of the alley for private purposes does not change the public benefit served, or potentially served, by the alley way. Staff Recommendation While vacation of this alley may seem quite logical from the perspective of the property owner, the public interest in such land is less obvious but equally as important. Therefore, staff recommends that this alley way nol be vacated, and that it be retained for all of the existing and potential future public purposes which it serves now or may some day serve. Applicants are aware that the garage on the alley and on Lot A, Tonkaview Gardens, is non- conforming in location. The structure is subject to the ordinances pertaining to non-conforming structures. The City has no compelling reason to force its removal at this time. Planning Commission may wish to recommend that applicants withdraw the vacation request with no further review, and this will allow a refund of their application fees less publication costs and cost of staff time expended to-date. Options for Action 1. Recommend Approval 2. Table for further information. 3. Recommend denial, with refund as noted above. 4. Other. f • ^ fb -V L Application U Date Received -<y~7 Amount Paid oo CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION . 4^^^ S 8 Type of Application to be Filed ,q Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) qT ^ //*7 * «3 /g ^ao3> ^4J/Ur 'applicant . Name JUJU^ jTsy ^i Address >KL- City ^ Phone (homej§ - 3 Phone (work/^ *" 8 OWNER (if different than applkant) ' Name i VWr~ Phone (home)_ Phone (work) Address City nnr^A^ A c/72--'»>n Date Property Acquired 1 (do) (do not ) also own th^djacent parcels of land. Zip <7^5 __(month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) y $300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District______ Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify). A .1 _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. ^5. 7. »»o 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350\ labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owTier(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see statT for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUFPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time rot covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is^ue and correct t^ theb^ of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner ’s signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 290. i ?2C 5 r:S /' ! ?/ ^ ■»<«W V 67'in-23-Hl /*? <A, /I / yM.;, ^.J. >' — (i)) \' (17) 7’/' «u:'(a)-..;^ . 5 n^ v-» >\yyy\ \\% \ ^.■\A('31 \ v,.v- S 'j W n ^ ^'V 'X.J B / < / >iS.^/ ' *1/ /■f‘^'7\ (1> / / /) - '. fee V i 65 I 2,,.? *o^ R C i 7) 65 f5 I \‘' ^2:oi-m-13-l'i 4/<i/ RUN DATE 04/02/9A HEttCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LISTDATCN 503 PROP AOOR QMNER NAME TAXPAYER 38 07-117-23 3A 0001 04423 NORTH SHORE OR J A MILLER A E N MILLER JOHN A HILLER ELIZABETH N MILLER 4423 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND MN 55344 PROP AOOR OM€R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AOOR OFfCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR f , . f * *• 38 07-117-23 34 0004 04435 NORTH SHORE DR GORDON N LUNDMAN GORDON N LUNONAN 4435 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0008 01375 VINE PL DENNIS D LANDON 8 A DVORAK A L H PERSONS 1375 VINE PL HOUND MN 55364 IMPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1138 07-117-23 34 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY 38 07-117-23 34 0003 04425 NORTH SHORE DR DANIEL J DICKEY ETAL NORMA J DICKEY 4425 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0004 01345 VINE PL JAM DAVIS JOHN C DAVIS 1345 VINE PLACE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0007 01375 VINE PL DENNIS 0 LANDON B A DVORAK A L M PERSONS 1375 VINE PL HOUND MN 55364 TOTAL BATCH 503 00025 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY Ti^TION» TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. OATE r. f' - ■ - 'X.j t: I : \ •. 0 1 i i ’ oArt. oyn/9^M, C:. V. •• * .••*••HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OMNERS UST.VPROP AOOR (RtCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR Sa 07-117-ES SI 0001 0A445 NORTH SHORE DR 0 E NXTTZ6 A H V HITTXG GAYLE E NITTZG M45 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND MN 553M 36 07-117-23 31 0002 0A455 NORTH SHORE DR F N ABRAHAHSON ETAL FREDERICK N ABRAHAHSON AA55 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND N4 5536A SB 07-117-23 31 OOOA • PROP AOOR (MASS NORTH SHORE DR OMCR NAHE -JANE PETERSON PALH : TAXPAYER -*-.CUYTON F FREEBUR6 NAHE/AOOR 4468 NORTH SHORE OR * HOUNO PN. B5S44 , *4 •Vi.. S8 07-117-25 51 0005 04495 NORTH SHORE DR BARBARA J ANDERSON BARBARA J ANDERSON 4495 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND m 55544 PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER V NAHE/ADOR HOUND • v':.. SB 07-117-25 51 0010 04470 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN J GROTANS ET AL JOHN> XLZE i PETERXS GROTANS 4470 NORTH SHORE DR HN 55564 58 07-117-25 51 0015 04446 NORTH SHORE DR HURIEL 6 SEm HURXEL G SENN 4446 NORTH SHORE OR MOUND HN 55564 PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 56 07-117-25 51 0020 01556 REST POINT CIR JANICE K DE HATTEO JANICE K OE HATTEO 1556 REST POINT CIRCLE HOUND m 55564 56 07-117-25 51 0021 01540 REST POINT CIR JACK EDNARDS KUTZ JACK EOHAROS KUTZ 1540 REST POINT CIR HOUNO HN 55364 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 56 07-117-25 51 0050 04500 NORTH SHORE OR BETH E BESSESEN BETH E BESSESEN 4500 NORTH SHORE OR HOUNO MN 55564 56 07-117-25 51 0055 01555 VINE PL DANIEL B VENTRES JR DANIEL B VENTRES JR 1355 VINE PLACE HOUND HN 55364 L.C ! * • • mPORT NO. PAGE P14S5401 .36 07-117-23 31 0003 04465 NORTH SHORE OR JOHN L THE2SEN JR HR JOHN L THEXSCN JR 4465 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND HN 55364 36 07-117-23 31 0006 04515 NORTH SHORE OR H J RX6ELH0F ETAL HENRY J RIGELHOF 4515 NORTH SHORE OR. . HOUNO m 55364 <! * ; > ■ ’ t *■ «' V- SB 07-117-2S 31 0007 36 07-117-23 31 0006 36 07-117-23 31 0009 / 04515 NORTH SHORE DR 04496 NORTH SHORE DR 04460 NORTH SHORE OR tLvfH J RIGELHOF ETAL RONALD H TXMH JOHN J GROTANSH J RIGELHOF 4515 NORTH SHORE DR RONALD H TIMH 4496 NORTH SHORE DR JO»W J GROTANS . 3200 29TH AGE N E . 'HOUND HN 55364 HOUND HN 55364 HPLS HN 5541B ■ •)>. !?■ 36 07-117-23 31 0019 04545 NORTH SHORE OR HAROLD L ALBRECHT ETAL HAROLD L ALBRECHT 4545 NO SHORE DR HOUNO HN 55364 (.( \ 38 07-117-23 31 0029 04510 NORTH SHORE DR P SANICKX A K H SANICKX P SAHICKX A K H SAHXCKX 4510 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND MN 55364 ■ fl: "'-7 •* *», 36 07-117-23 31 0039 04460 NORTH SHORE OR J A LORENCE A H R LORENCE JAMES A A MAXINE R LORENCE 4460 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55364 t Certificate of survey for Barb Theisen of Lot 5, Bergquist's Addition to Sago Hill Hennepin County, Minnesota #2245 Tbh U ihev tfw beuidorlM el Hit above • : ttirSSrt.?"*' "****^» Beori^ iboiin ore boeed i^on on oaxN<on 0«AMKr» ■t\eAv^ 1 OAH nML’omiA ____ Coffin & Gronberg. \kc (4 ’uw./r<;y i j\V'i.wv S»r.no r> s,f,- Plnrut^ 4^? I im ir.uk \v» iuji- • I Liti-. \1\ M:-473 4141 v#«prr^>fK eriirsnJrf MVtfinndmntr* ^tifi $ Cnmhrtfi Um^ N wa K t irW KALI r-jo* OAfl 4-19-n Km Si* mi4 ¥ • • Plat of Survey -c^r ^htrl ng of Lot Of Eeroquist'a Addition to ^aga Kill County, Hinnascta ; Cc^ THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MICROFIIMEO * m\ *• J • .,.»• J f"* ' 3 A .. .3 Tertificat* of r.ur^'oy; I hereby certify that t“ia is V trt:e correct repr‘‘;GC,;ita— tacn cf .1 •‘.•irvey of th*.? bnurdaries of Lot ('^ £ert;qui3t's «ddi’.lor. tc 3Mj;a Hiii, ar.a tr.o Locuti'.n of *11 exiotirj bi.ildir.i;G ti.ereon. It does not our tort to siiou oth-ir Ir.crovc- ''.onts or encroiichr-ents . axUVt^ •.l^ww «hcd Gordon K. Coffin 60o4 Land Surveyor and pLanner Long L«>e, Minnesota Scale: Date : 1« = 5C 9-9-77 • Iron marV’er 1 m9I . n- ^ • .« Of Lot 5, Bergquist's Additior Hennepin County, Minn N %i ^ X 'CJj^ \ 'Z X tfft Hi ?*!* ?^*y lnten«l» to ahow th* boundorlaa of Um <ri>Aw *y*.y** '»<»“«« of« «*ung ^ 0 : ttS'mork£?"‘^ moounmt Booringt ahom ora boMd upon on oaaiaiwd doturv F S 10.12 SBC. 10.12. VACATION OF STREETS, ALLEYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS. Vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds shall follow the procedures set forth in this Chapter, except that such vacation shall require a petition by a majority of the landowners abutting the property to be vacated, and a hearing preceded by two (2) weeks published and posted notice, all as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851. The Council may vacate any publicly owned utility easement or boulevard reserve or any portion thereof, which are not being used for sewer, drainage, electric, telegraph, telephone, gas and steam purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes, in the same manner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public ways. A boulevard reserve means an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street for the purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street and which area is designated on the recorded plat as "boulevard reserve". Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 SBC. 10.13. ENFORCING. In case any building or structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, repaired, converted, or maintained, or any building, structure or land is used in viola tion of this Zoning Chapter, the Zoning Administrator, in addition to other remedies, may institute any proper action or proceedings in the name of the City, and hereby shall have the powers of a police officer to prevent such unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, conversion, maintenance, or use to restrain, correct or abate such violations, to prevent any illegal act, conduct, business or use in or about said premises. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 (Sections 10.14 and 10.15 reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 275 (4-1-84) of^o GITYor ORONO Munktpal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Malllni Address: P 0 Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 June 6, 1997 GTE Telephone Operations 2378 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 Re: Application #2245 - Request for vacation of alley adjacent to Co. Rd. 19 (4465 and 4485 North Shore Drive) Dear GTE: The City of Orono has been requested by two property owners to vacate a 20' alley paralleling County Road 19 a few hundred feet west of the Forest Lake Channel. Enclosed is a copy of the plat map and two adjacent surveys identifying the proposed vacation. The portion of alley to be vacated is adjacent to Lots 5 and 6 (and potentially 4), Bergquists Addition to Saga Hill. What interest, if any, does GTE have in this alley? Or in the narrow parcel labeled 'See Note' which is actually Lot A, Tonkaview Gardens? (The Property Descriptions people are hopefully determining who owns this parcel that has no apparent PINS #). Does GTE have any objections to the alley being vacated? Thank you for your input. This item will be on the June 16 Planning Comn'.ission agenda. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator end. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 1 i .-mnunniiifi ClTYof ORONO Munkiinl Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN SS356 MaUng Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 May 28,1997 Miimegasco Steve Von Bargen, Real EstaU Specialist 700 West Linden Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55440-1165 Re: Application #2245 - Request for vacation of alley adjacent to Co. Rd. 19 (4465 and 4485 North Shore Drive) Dear Mr. Von Bargen: The City of Orono has been requested by two property owners to vacate a 20' alley paralleling County Road 19 a few hundred feet west of the Forest Lake Channel. Enclosed is a copy of the plat map and tw'o adjacent surveys identifying the proposed vacation. The portion of alley to be vacated is adjacent to Lots 5 and 6 (and potentially 4), Bergquists Addition to Saga Hill. What interest, if any, does Minnegasco have in this alley? Or in the narrow parcel labeled 'See Note' which is actually Lot A, Tonkaview Gardens? (The Property Descriptions people are hopefully determining who owns this parcel that has no apparent PINS #). Does Minnegasco have any objections to the alley being vacated? Thank you for your input. This item will be on the June 16 Planning Commission agenda. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator end. Tdephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 i / I? •’■■'■'I / V / / '^9quhfs p/ /' / , • / '^•’•>0 fo ’x • ' '-^OQn >../, ,.» |.3«J*4 / •I-';/■r: juf \ ♦ SvV. A; / V \ , \ \ / \ -«>0. A \ ■«i!»S, I */- |. .-t^ ' N. -<iiu c*ao«.as. 1\ /-;rA*«3*84#3 •5■•.j f I \ \ \ " / / • / /■ f^'acutkfs J / / • / /. / "'*fi fr\ 23/ / fOgrj ...;„*,.2» C.3W«-i^...S / .7/;/ I' / I?. / \ \ \ 6 '\ A/- \ \ ■Q i As6®37'30' C* 89.25.-LsJ9^ -.?> L«auvvr zs \ U. I ;>»ii. / . i / ' ®t//?Vey , ' ''»4® \ \% I » \ j n • K N > ^Ct fi..ttV.‘i.v^s..4 ,i , I Zz "D Z n 0 2 zz I r li (D O < > b t It U u. I.- » It t '..j »a m /r f • --------------------- V GARDE.m - ' piliPB' V'tilsilii^s'.'- ten::tai lSIlHnI I!i j'!f- . V I I \'4mmm 'uS ' ‘ **i ’V <» , , , ?. . . Jra [Ici'i? 1^ V ^ fv“i! u iTiX''- I ■^■■ S ✓'■' ii?|: i"! ? ' ■ V*.1, /, t; V/' I i ii ir-‘/>V' ^'U.‘ •'Jf: •' - •/^• ' 1 ■\» i' ?'5 : \s . ■ *’ »i Vw : ■ ; ‘ f ■-'•> >1, S.^^viS K.- »>■$>,!; J-.a ^ J I* ■) Ss l AS ■I! Tiii \ ) ‘ r^ ♦'^!/^v. »siI? in‘Kii i- r' ^ W' ^ > $ '' (n ? N t - m-'3 J-lfci '\ltft-r-; ulH vL'’JNj ;§ \ ^ i*^ : sm tss lill1^ 1 r"'' K ^ IS S ' V ? A & V f r . .^riiisii J:v I si^i .. ^ |'S * \ ;i ^ \'i.S ■• ; H m . . ■ .. • •‘^i'.. * 1 • ; • . *- • V A'• *' - :v. «'f.••...* ' M- A'-:-if ;'^^UKvi'^ TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator June 11,1997 SUBJECT: #2246 Donald J. Currier, Jr., 60 Cygnet Place Variance(s) and Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing I- Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acres) 34,874 square feet (.8 acres) Application:The applicant is proposing to install an antenna with a concrete base, 65' antenna tower, for an overall height of 70' in order to participate in amateur radio international communications. A variance is needed to locate closer than 70' to the property line. A variance to exceed the maximum height of 65' is required. A conditional use permit is required because the proposed antenna does not meet the requirements for an accessory antenna. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.28, RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District . Section 10.20, Subd. 4 (H) (2) ANALYSIS I.ot Area and Yards RR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 2 acres 200 ft.50 ft.30 ft.50 ft. U2246 Donald J. Currier, Jr. 60 Cygnet Place 6/16/97 Page 1 Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 34,874 sq. ft. (.80 acres) 150 ft. (app.)40.26 ft.38.03 ft.170’ app. to garage The zoning lot does not conform to lot width and lot area or front yard requirements. The proposed antenna location is 55.26' from the north property line where 70’ is required. ikight The proposed height of the antenna tower is 65 ’, with 70’ the total height. The Code limits height for amateur radio towers to 65 ’. A 5’ variance in height is required. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP See applicant's Statement of Hardship, Exhibit L. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property is zoned residential and it can continue to be used as a residence. The iqjplicant indicates that he needs a 70’ tower to engage in amateur radio. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The applicant’s property is pie-shaped with the rear yard narrower than the front yard. The yard slopes to the rear where there is a wetland. The requested height of the tower is based on the applicant’s proposed amateur radio use. 3. The variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for antenna setback and height will change the character of the area. A 70’ antenna will be visible from adjacent properties. »2246 Donald J. Currier, Jr. 60 Cygnet Place 6/16/97 Page! 1 I 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A conditional use permit is required for an accessory antenna structure. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The special conditions are based on the size of the lot, lot width and proposed height of the tower. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. All accessory antennas for amateur radio towers are restricted to 65'. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has an interest in being able to engage in amateur radio communications for his residence. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. U2246 Donald J. Currier, Jr. 60 Cygnel Place 6/16/97 Page 3 i 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The q>plicant believes that his lot width and shape are hardships. Additionally, he has noted that he needs a taller tower for international radio operations. Issues 1. 2. The zoning lot does not conform to lot width, lot area or front yard requirements. The zoning lot slopes from the residence to the rear property line. There is a wetland at the rear of the property. 3. 4. 5. The applicant has stated he is interested in preserving the trees in his yard. The adjacent neighbors have consented to the location of the antenna. No previous variances have been requested on this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To amend or approve: 1. The conditional use permit for an accessory structure (amateur radio antenna tower). 2. A variance to increase the maximum height to 70' where 65' is allowed. 3. A variance to locate the tower 55.26' from the north property line where 70' is required. Attachments A B C D E F G H Variance Application Conditional Use Permit Application Description of Request Letter from Applicant Plat Map Survey Topographical Map Letter from Neighbor §2246 Donald J. Currier, Jr, 60 Cygnet Place 6/16/97 Page 4 i I J K L Excerpt from Ordinance Antenna Information from Applicant Excerpt fr-om APA Handout Applicant's Hardship Statement x:\nn\nz\memo2246 £ 1'i t 02246 Donald J. Currier, Jr, 60 Cygnet Place 6/16/97 Pag^S 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) AppUcation » Date Received s'/'2^i^j9'7 Amount Paid c<A PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address /^o C Vl to J^L Proj^rty Identification Number (P.I D.) 12. C>AIL Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquire d J<f9rt I (do) not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District:____________________________________ .(month/year) APPLICANT Name T, Address: La jAJ________ Phone (home) tf7J • 9f)tJ Phene (wDik ) 9/o/ _ City: lOrOL lAx'f'Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phene (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 4/ ooh Describe request in detail: P" /irJ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover ,Lot Coverage y Setback: Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore y Otlier (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) 4 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction. 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 8*/a" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. OWNER'S SIGNATURE Applicant's Signature Date 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 u Date Applicant must have all suWittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 4 fci fe,/ /•^<i3 .»V•2-" . :.?:r^/ Application 0 . Date Received" ^/*f^ Amount Paid*3 B CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Va.^3 PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Lo Type of Application to be Filed Z/Wi4 l4)i^^ >t)/J vjcavT. Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) ;/7-2-?-12 oq ;L> APPLICANT Name O^ai A lA tT cn/. Addres s An /lVA.ny^y ^ Phone (home) f/77- ______ Phone (work) >Tf City //i/uiC LAk^^ Zip yjXJTL OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired _____/JDJ./gvn J ^9D___________ I (do) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application K $175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Griding and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ’ of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/year) OTHER APPLICAl IONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District______ Present Use of Property V Residential gfcify). a REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11” X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property OvNTier must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, £ind Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. V ^ •'* <■ H /« •' * • •1-: > • i /. I « « • 3 •• V ^ «•» ••'.' /V c Description of Request I am requesting this land use application to erect an Amateur Radio antenna and commercially built antenna tower, to be used for my personal enjoyment as a licensed Amateur Radio operator. Neither the antenna or tower will be us^ for any form of business activity. The overall height of the antenna structure will be 70’, a necessary height of the antenna configuration for the type of communications that I desire to engage in. (International amateur communications.) The instrilation will consist of an appropriate concrete base, a 65 ’ antenna tower, with the antenna ’s located at the top of the tower. The antenna structure will not be located within a front, comer side or side yard. The location of the structure was selected to minimize its’ visual impact by making use of the surrounding trees. i May 19.1997 City of Orono tf N Tr 'rj * ./> To Whom it May Concern, I have included with my antenna structure application, one article, that albeit technical in nature, is summarized in ‘everyday English’, 1 have also included portions of a letter to another municipality that summarizes in a very understandable manner, why I feel my application is a reasonable one. An amateur ’s station is only as effective as the antenna ’s he/she employs. As 20 meters is the most popular high frequency band, and a twwity meter antenna must be at a minimum height of 66 feet to be one wavelength above the ground to be effective, I believe that my request for a 70 foot anterma structure is reasonable. (The 70 foot hdght requested is not an arbitrary mimber, but one that was chosen based on radio communication facts.) Sincerely, Don Currier 60 Cygnet Place Long Lake, MN 55356 60 o&oer 9J\ejs May 19,1997 City of Orono Planning Commission Jji. O O /i Mk-Im • 1. ’? J '•> fl377^Ia— •AiJl To Whom it May Concern, We live at 20 Cygnet Place, Long Lake, MN 55356. The Southern edge of our property line is adjacent to the Northern Edge of Don Currier’s property line. We have reviewed in detail Mr. Currier’s plans to erect a 70 foot antenna structure on his property, and are aware that this antenna structure will be located 55 feet from our Southern property line. In the unlikely event that the entire structure should fall, and the even more unlikely event that should it fall, it were to fall unto our property, we are aware that the top 15 feet of the structure could fall onto our property. Per Mr. Currier’s plan, this 15 feet of antenna structure would only affect an area of our property that contains no man made improvements, and is in fact the only ungroomed portion of our property. Because of this careful site selection, and our agreement with Mr. Currier that we would prefer to have the antenna structure located where it would not require the removal of any large trees, we unequivocally approve of the antenna structure location, as it produces no threat of damage to our property, and creates no hardships for the use and enjoyment of our property. Peg Panuska ! \ I ! J Height. When an amateur short-wave radio antenna is mounted on an antenna tower, the total height of the antenna and tower shall not exceed ^feet. Yards. Amateur short-wave radio antennas and towers shall not be located within a front, comer side or side yard. Setbacks. Amateur short-wave radio antennas and towers shall not be located within any required setback area and shall be located no less than the height of the antenna and tower from the property line. Section 7. Section 10.40, B-1, Retail Sales Business District, Subd. 3 (F), Public Services, to be amended and Subd. I, Antenna Structure, and Subd. H, Antenna, to be deleted to read as follows: F.Public Services. Public service structures, including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines and buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Personal wireless service and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. Hr Antenna. Any antenna or eembination of antenna rigidly attached te th e p rincipal or aeeessoty stmetur e p rovided that none ef the foregoing exceeds the total height ollewed in Seetien 10.75 : h------Antenna Structure. One inde p endent antenna stmeture, with antenna or combination of antenna attached th ereto, subordinate te and semeing th e principal use or structure on the same lot and cust omarily incidental the reto that is not attached te another structure provided the height ef the antenna structure decs not exceed 66 feet and the antenna structur e is set back from any let line a distance at least equal te the total height ef the antenna ftMieturc; H. Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to establish predictable, balanced regulations for the siting and screening of wireless communication equipment in order to accommodate the growth of wireless communication systems within the City of Orono while protecting the public against any adverse impacts on the City ’s aesthetic resources and the public welfare. i •. * r (a) Height, A ground mounted accessory antenna shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height from ground level. Yards. Accessory antennas shall not be located within the required front yard setback, comer side yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street. Roofs. If vegetation or obstmctions interfere with satellite signals at a location in any allowable placement area, the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any authorized structure on the premises. Accessory antennas shall not be located within a required yard or setback area or within drainage or utility easements. Antenna towers shall be set back from adjacent property lines a horizontal distance no less than the maximum height of the antenna. Building Permits. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any accessory antenna requiring a conditional use permit. Building permit applications shall be accompanied by a site plan and structural component data for the accessory antenna, including details of anchoring. The Building Official must approve the plans before installation. Lightning Protection. Each accessory antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electric id Code as adopted by the City of Orono. Electrical Code. Accessory antenna electrical equipment and coruiections shall be designed and installed in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Orono. (h) Color/Content. Accessory antennas shall be of a neutral color and shall not be used as signage. Amateur Short-Wave Radio Antennas and Towers which do not meet the conditions for accessory antennas, may be allowed with a conditional use permit in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: ■'1 b « * *EXECUTIVE SUMMARY*** Amateur Radio communications between two distant points on the earth rely on signals propagating through the ionosphere. Acting as somewhat of a mirror at heights in the order of 150 miles, the ionosphere returns signals to the earth a thousand or more miles away The vertical angle of radiation is the key factor in determining effective communications distances beyond line of sight. For the greatest possible communications distance, the energy from the transmitter must be •ddiated at angles close to the horizon. For this to take place, a horizontal antenna must be placed high above th.'> ground in terms of wavelengths. The length of a radio ‘'3ve is inversely related to its frequency. A beam type of antenna at a height of 70 feet or more will provide greatly superior performance over the tssmo antenna at 35 feet, all other factors being equal ‘I ''.«<^cJant receiving station, a transmitting antenna at 7: '-^t wilt provide the effect of approximately 3 to 4 more transmitter power than the same antenna at 35 feet. Depending on the level of noise and interference, this performance disparity is often enough to mean the difference between making distant radio contact with fairly reliable signals, and being unable to make distant contact at ail. Thus, the antenna at 35 feet is un satisfactory. while the same antenna at 70 feet is quite satisfactory. The 70-foot height is used only for the purpose of Illustration, however, and should not be construed as the optimum height for antennas. Heights above 100 feet will give significantly better performance than at 70 feet. If an amateur operator is restricted to the use of low antennas, it is reasonable to assume he will obtain more powerful transmitting equipment to compensate for the loss of antenna effectiveness. For example, he might increase his transmitter power from 500 watts to 1.5 kilowatts, to compensate for a three-fold loss in antenna effectiveness because of height limitations. This iricrease in power, in turn, increases the possibilities for his signal to overload nearby television and radio receivers, creating interference for viewers and listeners. A high amateur antenna provides p greater degree of immunity from television ii-«- -ference than does a low antenna. The sole sourc? eot^x d RF energy from the Amateur Radio station is its antenna. Raising that antenna to an increased height, well above the level of . existing antennas for television reception, will reduce the possibility of interference to television reception from fundamental overload. • I- ^iS^m Antenna Height and Communications Effectiveness By Gerald L. Hall. K1TD Associate Technical Editor The purpose of this paper is to provide general information about communications effectiveness as related to the physical height of antennas. The performance of horizontal antennas at heights of 35 and 70 feet is examined in detail. Vertical arrays are not considered here because at short-wave frequencies, over average terrain and at low radiation angles, they are less effective than are horizontal antennas. Ionospheric Propagation Frequencies between 3 and 30 megahertz (ab breviated MHz) are often called the “short-wave" bands. In engineering terms this range of frequencies is defined as the high-frequency or HF portion of the radio spectrum. HF radio communications between two points that are separated by distances of more than about 15 to 25 miles depend almost solely upon propagation of radio signals through the ionosphere. The ionosphere Is a region of the earth ’s upper atmosphere which is ionized by ultraviolet rays received from the sun. The ionosphere has the property that it will refract or bend radio waves which pass through it. However, the ionosphere is not one single “blanket" of ionization. Instead, for reasons not fully understood, a few discrete layers are formed at different heights above the earth. From the standpoint of radio propagation, each ionized layer has distinctive characteristics, related primarily to different amounts of ionization in the various layers. The ionized layer which is most useful for HF radio com munications is called the F layer. The F layer exists at heights varying from approxi mately 130 to 260 miles above the earth ’s surface. Both the layer height and the amount of ionization depend upon the latitude.from the equator, the time of day, the season of the year, and upon the level of sunspot activity. Sunspot activity varies generally in cycles that are approximately 11 years in duration, although short-term bursts of activity may create changes in propagation conditions that last for less than an hour. The ionosphere is not homogeneous, and is undergoing continual change. The F layer disappears at night in periods of low and medium solar activity, as the ultraviolet energy required to sustain ionization is no longer received from the sun. The amount of bending that will be Imparted to a passing radio wave is related directly to the intensity of ionization In this layer, and to the frequency of the radio wave. A triangle may thus be used to portray the cross- sectional path of ionospheric radio-wave travel, as shown in Fig 1. The base of the triangle is the surface of the lONOS^MldiC r-LArCM T»*tiSWiTTCK ftCCEiVtII 'fn / III > / / / m!} ui/inw m HHHnil - lANTM Fig 1—A simplified cross-sectional representation of ionospheric propagation. Typically the F layer exists at a height of ISO miles above the earth at mid-latitudes. The distance between the transmitter and the receiver may range tr,:m a few miles to 2500 miles under normal conditions. earth between two distant points, and tne apex of the triangle is the point which represents refraction In the ionosphere. If all the necessary conditions are met, the radio wave will travel from the first point on the earth ’s surface to the ionosphere, where it will be bent suf ficiently to travel to the second point on the earth, many hundreds of mites away. Of course the earth's surface is not a flat plane, but instead is curved. High-frequency radio waves behave, in essentially the same manner as light waves —they tend to travel in straight lines, but with a slight amount of downward bending caused by refraction in the air. For this reason it is not possible to communicate by a direct path over distances greater than about 15 to 25 miles in this frequency range. The curvature of the earth causes the surface to "fall away" from the path of the radio wave with greater distances. Therefore, it is the ionosphere that permits HF radio communication to be made between points separated by thousands of miles. The range of frequencies from 3 to 30 MHz is unique in this respect, as ionospheric propagation is not consistently supported for any frequencies outside this range. One of the necessary conditions for ionospheric communications is that the radio wave must encounter the ionosphere at the correct angle. This is illustrated in Fig 2. Radio waves which leave the'earth at high angles above the horizon may receive only very slight bending, and are then lost to outer space. For the same fixed frequency of operation, as the radiation angle is lowered toward the horizon, a point is reached where the bending of the wave is sufficient to return the wave °' entoumerlng Ih. lonoiph,,.. n.ys .nlering the (onlz«i region el engles abce the fi«! rfoi* I ^ ^ J *0 I** returned to earth, and are lost to space. Waves entering at anolea below m **''*' ** increasingly greater distances as the angle approaches the horizonut^The S rumple h%'s '* distances may L. covered to the earth. At successively lower angles, the wave returns to the earth at increasing distances. If the radio wave leaves the earth at a radiation angle of zero degrees, just toward the horizon (or just tangent to the earth ’s surface), the maximum distance that may be reached under usual Ionospheric conditions is approximately 2500 niles (4000 kilometers). However, the earth itself acts as a reflector of radio waves. Quite often a radio signal will be reflected from the reception point on the earth into the ionosphere again, reaching the earth a second time at a still more distant point. As in the case of light waves, the angle of reflection Is the same as the angle of incidence, so a wave striking the surface of the earth at an angle of, say, 15* is reflected upward from the surface at the same angle. Thus, the distance to the second point of reception will be approximately twice the distance of the first. This effect is also illustrated in Fig 2, where the signal travels from the transmitter at the left of the drawing via the Ionosphere to Point A, in the center of the drawing. From Point A the signal travels via the ionosphere again to Point B, at the right. Signal travel from the earth through the ionosphere and back to the earth is called a hop. Under some conditions it is possible for as many as four or five signal hops to occur over a radio path, but no more than two or three hops is the norm. In this way, HF communications can be conducted over thousands of miles. With regard to signal hopping, two important points should be recognized. First, a significant loss of signal occurs with each hop. Lower layers of the Ionosphere absorb energy from the signals as they pass through, and the ionosphere tends to scatter the radio energy In various directions, rather than confining It In a tight bundle. The earth also scatters the energy at a reflection point. Thus, only a small fraction of the transmitted energy reaches a distant receiving point. Again refer to Fig 2. Two radio paths (heavy lines) are shown from the transmitter to Point B. a 1-hop path and a 2-hop path. Measurements indicate that although there can be great variation in the ratio of the two signal strengths in a situation such as this, the signal power received at Point B will generally be from five to ten times greater for the 1-hop wave than for the 2-hop wave. (The terrain at the mid-path reflection point for the 2-hop wave, the angle at which the wave is reflected from the earth, and the condition of the ionosphere in the vicinity of all. the refraction points are the primary factors in determining the signal-strengtr atio.) Signal levels are generally compared in decibels, abbreviated dB. The decibel is a logarithmic unit. Three decibels difference in signal strengths is equivalent to a power ratio of 2:1; a difference of 10 dB equates to a power ratio of 10:1. Thus, the signal loss for an additional hop is about 7 to 10 dB. The additional loss per hop becomes significant at greater distances. For a simplified example, a distance of 4000 miles can be covered in 2 hops of 2000 miles each or in four hops of 1000 miles each. For illustration, assume the loss for additional hops is 10 dB, or a 1/10 power ratio. Under such conditions, the 4-hop signal will be received with only 1/100 the power or 20 dB below that received in two hops. The reason for this is that only 1/10 of the 2-hop signal is received for the first additional (3rd) hop, and only 1/10 of that 1/10 for the second additional (4th) hop. It is for this reason that no more than four or five propagation hops are useful; the received signal becomes too weak to be heard. •i 2 Table 1—Propagation Distance versus Radiation Angle (Data extracted from Fig 3) 500 1000 1500 2000 SlUGLt HOP QlSTANCe I Ml 1 1 »09«>»» I 2500 miles Fig 3—Distance plotted against wave angle (one*hop transmission) for the nominal range of virtual heights for the E and F2 layers, and for the FI layer. The second important point to be recognized in multihop propagation is that the trigonometry of the first hop generally establishes the trigonometry for all succeeding hops. And it is the radiation angle at the transmitter which sets up the trigonometry for the first hop. Solving a propagation triangle is simplified with the aid of the graph in Fig 3.' In this graph the radiation angle in degrees is given on the left, and the single-hop distance for the effective layer height along the bottom. Table 1 shows the optimum propagation distance for various radiation angles. The data for this table was read from the graph of Fig 3, based on an assumed F-layer height of 131 miles. From Table 1, if the radiation angle from a given transmitting antenna is concentrated at 30", the first and succeeding hops in radio propagation will span about 650 miles each. With a usable maximum limit of five hops under the best of conditions, one can project that the greatest distance for optimum communications for a 30" wave angle is five times 650 miles, or 3250 miles. For effective communications over greater distances, it would be necessary to lower the radiation angle at the transmitter antenna site. As will be discussed shortly, this can be done only by increasing the height of the hori zontal transmitting antenna. Although the discussion in the preceding para graphs has been in terms of a transmitting antenna, the same principles apply when the antenna is used for reception. A high antenna will receive low-angle signals more effectively than will a low antenna. Thp point of these several paragraphs may be summarized briefly: The vertical angle of radiation is the key factor in determining effective communications distances beyond line of sight. Radiation Optimum Angle.Propagation Degrees Distance, .Miles 2 2250 4 2100 8 1650 10 1500 15 1200 20 1000 30 650 40 450 Scientists and engineers recognize that modes other than signal hopping account for the propagation of radio waves over thousands of miles. However, studies of actual radio propagation in which the writer has participated have displayed signals with as many as 5 hops, so the hopping mode is one distinct possibility.^ Whatever the propagation mode, there is unanimous agreement that the most effective communications at HF most often accompany the lowest radiation angle. Horizontal Antennas A simple antenna that is commonly used for HF communications is the horizontal half-wave dipole. The dipole is a straight length of wire (or tubing) into which radio-frequency energy is fed at the center. Because of its simplicity, the dipole may be easily subjected to theoretical performance analyses. Further«4he results of proper analyses are borne out in practice. For these reasons, the half-wave dipole becomes a convenient performance standard against which other antenna systems can be compared. The dipole antenna, when^ viewed from one end, radiates an equal amount of power . h all directions. Because the earth acts as a reflector for HF radio waves, the directive properties of any antenna are modified considerably by the earth underneath it. If a dipole antenna is placed horizontally above the earth, most of the energy radiated downward from the dipole is reflected upward. The reflected waves combine with the direct waves (those radiated at angles above the horizontal) in various ways, depending on the height of the antenna, the frequency, and the electrical character istics of the ground under and around the antenna. At some vertical angles above the horizon, the direct and reflected waves may be exactly in phase —that is, the maximum signal or field strengths of both waves are reached at the same i.nstant at some distant point. In this ’From The ARRL Antenna Book, 14lh edition. Chapter 1, Fig 12. *HF backscatter studies by Ra^heon Company under contract with Rome Air Development Center, Griffiss AFB, NY. A part of this study was done at Raytheon's South Dartmouth, Mass, field site, Jan-Jun, 1960. Table 2 —Electrical Heights For Amateur Barids below 30 MHz Fig 4—Elevation^lane pattern for a horizontal dipole at a height of Vi wavelength (solid line) and In free space (broken line). Frequency 1.6 MHz 3.5 7.0 10.1 14.0 18.1 21.0 24.9 28.0 35 feet physical height 0.06 wavelength 0.12 0.25 0.36 0.50 0.64 0.75 0.89 1.00 70 feet physical height 0.13 wavelength 0.25' • 0.50 0.72 1.00 1.29 1.49 1.77 1.99 Fig S—Elevation>plane pattern for a horizontal dipole at (broken\ine) O case the resultant field strength is equal to the sum of the two components. At other vertical angles the two waves may be completely out of phase at some distant point—that Is, the fields are maximum at the same instant but the phase directions are opposite. The resultant field strength in this case is the difference between the two. At still other angles the resultant field will have Intermediate values. Thus, the effect of the ground is to increase the intensity of radiation at some vertical angles and to decrease it at others. The elevation arigles at which the maxima and minima occur depend primarily on the antenna height above ground. (The electrical characteristics of the ground have some slight effect.) If the earth is considered to be a perfect reflector, straightforward trigonometric calculations can be made to determine the relative amount of radiation intensity at any vertical angle for any dipole height. Graphs from such calculations may be plotted as circular or polar diagrams, called radiation patterns. Fig 4 shows the vertical radiation pattern for a dipole antenna positioned one*half wavelength above the ground, viewed from one end, and Fig 5 for a height of one wavelength. The radiation from the dipole if in free space Is shown by the broken lines, and appear as semi-circles. In the plots of Figs 4 and 5. the radiation angle above the horizon is represented in the same fashion that angles are measured on a protractor. The concentric circles are calibrated to represent ratios of field strengths, referenced to the strength represented by the outer circle. The circles are calibrated in decibels. Diminishing strengths are plotted toward the center. Antenna heights are usually discussed in terms of wavelengths. The reason for this is that the length of a radio wave is inversely proportional to its frequency. Therefore a fixed physical height will represent different electrical heights at different radio frequencies. For example, a height of 70 feet represents one wavelength at a frequency of 14 MHz. But the same 70-foot height represents only Vi wavelength for a frequency of 7 MHz. For physical antenna heights of 35 and 70 feet. Table 2 shows the electrical heights in wavelengths for all the amateur bands below 30 MHz. The lobes and nulls of the pattern of Figs 4 and 5 illustrate what was described earlier, that the effect of the earth beneath the antenna is to increase the intensity of radiation at some vertical angles and to decrease it at others. At a height of wavelength (Fig 4), the . radiated energy is strongest at a radiation angle of 30*, an angle which was determined earlier to provide a maximum effective communications distance of about 3250 miles under the conditions assumed. The pattern of Fig 4 represents the radiation from a dipole for 14 MHz at a height of 35 feet. As the horizontal antenna is raised to even greater heights, additional lobes are formed, and those that exist move closer to the horizon. But yet the maximum amplitude of the existing lobes is not diminished. As may be seen from Fig 5, for an antenna height of 1 wavelength, the energy in the lower lobes is strongest at 15®. And Table 1 indicates that the optimum propagation distance per hop for 15® is 1200 miles. Under the very same conditions as before, 5-hop propagation, one may see that the greatest distance for optimum communication now is 5 x 1200 or 6000 miles. The pattern of Fig 5 represents a 14-MHz dipole at a height of 70 feet. Thus, for the conditions assumed, the optimum communications distance has been extended from 3250 miles to 6000 miles, merely by raising the T I • • antenna from 35 to 70 feet. Even greater heights would provide still greater communications distances under the same conditions. The radiation angle of the lowest lobe for a hori zontal antenna above the ground may be determined mathematically: e sin 0.25 where B • the wave angle or radiation angle h B the antenna height above ground in wavelengths (see Table 2) In short, the higher the horizontal antenna, the lower is the lowest lobe of the pattern. Therefore, the higher an HF antenna can be placed, the farther it will provide effective communications because of the resulting lower radiation angle. This is true for any horizontal antenna. Electrical Characteristics of HF Antennas As mentioned previously, a dipole antenna, when viewed from one end of the conductor, radiates an equal amount of power in all directions. The plotted radiation pattern is a perfect circle. If the dipole is vertical, this circle represents the azimuth coverage, with an equal amount of power radiated in every compass direction. For point-to-point communications, however, it is bene ficial to concentrate the radiated energy into a beam which is aimed toward a single distant point. An analogy can be made by comparing the light emanating from a bare electric lamp to that from an automobile headlight. For Illuminating a distant point, the headlight is far more effective. Antennas designed to concentrate the radiated energy into a beam are called beam antennas. For a fixed amount of transmitter power fed to the transmitting antenna, beam antennas provide increased signal strength at a distant receiver. In radio communications, the use of a beam antenna is also beneficial during reception, because the antenna pattern for transmission is the same as for reception. A beam antenna helps to reject signals from unwanted directions, and in effect boosts the strength of signals received from the desired direction. < The increase in signal or field strength which a beam antenna offers is frequently referenced to a dipole antenna by a term called gain. Gain is commonly expressed in decibels. One type of beam antenna is a Yagi, named after one of its Japanese inventors. Different varieties of Yagi antennas exist, each having somewhat different characteristics. Many antennas erected for television reception are a form of multi element Yagi beam. Subsequent discussions in this paper refer to a 3-element Yagi array, one having a driven element, a parasitic director and a parasitic reflector. The parasitic elements are not fed any power directly; instead they are excited through mutual coupling to the driven element, and in turn also radiate power. Each parasitic element is spaced 0.2 wavelength from the driven element, and Fig 6—Computer-calculated azimuth-plane radiation pattern for a horizontal 3-element Yagi array (solid line), and for a comparison dipole (broken line). -to Fig 7.—Computer-calculated elevaf ’*'n-plane or vertical- profile pattern of a horizontal Yagi array, solid line, and for a comparison dipole, broken line. These patterns are those seen from the ends of the elements with the antennas in free space. the theoretical gain of this array, determined through computer analysis, is 7.2 • over a dipole. This means that for the same transmit . ^ • sr, the effective radiated power of the Yagi in its f i.-'ection is 5.2 times that of the dipole in the same dii i-it jn. The theoretical front- to-back ratio of the Yagi antenna is 12 dB, meaning the power radiated in its forward direction Is 15.7 times that radiated in the opposite direction. Values for a practical antenna of this type are quite close to theoretical. Computer-calculated radiation patterns for the horizontal Yagi array are presented in Figs 6 and 7. Fig 6 shows the azimuth ria* the response in various compass directions, as a solid line. The broken line in Fig 6 shows the pattern of a half-wavelength dipole, for comparison. Fig 7 shows the elevation plane or vertical- profile pattern. This pattern is that seen from the ends of the elements, with the antenna in free space. The solid line again represents the Yagi. and the broken line the dipole, that "perfect circle" which was mentioned earlier. Performance of most other Yagi-type arrays with three or four elements will not be significantly different from the patterns shown here. Another often-used type of becm antenna is the quad array. Typically, a quad is constructed with two or more wire elements in the form of a square or a diamond. The conducting wires are usually supported by X-shaped frames of wood or fiberglass material. For the same number of elements and spacing, the performance of a quad beam is generally similar to that of a Yagi beam. The vertical patterns of Figs 4 and 5 were calculated by assuming the earth is a perfect reflector, an unrealistic situation. Actual earth does not reflect all of the radio frequency energy striking it; some absorption takes place. Over real earth, therefore, the patterns will be slightly different, depending upon the electrical con ductivity and dielectric constant of the soil, and upon the radio frequency. Computer programs are available to take these factors into account, and raliable calculations of patterns over real earth may be made. Yagi patterns over real earth are shown in Figs 8 through 14. These patterns were calculated with an Apple lie personal computer.3 "Average ” soil conditions were used for these plots, that is. a conductivity of 5 millisiemens per meter and a dielectric constant of 15.< These patterns compare the performance of Yagi arrays at heights of 35 and 70 feet. In Figs 8 through 12. the broken line is the plot for a 35-foot height, and the solid line for 70 feet. For 24.9 and 28 MHz. Figs 13 and 14. it is helpful to present the 35- and 70-foot patterns in separate graphs, for clarity. Otherwise the multiple lobes become indis tinguishable. 3A commercially available software program. ANNIE, was used to calculate all patterns presented in this paper. ‘‘Such soil conditions may be considered typical for the central P3rt of the United States, such as the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys. Fig 8—Vertical-profile pattern of a 7-MHz Yagi beam over average earth at a height of 70 feet (solid line) and at 35 feet (broken line). Fig 9—Vertical-profile pattern of a 10.1 -MHz Yagi beam at 70 feet (solid line) and at 35 feel (broken line). Fig 10 —Vertical-profile pattern of a 14-MHz Yagi beam at 70 feet (solid line) and at 35 feet (broken line). Fig 11 —Vertical-profile pattern of an 18.1-MHz Yagi beam at 70 feet (solid line) and at 35 feet (broken line). Fig 12—Vertical-profile pattern of a 21-MHz Yagi beam at 70 feet (solid line) and at 35 feet (broken line). 41 Fig 13 —At A, vertical-profile pattern of a 24.9-MHz YagI beam at 35 feet, and at B. 70 feet. Fig 14—At A, vertical-profile pattern of a 28-MHz Yagi beam at 35 feet, and at B, 70 feet. Fig 8 shows the vertical profile for 7-MHz Yagi beams. For a height of 35 feet, the energy is maximum at a vertical angle of 34° above the horizon. At a height of 70 feet, maximum radiation occurs at an angle of 24°. Table 3 —Comparison of Yagi Beams at Heights of 35 and 70 Feet Frequency ( At 35 Feet-) Etev. angle of max. radiation (-At 70 Feet-) Elev. angle of max. radiation Performance difference at 5* 7.0 34 degrees 24 degrees 5.7 decibels 10.1 29 18 5.7 14.0 24 14 5.6 18.1 20 11 5.4 21.0 18 9 5.2 24.9 15 8 4.9 28.0 14 7 4.6 This is 10° lower than for the same antenna at 35 feet. In addition, in the 2- to 10-degree elevation range, those angles that are necessary for communicating over thousands of miles, the performance of the tow Yagi beam is nominally 5.6 dB below that of the high Yagi. At a wave angle of 5.0°, the response of the Yagi at 70 feet is superior by 5.7 dB. Similar data can be obtained from Figs 9 through 14 for the amateur frequencies from 10.1 through 28 MHz. The differences in performance for the amateur bands from 7 to 28 MHz are summarized in Table 3. As Table 3 indicates, a Yagi antenna at 70 feet provides far greater radiation at low angles for all frequencies than the same antenna at 35 feet. This translates to greater communications effectiveness at long distances, and is especially true for the lower frequencies. At a 5° wave angle, the differences in field strengths range from 4.6 to 5.7 dB. This means that the power at a distant receiving antenna for most propa gation conditions will be from 2.9 to 3.7 times stronger from a Yagi antenna at 70 feel, compared to the same Yagi at 35 feet. Heights greater than 70 feet will produce even higher power ratios. In summary, a high Yagi antenna provides superior performance over a low Yagi, all other factors being equal. Depending on the level of noise and interference, the performance differences related to height are often enough to mean the difference between making distant radio contact with fairly reliable signals, and being unable to make contact at all. Very High and Ultra High Frequencies Commonly used amateur frequencies higher than those discussed earlier are the very high frequency portion of the spectrum, abbreviated VHF, and the ultra high frequencies, or UHF. The VHF range covers 30 to 300 MHz, and the UHF range from 300 to 3000 MHz. In an earlier section it was mentioned that HF antennas must be large to be effective. To some degree, however, those considerations are not unique to that frequency range. They apply in general to VHF and UHF as well. A difference at VHF and UHF is that antennas may be physically small in order to realize optimum electrical lengths. However, a disadvantage of physically I small antennas is that they present less surface area to passing radio waves, and are therefore less effective in picking up incoming signals. This effect Is termed pickup efficiency. Pickup efficiency is reciprocative; it applies to transmitted signals as well as to received signals. To obtain higher pickup efficiency and therefore greater communications effectiveness, many antenna elements are required at VHP and UHF. The elements are usually installed on multiple booms. Single, vertical radiators even at elevated heights, are ineffective for distances beyond a few miles at these frequency ranges. This is true because of low pickup efficiency and because of the omnidirectional characteristic of the radiator. Stacked vertical radiators are sometimes used to obtain gain with omnidirectional coverage. Although ionospheric propagation does sometimes occur at the lower end of the VHP range, propagation at too MHz and above is almost always over a line-of- sight path. Under usual conditions, signals at these frequencies encounter very little refraction in air. There fore it ^hooves a person using these frequencies to place his antenna as high as possible, so it can "see" farther. Certainly the antenna must be above sur rounding objects, such as dense foliage and man-made structures. Such objects absorb radio-frequency energy In this portion of the spectrum, and therefore tend to block the signal from propagating. Objects such as hills, steel structures and many commercial or industrial buildings will block VHP signals to an even greater degree, creating "shadows" behind them. At VHP and UHP. the lowest lobes for Yagi arrays at 35 and 70 feet are only a few degrees above the horizontal. However, for line-of-sight communications, the radiation angle should be zero, if possible unless one wishes to communicate with airplanes or objects in outer space. Even more desirable are negative angles from high locations, so the antenna can "look down on” the terrain. At VHP and UHP the radiation angles for 35-foot heights are twice those occurring for the 70-foot heights. Therefore at VHP it is also beneficial to place the antenna as high as possible, and in the clear from surrounding objects. Amateur Radio operators wishing to contact other amateurs at great distances use a time-worn but true expression. "Por the best results, put your antenna as high as you possibly can." Many amateurs in various parts of the world put their big antennas atop 120-foot towers, and enjoy communications with amateurs in foreign countries when neighboring amateurs with much lower antennas cannot even hear the foreign signals Conclusion The preceding information has dealt with antenna height and communications effectiveness. It has been shown that for all amateur frequencies, high horizontal antennas will outperform low antennas. Information has been developed to show a consistent power gain of the higher antennas over low ones, that is. at 70 feet and 35 feet. The 70-foot height was chosen only for the purpose of illustration, and is not intended to be construed as the optimum height for antennas. Heights above 100 feet will give significantly better performance than at 70 feet. It is reasonable to assume that if an amateur operator is restricted to the use of low antennas, he will obtain transmitting equipment with a corresponding increase in power output to compensate for the loss of antenna effectiveners. Por example, he might increase his transmitter power from 500 watts to 1.5 kilowatts to compensate for a three-fold loss in antenna effectiveness because of height limitations. It should be realized that this increase in power, in turn, increases the possibilities for his stronger signal to overload nearby television and radio receivers, creating interference for viewers and listeners. There is one further consideration concerning amateur antenna height with regard to television and radio interference. In essence, the sole source of radiated RP energy from an Amateur Radio station is its antenna. Raising that antenna to an increased height, far above the level of existing antennas for television reception, will reduce the possibility of interference to television reception from fundamental overload. • ‘V* ; ,«■ /’- J Previously we spoke abo it the pending revision of the (City) Zoning Ordinance as regards height restrictions on amateur radio antenna support structures, i.e. towers. Based upon our discussion it appears that the impetus behind the ordinance revision is not any concern as to amateur radio towers, but a concern as to the impact of commercial radio towers such as those used in the PCS radio service. At your invitation I am writing this letter to provide some background about the amateur radio service, the special status of the amateur radio service and certain federal laws and r^ulations which affect the ability of local government to impose zoning restrictions on amateur radio tOA/ers. Specifically, I am referring to In Re: Federal Preemotiy of State and Lo^l Reoiulations Pertaining to Amateur Radio Facilities. 101 FCC 2d 92. F. Fed. Reoister 38.813 (1985) at 47 CFR Sec. 97.15(E) (1992) hereinafter (PRB-1). Amateur Radio is a federally regulated communications service under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission. Amateur radio operators are issued a license only after passing at least two examinations as to rules, regulations, electronic kno>v!edge, communications and operating skills. The licenses are issued by the FCC for the purpose of authorizing the transmission and reception of radio signals throughout the United States and the world. Amateur radio operators provide an invaluable public service to local, national and international communities in a number of ways, including national end civil defense, emergency communications assistance, and International relations. The FCC. which is charged with the overall responsibility to regulate interstate and foreign commerce in communications by wire and radio, has expressly recognized, in its rules, the need to encourage amateur radio communications and guarantee the '^•mateur radio operator sufficient avenues for overseas, emergency and experimental communications. Licensed amateur radio operators are authorized to use a wide variety of radio modes and frequencies ranging from just above the AM broadcast band (c^.g. KSTP AM is 1500 kilohertz) to the bottom edge of the visible light sp^trum. Each of these frequency groups which are called bands, have different characteristics and accordingly require different types and configurations of antennas. For example, medium frequency (MF) signals such as those just above KSTP AM require large antennas (133 feet on the 80 meter band) and are most usable during the hours or darkness. Medium frequency signals tend to be most effective for communications of 500- 750 miles or less. High Frequency (HF) is most commonly referred to as short wave communications. High Frequency signals have the capability of world-wide communications. Effective HF communications generally require multiple element antennas at a height of one radio wavelength or more. The most popular amateur HF band is 20 meters. One radio wavelength at 20 meters Is approximately 66 feet. An amateur seeking reliable amateur communicationc on the twenty meter band would generally require a three element rotatable antenna on a 66 foot support structure. HF communications are dependent upon reflecting or bouncing signals off a layer of the atmosphere called the ionosphere. Under proper conditions HF signals can literally skip over great distances alternately Douncing off the ionosphere and the earth. The height, gain (number of elements) • . • • -! • -* . ••., .• tv . . . *. • j. • .* • • • • ?SrsS?^'lW?nd<\SS:{ tKS^mnri ® ^ degraded . The more significant the blo^agothe more likely effective communication will not be possible VHF and uhf antennas are smaller than HF antennas, however thw must be erectS at a coSnScaltons.^^*^ between the transmitter and receiver for effective correlation between the height of an SlSmun ^5? effectiveness of amateur radioc^mun^tlon^ Ordinances which permit towers in the 65 to 70 fool ranae H?a,^ ““ ^ "«“• on state or local law conflicts with federal law or stands as '’“'Foses and 5n*omeiL^f« ^onrirnunications Commission weighed state and local JnSSSmJnf ?u the Interest of the federal Sn«®In?S?; maintaining the amateur radio service as a voluntary, non- ^TrTi®^^^! ^®mriiunications service whl^ provides a reservoir of trained ®m®*^ mcy communications and numerous other ben€>fits So o®oS^in?. mterests. and determined that a limited preemption ofstate and local regulations was warranted. It specifically determined: ^ 1 2. State and local regulations that operate to preclude amateur c^rnunications In their communities are in direct conflict with federal objectives and must be preempted, prb -1 Pflrfl. 24. Regulations which involved placement screening or height of . 5"^ health, safety, or aesthetic conslderatioi iS must be crafted to reasonably accommodate ®^mmunicatlons and to represent the minimum practical regulation to accomplish the local authority’s legitimate purpose. PRB-1 Papp, gs The Federal Communications Commission specifically recognized that: j® arnateur station communications are only as effective as the restrictions directly affect the effectiveness of substantial the communications that he/she desires to engage In." PRB-1 Para. 25 . . ’'A' • • • observationsth®*® '!l®'leasonabte amiteu? aceommodatareasonable amateu7commuScattons^S^^ 3?e®minK 8tea*hy “'oc7S!5Scl° tnd wlw ^ rtiore substantial in size ani??ieight In ordeMo =S'r '"i® ^ balancing of local and federal interests stetedh^^ ^ EfiOte! speafically rejected that approach to applying PRB-1 when it sa •^sss-'j'srf ■ists* :i»^ --------- tv# aiiidioui inidrf^Sl$.Although some courts have evaluated whether the municipality properly balanced its interest against the federal 3g“ggSaiivligre*l " •'^quires the city to accommodate Lt ^mmunlc«tions. See, Evans. 994 F.2d ^j^^4-7 o3. This V, .motion is Important, because a standard that r^uires a dty to accommodate amateur corf.rnjnlcations in a reasonable fashion is certainly more simply requires the dty to balance ^ federal interests when deciding whether to permit a radio antenna. Pente^l supra at p.1264. fw«^?h?JSi clearly stated that a simple balandng test will not be suffident. 7 k municipal;” to “'r^wTably a.^mrdaT“rateir TOMin rn^mateun^® reasonable ecnommodation falls or. the city and ®tt®rnpt to summarize this legal and technical maze. First of all let me assure arn not aware of anyone who claims PRB-1 requires a municipality to simply acquiesce in any request made by an amateur radio operator for a per.mit 1 ®^®ct the locsl authohties legitimate purpose. I suggest that under PRB-1 botli the base ordinance and any exception process as • • • : :*. • • • • •> , • <iX&““u£,t,rrT;i TiU’.cs^.sa' amaSi?^muSnT. *'’® varieVof correlation between the heighi of an sStl?‘ife'2i °^2r"“® to emeKf in‘'Z:;ry KtrlSrsV arSThe^'al^reiJMe^ fo?S®he“h{toTS'^oTw^^ ''“ ®PP"««0" ordinant^nJ^S^iiSH real relevance to theJ'L®_P:?‘«?i''e statue of amateur radio antenna ?R«t; a^'SeM£r ‘ whan appears to be a belief on the part of some city officials to narrow questions that an amateur radio operator antenna and^W ^ su|QMUhS^*Pra.1®^S^ prised unless the hardship is d^ned as the Inabil^^f Ihl appHrarn'to'^reaTOiteblv engage in the desired amateur communicaticns PP ca i to reasonably 3. LOCAL CONTROL OF AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNAE: LIMITED FEDERAL PREEMPTION FCC RULE 47 CFR §97.15(e). Local regulation allowed but a. Must not preclude b. Must reasonably accommodate c. minimum practical regulation necessary With respect to b and c above, restrictions must be applied with findings related to these two criteria. D.R. Evans v. Bd. of County Commissioners, 994 F.2d 755 (10th Cir. 1993) (upholding denial of special permit for tower greater than 35 feet in height since alternatives and impacts considered). Pentel v. Mendota Heights, 13 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 1994) (denial of special permit for 68 foot tower reversed since existing 56.5 foot tower not reasonably adequate for domestic communications and alternatives and Impacts not considered). • . i;..* • V-v • ^ • • .. ^ * jpy .•*«. * • ■% I* f.” 2l ‘"> • vA* Vi,' • ^ 1 ’ -V . ...Tw >1*• ••• ■ erji' •v*;? w- »■ I 1Mo o i”ss^ >•■-/' ^ ''■W>' HARDSHIP I am requesting two variances of the proposed telecommunications ordinance. This ordinance places the following hardship(s) on my proposed installation of an antenna structure; U 1. Setback. The setback that would be required for my proposed antenna structure would be 70 feet. Because my lot is ‘pie’ shaped, the maximum width of my property, where an antenna could be located, i.e. not located within a front, comer side or side yard, is 140 feet. That means that to have the antenna located no less than the height of the antenna and tower from the property line, I would have to locate my proposed 70 foot antenna structure on the mid line of my back yard. To do so, I would have to remove two of the largest trees on my property, which I am claiming as a hardship. I would prefer to keep those trees as I believe them to be aft asset to my yard and the neighborhood. 1 believe it would be a hardship to remove the trees tOjpieet the setback. Attached to my variance application, please find a letter of consent from the owners of the affected adjacent property, consenting to the placement of the antenna structure 55 feet from their property line. This location is such that in the extremely unlikely event that the antenna structure should fall, it could not damage any adjacent property owners’ buildings or belongings. There is no fence or any other man made structure within reach of the antenna structure should it fall. An additional reason for placing the tower in the proposed spot is to reduce the visual impact of the installation, by not having to remove the nforementioned trees 2. Height. The proposed ordinance reduces the height of an amateur tower from 65 feet to 55 feet, without applying for a variance. 65 feet to 70 feet is the generally accepted minimum height for effective and reliable international communication on the amateur radio bands. Amateur station communications are only as effective as the antennas employed, and the height restriction of 55 feet would directly affect the effectiveness of my ability to communicate internationally, which is the type of communications that desire to engage in. My amateur radio interest is almost entirely focused on international or ‘DX’ communications. If I am limited to the new 55 foot height restrictions, I will be severely restricted in my ability to conduct international communications. 1 am therefore claiming the proposed 55 foot height restriction as a hardship. To:Chair Lindquist & Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffiron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:June 12,1997 Subject: #2247, Wayne Holmes, 1390 Park Drive Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre, sewered Application: Lot line and side street yard setback variances for construction of detached 920 s.f. accessory storage building: Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.24, Subd. 5B: Required side street setback =» 35'. 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 9E: Accessory structures of footprint area 750-1,000 s.f. must maintain 15' setback from any lot line. PropK>sed side street setback and lot line setback: 11' at front of proposed building 2.4' at rear of proposed building List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey r. - Staff Sketch on Survey F - Building Plans G - Hardcover, Lot Coverage Review H - Topography Summary of Request Applicants propose to construct a 24.5' x 37.5' (920 s.f.) pole building at the rear comer of this 0.41 acre property. The property was granted a lot area variance for constmction of a new home in 1996, and the new home has been completed. The site also contains an existing 672 s.f. garage which is intended to remain. The new building is proposed to be placed near the right rear comer of the lot, due to site factors including topography, existing vegetation, and easy access. Hardccver, Lot Coverage Review Hardcover (35% allowed) currently exists at approximately 21%. Addition of the proposed building will increase hardcover to 26%. Addition of a 12' wide driveway to serve the new building would #2247 June 12,1997 Page 2 increase hardcover to 32%. The second curb cut, if proposed, would require approval of the Public Services Director. It is unclear whether applicants intend to provide a separate driveway access to serve the proposed building. It appears hardcover is and can remain conforming with this proposal. Lot coverage by structures including the proposed building will be 2,632 s.f. or 14.9%, conforming to the 15% limit. Analysis of Request The following factors have resulted in applicant's request for setback variances: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Topography of the site. The north half of the rear yard is level, significantly higher than the street. The lot then drops off sharply to the south side, and has been graded into a terrace to accomodate tl»e propo:;ed building. The new house has a south facing walkout door. A steep, long drivewfay would be necessary to gain vehicular access to a structure centered in the rear yard at the hi^er level while maintaining the walkout access to the house. It should be noted that preliminary grading for the proposed building apparently was done at the time grading for the new house was completed. This grading work has resulted in minor filling in the City right-of-way however, and slopes are very steep. A grading plan showing how maintainable slopes will be provide must be submitted prior to building permit issuance if the variance is approved; and all fill must be removed from the right-of-way. F.xisting vegetation. A 36" oak tree near the southeast comer of the house would be jeapordized by moving the front of the proposed building nearer the center of the lot. Existing lilac bushes would also be impacted. These bushes, however, do not provide significant screening in the neighborhood and in staffs opinion their preservation is not justification for a variance. Hardcover. Moving the building further north to meet setbacks would potentially result in increased driveway hardcover if a driveway is proposed. Storage Need. Applicant apparently has a need to provide additional storage on the site, Planning Commission may wish to explore why such a large accessory building is needed. Side Street. The side street shown on the survey as 'Forest Avenue’ is an unimproved dedicated City right-of-way. This corridor provides potential future access to the Highwood nature area, and serves as a drainageway. If vacated, the northerly half of this right-of-way would accrue to applicants property, and no setback variances would be needed. However, this right-of-way should not be vacated as it may serve future public access purposes. #2247 June 12,1997 Page 3 Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can continue to be used for single family residential purposes if the variances are not granted. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowTier. The unimproved side street is a somewhat unique circumstance not created by the landowner. The size of the proposed building requiring a 15' lot line setback is, on the other hand, a circumstance created by the landowner. A building smaller than 750 s.f would only need a 10'lot line setback. 3.The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. This large accessory building at its proposed location will ncoie some visual impact on the neighborhood as it currently exists, but might have a a more significant impact on the low density residential character of the area if the side street is ever developed, which would make this building much more visible. 4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use fcr the propel y exists under the terms of this chapter. There is no apparent economic hardship to consider. 5.Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. (Not applicable in this application) 6.The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Accessory buildings are an allowed use in the LR-IB zone. Issues for Consideration 1.Plaiming Commission should conclude whether this size building is necessary. Will a smaller building suffice? Note that the height of the building, while unusually tall, will still be conforming. 2. Is it appropriate to allow the proposed accessory building less than 3 feet from right-of-way i #2247 June 12,1997 Page 4 that could potentially be a future park access road? How important is it to maintain a 35' side street setback at this location? Can the building be relocated further north to decrease the degree of variance needed? For instance, can it be ^gled to maintain at least a 1 O' setback along the entire side street frontage, >^e still preserving the oak tree? Would a comMnation of a smaller building and greater setback be more appropriate? 3.Will there be a driveway to serve this building? If so, a second curb cut would need to be approved. Staff Recommendation Staff does not recommend approval as proposed due to the potential future uses of the right-of-way. A 10' setback might be reasonable given the topography, but a grading plan showing how 3:1 or flatter slopes can be maintained between the building and the original existing grade of the right-of- way should be required, and that may suggest a somewhat greater setback is (qjpropriate. Preserving the oak tree may have merit; preserving the lilacs should not be a justification for variance approval. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval as proposed. Recommend approval with revisions or conditions, Table for additional information (specify). Recommend denial, stating reasons. Other I «• M Application # Date Received 6^03- <11 Amount Paid yST CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance)’ Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 £f (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $22070 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) tziiha PROPERTY.INFORMATION ^3cj^ P aR.k C>R* Site Address lots rt *Kats 'Ai»ejL i*k ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) o~7~in»2x 00*72. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired fc/vw________________________________^(month/year) 4 ^n^ I*rescnt use of property: residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: LJZ-'lfe /Qljgsho ^ P^\^^JAHaJ APPLICANT Name »»v. Addre.«!s: o ?A.tL^ C>a ______ Phone (hrone ) t/n t, U _____ Phone (work ) _____ City: tviftois^A ___________Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work) Address;City;.Zip:. Estimated Constmetion Cost $DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detrdl: Sipk , sfeTBftf te. tfg^rrs OoiA>tA To "Z* ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage v/^ 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 requirerrents: '"TaPflCgAPtAy of Pa^fts-fery llO gg.t A-r.f>iva T-e Pf-AiTA-CS C^^6N-^l^T»»*T^^Tg£g^ __i Atf*S6i (Xs Or>v>s4iriir]. nt pc>U b^fn (attach additional sheets if necessary) A-) 1 •i REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required.- In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V2" x 11” for reproduction. Topographic surv'ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons vdth an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.' Applicant’’ Signature I Date S'-ZlrT) OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date S-ZV-Tl Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planmng Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants musf 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 • t r i fl • i * I' * * - • V ^ .* *,-•« ' . . /*'■■' <’ .•■' ■ 1 /■! L---- ■"V /,u Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) /At&uAftt J of \jm (Mi fig A .2_ [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plauis for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at___________________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 Cit> Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. ✓J Date Toperty Owner Date 4i* ♦♦♦♦♦ 4(4141 ♦4i4(4i«4>4>4i«******************^**il^****4r*4M(lrdr*dr*4r**4r^« I (we) [print namt(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at___________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand 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. .♦a if Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that luay assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit youi' co.mments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. .T I' A 49 7‘ (62) <I2)A n X'A' X"' X' XX \f\ \N>. V \ \ \ , 2 V( 'OJ "-'(I7\ V / .NN ^(56).? N( A' !( ..<5 a (13) 6 V ( 14) ^N>f > AA 'H’ z'’ / ’S’- \/(-'^'' X \ X y"- '*'<<0 fr< 5- 447.9 (I)07-H7-23-VV ■^ ' 39.6 -^•3 (74) —/urs mM DATE 05/1^97 BATCH SOSMBJ flATe '*• ■' #t * * f I. .. : >u;i / . - ■ r ut.., v.; • .;• •■:’*»••• v - ‘V C< •'• ; * ^!./. v-.v-. , V •• ♦ •/, PROP ADDR ONNER KANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER . NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR „ V ,■ ‘ HEMflEPZN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMNERS LIST 58 07-U7-23 41 0005 00058 ADDRESS UNASSZGNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO BOX 46 CRYSTAL BAY ORONO HN 55525 58 07-117-25 41 0070 01576 PARK DR D F LARSON A T K LARSON DAYTON F A TERESA K LARSON 1576 PARK OR MOUND MN 55564 58 07-117-25 41 0074 01400 PARK DR RICHARD 0 NORUM RICHARD 0 NORUM 1400 PARK DR MOUM) rB> Ii5364 58. 07-117-23 41 0080 01365 PARK DR J K YOUNG A T L YOUNG JOHN A TERRY YOUNG 1365 PARK OR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0074 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO VZL OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55359 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 8 V 38 07-117-23 41 0066 01361 NORTH ARM DR S H MALCHOH A N MALCHON SCOTT H A NANCY MALCHOH 1361 NORTH ARM DR MOUND m 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0069 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DAYTON F A TERESA K URSON DAYTON F A TERESA K LARSON 1376 PARK DRIVE ORONO MN 55364 ' • ^ i • 38 07-117-25 41 0071 01388 PARK DR MAG RASMUS MAG RASMUS 1388 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0072 01390 PARK DR M M HOLMES A J M DAHL MAYNE M HOLMES 1390 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0075 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JAMES LANG A ARDIS NIEMANN ARDIS M NIEHAI#4 NOONAN 364 N ONASSO BLVD ST PAUL MN 55126 38 07-117-23 41 0079 01375 PARK DR KATHLEEN A MURPHY KATHLEEN A MURPHY 1375 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 -**•1 38 07-117-23 41 0090 01355 NORTH ARM DR C TULLY A E CHALGREN C TULLY A E CHALGREN 1355 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0038 01379 PARK DR K S NASSAUER A K NASSAUER KERRY S A KIANN NASSAUER 1379 PARK OR ORONO MN 55364 TOTAL BATCH 503 00013 i lo ^ -^'7 ,. : : * ■ > V>• •y : «P^.-) 4 : •# -J U ^ / « I 11 • LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lots 19 and 20. Block 13, SAGA HILL REVISED o : denotes iron marker (99.4) : denotes existing spot elevation, assumed datum .......... Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house and garage, and the proposed location of a , proposed shod thereon. It does not purport to show any other Improvements or encroachments. ^5 •i i ’ / aV ’ r\ Sca!^ I" --30' <,f07"faj5VfcT-7O'^ S P/SWibPCi fc 7 C4A/7" rr ^ % -7 :' VJ ;'/ v> •> » * ! tr / ✓# / / KS?9'■ V** I V N>, [N i (w^). («a.4)r c % \/ Tor. £m, X^ S. I t. Vn Nf| , LOWER TSir/8) THRESHOLD , ELEV. - (10^)3^. ) 'U ' -<<. TOP OF wax ^ -(100^)........^ ^v V. z x..^ fe I >' J (91^) 8" 10“ 12“ •••(107J) SCOTCH PtC I (92J) >X ■ ^)(/sru^ 4. <^/V)<b.tT70M-^ pe^SrM^F SfT^ /ASp. Jt<(ue>A97 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lots 19 and 20, Block 13, SAGA HILL REVISED o : denotes Iron marker (99.4) : denotes existing spot elevation, assumed datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property; the location of an existing house and garage, and the proposed location of a proposed shed thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. • I ____X.rv A nnr__f"__♦ I to-, •» ’ .'rii (■■ ■ ■'■CD « CH 3T-i i. —M V n r • ’ ‘ * 7’-f 1/2’ A > ^ * • ^1.% / ' V -4 :• ; V^' ’■■*-' « ''•• /yVi:; » 0 1% <N _l LO 3'Xi ’-8" A. UOO SERV. DC T-^• O.C. COLUtINS ~^J ^yj I iXi SOLID COLUtINS rXH’ PRECAST PADS SIDEUJALLS ( CABLES iO-^-ia TRUSS LOAD s 1 1 1 1 I kO^'1 ■ 1 1 "id 1 §u! Ill 1 bK 1 ^U>1 1 1 1 1 ___ . 1 COST. RIDGE LIGHT BUILDINC j diagonals OS. POST os. POST (n''( n i n 05/0^/^l HOLMES FLOOR PLAN SCALE 3/ir= r-O" m o .•.v*;v £T.. Vo 4^-, V ^. *N . % X. L* 3'XC'-8 ‘ AJ3L00 SERV. DOOR liJEST ELEVATION SCALE 3/ir= I'-O" CONT. RIDGE LIGHT NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATIONS SCALE 3//^'= r-0^' 1 i I 4- BASE TRIM DETAIL SCALE /'= r-0' r**x J.: f '-r — » * i . . *'*».R a & 1 A i i ' TRUSS TO COLUMN 29 CA. STEEL 2X4 SYP PURLINS 1 PLY NOTCHED 5-30d RINCSHANKS IN TRUSS SEE ENLARGED DETAIL FOR TRIM PLACEMENT 2X6 GIRTS ® 33“ O.C. 29 GA. STEEL BASE TRIM 032 2X8 TREATED GRADE BOARD TRT ANCHOR SYSTEM 4"X14 “ PRECAST FOOTING i .-f N v)- ' 1 i• ^ ■J %• i iI ii <S>~{ /^7/)AbCoS >" S>Ttrf°T^ t-aX~ C^vecLi^’S. Sr<-«cr-«/2^"5, 33. ^->^76. 2_ /o, / ^ /i., / l>s:r, CA><. 2/ 2-8 ^/«Po;t-t. jy, S'^7- S 2^3 2. iiT. 2-uii ~ \’ypc><i> -Oyy-' 5>s A 3 3.4 <i72- ;4. f/1 jT • ^M-i^co^sO. (^7)0 12.^2.’-/ fv2-oA>'T ^7ty:5f^ ^ Wa.(-'c.><.7 . 2 y>r 2-B . 'OitiUfcj/v'y (g)I I ■ %z ©/yrz7 =373 ^ .2C.C- )3r/6 ■■ Zii<-j J /<3// sJT. 2^8 -.-4. 84 r.r ^ Y <^7 2- J .4, /45a stC. /^b. fob AJ(?W)'BUi.t. 'S")OH =/ f n,7oo - 20.“?X 9n r£ (4fcb pa«- V^2-3. ^C. f;7/7ot>=X /O OO e-C . 5V/3&? ^ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (OkCLE ONE) 0-75’75-250’250-500' HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House •*?> 'b . '5'!)'X (J Length/o X X X Width / Ol B. Garage C. Drivew^ .-5 M 2^ 5M X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 4 ?) O ____ -f- B i ,100 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ^ "b. 'b Length X X X Width / ^ B. Garage aM C. Driveway X X \ Ol: D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck / a X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ?) -i- B /~7, 700 X 100 <'500-1000’.. -’ ^ '2. s.F. / 60 — S.F. __________S.F. S.F. Gnx s.F. •aun 20 s.F. S..". <430 4 a s. j ro o Co”? 'P- 4573 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. \ \. 7 O S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B S.F. A S.F. B X ybb.i? TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator Jime 12,1997 SUBJErT: #2248 David and Jodi Rahn, 1385 Rest Point Rd. Variance(s) and Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:.3 acres (approximate) Application: The applicants propose to construct an addition to an existing structure and restore an existing deck and screen porch. A conditional use permit is required for any alteration or excavation in the floodplain and 0-75' setback from the shoreline. A hardcover variance and lot area variance are required. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.24, LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District Subd. 5. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. Section 10.55, Flood Plain and Wetlands Management. Section 10.56, Shoreland Management. Subd. 10. Land Alteration & Building Permits Required. U2248 David and Jodi Rahn 1385 Rest Pi. Rd 6/16/97 Page 1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.30 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 89.86 ft.95 ft. app.5.3 on south 33 ft. app. The zoning lot does not confomi to lot area, lot width, side yard setbacks or lakeshore setbacks. Structural Coverage The applicants propose to increase the amount of structure on the lot, from 609.25 sq. ft. to 1,320.75 sq. ft. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75’6,750 sq. ft.609.25 (9%)none 1,320.75 sq. ft. 19% 75'-250’100.4 25%none none 250'-500’ 500’-1,000' U2248 David and Jodi Rahn 1385 Rest Pt.Rd 6/16/97 Page! STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicants have stated that relocation behind the 75' setback would require major floodplain alteration and excavation. The applicants believe that squaring off the existing cabin will result in minimal excavation and alteration of the floodplain. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The existing structure was used as a cabin. It can continue to be used as a cabin. The applicant should provide testimony as to the inadequacy of the structure for year round inhabitation. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The zoning lot does not meet lot area, lot width or side yard setback requirements. The structure does not meet the 0-75* shoreline setback. Any additions in building footprint will add structure in the required 0-75' setback. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for lot area, lot width, side yard, and hardcover will change the character of the lot. However, each zoning lot may have a 1,500 sq. ft. building footprint. 4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. 5.Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. U2248 Da\fid and Jodi Rahn i38SFestPt.Rd. 6/16/97 Page 3 1 7. 8. 9. A residential structure is a permitted use in this zoning district. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Many of the lots in this area are not conforming as to lot width and lot area. Several of the residences were constructed within the 0-75 ’ shoreline setback. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Some of the zoning lots in this area do not meet minimum lot area requirements. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicants will need to provide testimony regarding the need for the variances based on preservation of their property rights and use and enjoyment of the zoning lot. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not Impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The existing structure is located within the 0-75' setback, and 5.3' from the south property line. Much of the zoning lot is impacted by the floodplain contour. Issues 1.The zoning lot does not meet lot area, lot width or side yard requirements. The existing structure conforms to the average lakeshore setback but is within the 0-75' setback from the shoreline. U224S David and Jodi Rahn I m Rest Pt. Rd. 6/16/97 Page A 1 2. 3. Much of the zoning lot is below the 931 flood contour. There was a lot of interest in this property when it was recently listed for sale. Redevelopment of the lot is severely restricted by the floodplain. The applicant has proposed minimal land alteration. 4.The structure was remodeled in 1988. No previous variance requests are noted in the street file. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To amend or approve: 1. A conditional use permit for land alteration in the 0-75* setback and floodplain. 2.A hardcover variance in the 0-75 ’ setback from 9% where none is allowed. 3. A lakeshore setback is required to add structure the same distance from the shoreline as the existing structure. Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Location Map Plat Map Hardcover Calculations Topographical Map Floor Plans Elevations Permit Record Pictures of Lot fi2248 Da\id and Jodi Rahn 1385 Rest PL Rd 6/16/97 Pages Application # Date Received 9 - Amount Paid 3l3ub A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Varia-ce Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Q n /f o PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Pf. fLrJ • Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) f Attach legal description to wplication if not included on required survey. Date Pronedv Acquired ^ fZ3l I (do) Qo^no^also own the adjacent parcels of land. PresentuseoTproperty: i»*^esidential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: I S__________________________ (month/year) APPLICANT Name D/\JiC K/M,^ Address: //_?V 'fr^i I Phone Oiome ^^/TZ-^T^^r7-9:_____ Phone (work ) 1? 4 /- tR City:_^2iCi:iAiia_______Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _______ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction Cost $ Describe request iii detail: /Src^.A ____ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIARI^CES REQIHRED ^^^Lot Area Lot Width t—^Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) S c:^\(XXcJs' HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditioiis preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: S-zAi^cf 7^ ----- r / s /ju r .J. (attach additional sheets if necessary) A 1. 2. J. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following infor mation must be submitted bv the application deadling date in order for vour application to be considered complete: Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of ^ Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271), Certificate of Surrey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/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 SYi” x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8‘/a" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the 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. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.7 The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Date 5i^3/<?7 OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of inve§tigatron and verification of this request. Owner's Signature U)Date S'/?-3 ] Tl Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 LocArio»o HRf’! 1&Q0 I MMVfSLt © SEE MAP 61Jennings @ MSNNETRISTA ?400 VMMMiWi lUftM ? ?II00 fflf CM.T Bay WOUfSD 4000 i S.C41 y iw. SEE MAP 89 Minnetonka ^ ^ 224s David a*^d J:::di Mny\■fesi' Tt^>iKVf Rcqoi I y« (40), 'yy^\ -4?;v V ><o>"r> t • \ . s r C V I • 6-"‘ *%* \ li3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OT PREMISES:Lot 23. ond ol that port of Lott 15 and 22. ond odjocont vocoted oiey. Subdivision of Lot 14. Rost Point Pork« Lake Minnetonko. lying SoutKorty of the folowing^doscribtd fins: Boginning at o point on tho Southoostsrly fins of sold Lot IS. distont 75 foot Northoostorly from tho Southoost- orly corner of said Lot 23; thonco Northwostorly to tho Southeastsriy cornor of sold Lot 22: thonco Northwostorly on a fine forming on angle of 74 dogroos 55 minutos with the Eosteriy fine of said Lot 22. to tho shore of Lake Minnetonko. and thero ernling. .i- 1 This survey intends to show the boundories of tne obovo described property, ond the tocotion of on ekisting house pnd shed thereoa It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroochments. (931.5): o Spot elovotion Iron marker found o Iron morker set Beorings shown ore bosed upon on assumed dotum. 1 ■' !«. 48 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEETSETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)FVISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House r I 14‘6.00fl* EXISTING i ID S PROPOSED gg in^z:zy 3f *) 7 -/r V 'i / I <; I .1 « *■ ••■ ■ I III jiiiihii III iiii iifiwnw 11 wwi II >111 11 I I i 29'6.000- 14*4.000*15'2.000* f 18 > # f u (O', :n: ■ ■■ - ^ r*0 4 • / •! r r ^ / •!O- V: .-.U ’ 'b .1 '*•*._____jy \ I#o is rear elevation LEFT ELEVATION right elevation /^•VSr PERMIT RECORD Permit No. 2J-7L / 0 Date Type of Permit (>• 9:> ?'3"?D f>lR(= ' 7-/V".V’'X £cyn^t^JLj^ • I i i ’ ! //) TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administration FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:June 3,1997 SUBJECT: #2249 U.S. Marshal, 2245 French Lake Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acres, unsewered. Application: Request for lakeshore setback variance for on-site sewage treatment system, Pertinent Code Section: 10.56, Subd. 16 (C): Required on-site sewage treatment system setback fiom Natural Environment lake is 150'. Proposed setback = 97'. French Lake was designated as a Natural Environment lake in 1992 per Ordinance No. 101,2nd Series. The septic system setback which would have been adhered to prior to 1992 was 75'. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Site Plan F - Topographic Survey G - Excerpts from Sy.stem Design Approval Discussion This property was identified in 1994 as having a non-conforming septic system due to lack of separation from a seasonal water table. A site evaluation was completed in April 1997, indicating that the only feasible site for replacement of the existing system is 97' from the OHW of French Lake. The 1992 Shoreland Ordinance defines French Lake as a Natural Environment lake, requiring a 150' setback for sewage treatment systems. There are no feasible alternative locations for a septic system on the property, hence there is a significant and obvious hardship. The only reasonable alternative to variance approval is to grant approval for use of a holding tank, which is not advisable due to pumpout enforcement difficulties and the extremely high cost to the property owner. The proposed system has been designed to meet all other pertinent State standards. It should be noted that while the 150' lake setback is a zoning standard requiring the normal variance process. Zoning File #2249 June 3, 1997 Page 2 the allowance for a 10* side lot line setback (rather than the 20' required by City code) is an administrative variance granted by staff because it is not a zoning regulation. It is staffs opinion that granting of the proposed variance will have no impact on neighboring properties, and will have only a positive impact on the quality of French Lake by allowing the replacement of a non-conforming septic system with one that can be expected to provide adequate sewage treatment in all anticipated ground water conditions. Also note that for Lake Minnetonka, the State required minimum septic system setback is 50', while the City more than two decades ago chose to require a minimum 75' setback instead. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a 53' variance to allow the septic system for 2245 French Lake Road to be located 97' from the OHW of French Lake. Options for Action 1. Recommend £q>proval as proposed. 2. Recommend tabling (state reasons). 3. Recommend denial (state reasons). 4.Other. % •'i •• • CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 < ($50.00 per each additional variance) f / // ;■ _______ Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application Variance for non-conforming structures After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ^220.00 Application # J A*/ f Date Received s'/A 7/f 7 Amount Paid ^ 8 PROPERTY INFORMi^ION_ / / y Site Address /U Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) lOU */_____ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired yropev4*> ciAyygi/».f|v- -(far^ ________ I (do) (do not) also owii the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: _presidential ___pother (specify)_________ Zoning District:_____________________________________________ (month/year) APPLICANT Name K.e./ly !a/cit^ Address: j % ff. City: Phone (home) Phone (work)________________ flfl^ Zip: JT r OWNER (if different than applicant) Name \A• f/ici / Phone (home) ^ Address: v<^J2 US (gjjdrfKu:>£- _____ Phone (work) ^ City: Zip: S'S V/S DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction Ciost $, Describe request in detail: \ICjr \(lf\CA -kp InT/vi^ I _____1 A ~______________\(attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore X Other (specify) ^^^Hx X cJl -frotr\ rV}4tiyal tdk^ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ~TT)g ngLJ ^(6 ro4mr -fmarv feo* rvi4»ju^) \ak^ (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 1. 2. 3. 4.X 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govl Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surxeyor) and include hardco ve r calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/j" x 11" for reproduction. SHOV S^PTLC Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVt" x II" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SYi” x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this applicction, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of tids application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is trytTahd correct to the besfjof his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date y OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agre^to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, coh^ult^s, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of invesj^ation/^d^/^ifica^n of this request. / y Owner's Signature,/c.7/ / 7 / " j -r Applicant must have/all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meetii^ Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 RUN DATE 05/23/97 BATCH 506 HENNEPIN PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 58 10-117-23 21 0006 02195 FRENCH UUCE RO N SXNKLER 111 A M 6 HARRIS HHARTON SXNKLER III A MAR6HERITA G HARRIS 0 BOX 67 CRYSTAL.BAY MN' 55323 1 •• . . #■f;'..V-..V y-:.t ■ m!• * ?• PROP ADDR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 3B 10-117-23 22 0012 02250 FRENCH LAKE RO PETER L HASSELQUXST PETER L HASSELGUIST 2250 FRENCH LAKE RO NAYZATA MN 55391 • ^ T PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 10-117-23 23 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSZ6NED R C A N LUX ROBERT C A NANCY LUX 1209 FRENCH CREEK DR NAYZATA MN 55391 t •*•*. * h • r •t.- - ^ . * ' I V. • .*•;!s ^ 'f • - cowry PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST I *< 38 10-117-23 22 0006 02245 FRENCH LAKE RO DOUGLAS B DEHALZGNON DOUGLAS DEMALIGNON BW 97 LONG LAKE W 55356 • 9 I 38 10-117-23 22 0015 00038 ADDRESS UNASSZGNEO R H LANDIS ATE LANDIS RICHARD H LANDIS 2285 FRENCH LAKE NAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 506 00007 REPORT NO. PAGE PI45S4013038 10-117-23 22 0011 02285 FRENCH LAKE RD R H LANDIS ATE LANDIS RICHARD H LANDIS 2285 FRENCH LAKE NAYZATA W 55391 , J . , • ■ • • • * • S8 10-I17-2S ZZ 0017 00018 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RAJ DAYTON ROBERT J A JOAN I DAYTON 1 FRENCH LAKE RD WAYZAtA MN 55391 » I • N • t i: O I I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION> TO THE BEST OF MY KN0HLED6E AND BELIEF. DATE 0 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA W ^ \ «7>2IO • • • OCSCNIDiV UVKIOM tUTT uroumciK’ • MAWNiV COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. i.iin.n.uk \\rniu • I ihk; I .»kr, M\ ’ J. II II Miii 1 GmnhrrK MifmtipU Ucviuir NiimM WAS EXHIBIT aH Certificate of Survey for Business, Inc, of Lot 1, Block 1, Johnston's French Lak Hennepin County, Minnesota #7 ri pRoPoseD re^cE lA/ Reo tX.t*' y r/iEA/cA^ lake I hereby certify that thic. is a true snd correct representation of a sui’vey of the boundaries of Lot 1, Block 1, Johnston's french Lake, ar^ the location of all existing buildings, and an existing tennis court thereon. It does not purport to show other icproveiaents or encroachnients. •c •' . w “> - »* •’‘‘Scale' • ‘I" = IOC': V Cate \u , • t 10-27-S2, Iron Darker •V ' “ V ‘ Gordon B. Coffin • Rc^.-^No/ 6064 ' ' \ ~ Land Surveyor andvPlanno: \J « • • •Long Lake, Minnesota ^ . •- — ■iV [rM@[10Wlfri' DEC -1 I t . V* CITYOFORONO .... i:. * r\ I I I Ni I s. ___ ___ ____ ___ _ ___ fct(\ck ^df \ \ \ s ■DrtW “'H a/ A rX«M^ ^ loe»1ti A V. ^ «• Vets kc flt,moiJt^ v JAV StTH U^W-Vu^iC Or.+Vt "^r<x»»4^ t«\i «S^>4e.. Q<ttLc^ 'Kt C‘.«^ before {tmo\/eJ 'la ^t4(A,cj-/ aff 4eiVc auC OL'fW AU<7i t.\\ brtAik |t\v\34 U ’f"’' •V l\^ i C^fl feXJy/*//^ 'ftknKs ^e pxAm^J, f^./UJaJ /111 Se4h*.oks /» Qi/^tvlt'll lie iXiPitftlxtrtt/^ t 5c/b»vc^ •!•* '/'At be. /c?\ Svfbc^ck 4u 'f1>e U;«^/v -,5 /ci^; 7l<Aaofyj„j^ U^iMCeS i'kt Gj^ 0C(^nc C#d4, df/J/^j^wcofftwo^l pr,$r 4o V \ I o/ne,/vo 4o ^vi<ac-f ^ccvle.! (S S<=^ i*'= 30 ‘Cr UfoCi<^'(\alA. S».t. 2«ils Sktt-4'Qf ^li^o-'hoi^j. Cl PI 62 P2 63 f3 A 6 VJ*6-st’^’ tfz'*Si'jo" ni^H’ 9V2*‘ns'i‘o' Si’lo''Lrr si'jr 6?‘i” K HR SI L«FI7n»l i SSl!!im■ CITY OF ORONO W 6124730510 05/18/97 11:51 |5 :02/02 N0:803 CITY OF ORONO SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVAL CITY of ORONO Munidpil Offlca Pom OniM Boa M CryfUl Da;, MJnnaoU SUlMXXtf LOCATION: ^245 French Lake Rd. OWNER:U. S. Marshall's GENERAL CONTRACTOR:^________ SITE EVALUATOR: r)r>n's Backhoe SEPTIC CONTRACTOR: April 25, 1997, revised REPORT DATE: May 16, 1997 _________ The City of Orono has Approved_________your on-site systemdesign as of May 16, 3 9 97 (approved-disapproved) witli tlic following comments: Variances are granted for a ten foot setback from the drainfield to the property line (20’ required) and a 97’ setback from the dramfiold to a natural environment lake (150’ required) . Additional plumbing work will be required to connect all sewer lines to the new systen Also, the tanks must be at least 5’ from the drainfielT] THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. Tills is a design approval form which rriu.st accompany the site plan. A permit must be issued to a licensed septic contractor prior to installation. A list of currently licensed septic contractors is enclosed. NOTICE ro INSTALLERS: Any changes to the approved plans and specs must have prior approval of tlic Inspector (473-7357). Call for inspections 24 hours In advance. ALL DRAINFIELD AREAS MUST BE FENCED OFF prior to building site excavation and fencing must remain in place until final site grading. Approval to pour footings will not be granted until the Inspections Department has verified that primary and aliernaic sites are adequately protected. NO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OF ANY KIND (cars, trucks, earth moving equipment, etc.) is allowed within 20 ’ of tested drainfield site.i cither before or after system construction. Compaction of these areas could render them unusable prohibiting the timely completion and or liniiting the long icrai use of the property. A site copy will be available at the City Offices for the septic contractor. CITY OF/iORONO On-sue Systems Manager telephone -47J-7337 • FAX -473^10 . % CITY OF ORONO SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVAL CITY of ORONO Municipal OfBces FtMtO(nccBox66 ' CiTstal Bay, MIno«Qta 5923-006$ j2245 Firsncli Iislcs Rd OWNER: U. S. Marshall's GENERAL CONTRACTOR:- SEPTIC CONTRACTOR: Don' s Backhoe SITE EVALUATOR: ® Backhoe REPORT DATE: 25, 1997 The City of Orono has Approved__________your on-site system design as of 1^97 (approved-disapproved) (date) widi the following comments: design is approved with variances for a ten foot setback from the property line and a‘97' setback from.a natural environment lake (a 150' setback required),. Additional plumbing work must be performed to connect all sewer'lines to the proposed system THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a design approval form which must accompany the site plan. A permit must be issued to a licensed septic contractor prior to installation. A list of currently licensed septic contractors b enclosed. NOTICE TO INSTALLERS: Any changes to the approved plans and specs must have prior.approval of the Inspector (473-7357). Call for inspections 24 hours in advance. ALL DRAINFIELD AREAS MUST BE FENCED OFF prior to building site excavation and fencing must remain in place until final site grading. Approval to pour footings will not be granted until the Inspections Department has verified that primary and alternate sites are adequately protected. NO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OF ANY KIND (cars, trucks, earth moving equipment, etc.) is allowed within 20' of tested drainfleld sites either before or after system construction. Compaction of these areas could render them unusable prohibiting the timely completion and or limiting the long terra use of the property. A site copy will be available at the City Offices for the septic contractor. CITY OF ORONO Stephe , On-site Systems Manager TELEPHONE-473-7357 • FAX-4734)510 * percolation TFfTTAND MOUND SYSTEM U.S. Marshal Service 574 U.S.Cointhouse 110 S. 4th Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 AtL Kelly Sullivan SITE: 2245 French Lake Road Orono, MN PREPARED BY: DON'S BACKHOE AND EXCAVATING, INC 11585-1 lOTH STREET COLOGNE, MN 55322 (612)466-2667 M.P.C.A. LICENSE # 644 April 25, 1997 DESIGN REOinRF.Ii|p,]Nf Cons^t a Mound system based on an estimated water usage of 750 per day. Design size 10 X 63 rock bed \5'th a dS>^siopelf ^-S^J^sidiS^olfTlM?^ of KX. Tanks that are reouirgd 2-1250 gallon tanks I-1250 gallon pump tank Clean washed 1 W aggregate rock Sandy loam for covering mound Loam dirt for the side slopes 33 tons 36 tons 156 tons PRE-CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURE FOR this Construction oroceedures for the on-site trgatmpnt avat^m? MAINTENANCE; Pumping the tanks every 2 years will extend the life of vour system! .• ; 5 All surface waters must be kept away from the mound area. A water meter may be installed to measure all water entering this system. toto the aCDtIc system. Chlorine data kill bacteria in th> wntir tVnU., yiwmirni GENF.RAI ^e contents of this site ^nation and design report are to be applied to the property listed, reprints for other appheauons only with the pennission of Don’s Backhoe and Excavating Ina./ .TJe soil Mn^dons have been establi^ed at the test hole locations only. There may be variations in soil s^tigagy between and around the bonng’s and mteipolation and extrapolation of tlie results is not All leq^ments of this design shall be followed in order for the system to perform up to the designed capabilities. REFERENCES Home Sewage Treatment University of Minnesota Agriculture Extension Service Dave Gustavson Extension Engineer and Orono System Ordinance and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Rules and Standards Chapter 7080 If you should have questions or need further information, you can contact staff at the Orono planning and Zonmg, or me at your convenience. Sincerely Don's Bacahoer^d ^cavating, Inc. F TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Pianner/Zoning Administrator June 12,1997 SUBJECT: #2250 Maureen Bellows for Steve and Ellen Polansky, 1900 Fox Ridge Road Variance(s)—Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB 57,143 One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acres) square feet (1.32 acres) Application: The applicant requests a rear yard setback variance to extend a porch by 5' and add a third stall garage. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.28, RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District, Subd. 5, Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards RR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 2 acres 200 ft.50 ft.30 ft.50 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard ; it ’a- Yard 57,143 sq. ft.>200 ft.<50 ft.>30 ft.' "j\t ft. »2250 Maureen Bellows (Steve A Ellen Polonsky) 1900 Fox Ridge Road 6/16/97 Page I U. The zoning lot confonns to lot width and side yard requirements. The existing residence encroaches into the front and rear yards. The lot does not meet the minimum lot size. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has indicated that the lot is an odd shape with very little bniidablc area. The existing structure encroaches into both the front and rear yards. The hardship is the shape of the buildable area. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The structure can continue to be used as a residence. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The landowner is limited by topography, an unusual shaped buildable area, septic sites, and utilities. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for rear yard setback will not change the character of the area. 4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. 5.Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The proposal to expand the porch and add a third stall are allowed residential uses, §2250 Maureen Bellows (Steve <S Ellen Polonsky) 1900 Fox Ridge Road 6/16/97 Page 2 1 r 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. The Board or Council may pennit as a variance the temporary use of a one-&nily dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. This lot is unusud in its shape and the location of the structure on the zoning lot. The conditions do not ^ly generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Other lots in the cul-de-sac are unusual in size and shape. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The property owners will need to provide testimony regarding their need to add a third stall and to extend the porch. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrar>' to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The lot area is substandard and the existing residence encroaches into the front and rear yard because of the unusual shape of the lot. Issues 1 . The zoning lot does not meet the minimum lot area or front and rear yard requirements. 2. The topography is steep in the rear and side yard. The rear yard has several trees that will screen the garage stall from the rear. U2250 Maureen Bellows (Sieve A Ellen Polonsky) 1900 Fox Ridge Road 6/16/97 Pages 3. There are power poles and utility easements on the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To amend or approve: 1. A variance to encroach in the rear yard to allow a third stall and to extend the porch S'. •Attachments A B C D E F Application Location Map Plat Map Survey Floor Plans Elevation §2250 Maureen Bellows (Sieve A Ellen Polonsky) 1900 Fox Ridge Road 6/16/97 Pagfid Application # 6 Date ReceiTcd Amount Paid A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) / j ^^3^ / S Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) #90 PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ Site Address / ^^0 Ptrx _______________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 03 7 - Xh / a 000^_____________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. 00^ C>/eck. 00 1 DatePi ^rty Acquired_______ 04^^ ^ _________________^(month/year)f^^PlP&B I (do) ^do no^also own the adjace^ parcels of land. PresentlBS'ofproperty: \xf esidential other (specify)______________________ Zoning District: R i B>___________________]____________________________ Phone ^me) ^ ^ £,y/e>i _________ Phone (woik)_ Address: —jK»*L ^City: 0r ‘^,ti9 3i/cc lUaXDx-hv^ "RJi Ot'o^ OWNER (if different than applic^t) Name •*' ______ Phone (work) "•I ■ Zip: Phone (home’l 2^t/^ ~-<r9 Address: /^Od City: ^/i r»-*j Zip: Sns'L DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ OOP______ Describe request in detaU: ^£3^^ V//>C1AK1C5 TPeN3i;VJ26& (attach additional sheets if necessary) « . • « VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width Hardcover Setback:Front Lot Coverage Side \X r ear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or imusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:lH^ r* ^Ufc:PlV/tfelOKJ M tHs niT^ 16 AooppLr pigcB^ WITH vee>r gtns eunoAfeie /^gCA.TVie ^mirxvze , ^ zoj^ AhtP<^^sitez^ F^tOTTP UUBS.T«6 0V\IK3Sg. lAllfetf^ TP 4 MX? h Oh3B STAU^^g^P€A^6.Tti0g6 KJO PIH6E. xxovaei^. mh:. A REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for vonr application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obidin 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 BV2" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/a" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 854" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property 0\Mier must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's SignatureTV^ Date ^ _______ OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature “2 Date ^A^/97 Applicant must have all submittals into the 'City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each , month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning ! Commission and. Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your’place and to advise the Building ' & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ‘ ’ 8 • * I J ‘ •‘'u u r I I I I *“^2200 ciiie^)i^Co fox SEE MAP 76 1 ■ ^ \ |1 . i ^ i ■ f/^ * 7** ,• '- /i w ^ ^ C.r ■) ' fr ; v^.«n .»' rwimse (0>SeHF<CAriCM: F*^ C(i:b rB^ eiZS. f&ffD A:niAU. FRb C2? 6>7,(Z£? \p;&. i I •X I <V- Maureen Steele Bellows ARCHITECTURE 3400 Watertcwn Road Orono, Minnesota 55356 612 404 2035 FAX 612 4751054 POLANSKY RESIDENCE 1900 Fox Rid^ Road Orono, Minnesota 55356 5ite Plan Scale: r = 30 ’-0'Date: 20.5.97 A1 .1 ..-.UefAgf .• • •« • 1 . ■■■ uviis)& ■va^l EH?.e w^hJbvoTimxx'jze Kxit A-jttc iwee eaxM2^4a>£^ia^tJaK' i\ccowoofO/, wtrh ppvite ueiVeCCeCK'^fBii^ P^A^£>i BiDjMTo:% wiocv* v.&u- K&v 1 6tf €^TAt/U ityrghSKl Ef-TKiS^eC£t KlLtP CQ->1 MCtvJi5»JTtY ~ * r 1 ------------------------------ 1___________________in U! Is 1 9 1 ^/•>1 CSKJO+« BJrf-r o o aM'Mfe- fCCM ipaiaB Fscveeq3v& \ ^ cox. t®ic mj Kaf-4 ,ct^jepjceW z -i^wiCB vm>X Rrp=> gxisnsis- 2 <y.p- 11 ScSTKSr c:<3» Fcf=lArH W/KIEI'^ I'jap icor. •vJ • « " § ■V Maureen Steele Bellowsff^^ ARCHITECTURE P-yS:-----------------------------------------------------:----------------------------, - • '-i'"P0LAN5KY RES PENCE First F oor P an ZAOO Wat^tcMm Road Orono, Minnesota 55356 1900 Fox Ridge Road A2612 404 2039 Orono, Minnesota 55556 FAX 612 475 1054 Scale; 1/4' = r-0* Pate: 20.5.97 ^ fil Maureen Steele Bellows ARCHITECTURE POLANSKY PES PENCE Second Floor Plan 3400Watertown Road Orono. Minnedota 55350 1900 Fox Rirl^ Roa^l A3612 404 2035 FAX 612 4751054 Orono, Minnesota 55356 Scale; 1/4 ’=1’-0' Date; 20.5.97 t-n-1 '■•f ' .Iff- i # r; P0LAN5KY RESIDENCE 1900 Fok FJd^ Foad Orono, Mirw&ota ArCHITECTURr. 3^00 \\Aerio*fr^^..jk04 Ororo. Mtwe^ot4 55356 9210 612 404 2035 F-.XC-12 475 K)54 NORTH ELEVATION a J f'. ’ 'i. ■'■■•’" ,r\ j !>' )Vi A i 1 C----------- IX TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator June 12,1997 SUBJECT: #2252, Warren and Christine Bielke, 2565 Dunwoody Ave Variance(s)~Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC 52,389 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) square feet (1.2 acres)_______________________ Application: The ^licants propose to add 6' and 4' to the side and entrance of an existing 2.5 car garage. The applicant is proposing to exchange non-structural hardcover for structural hardcover. The proposed garage addition is partially located ahead of the average lakeshore setback. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.25, LR-IC, One Family Ldceshore Residential District, Subd. 6, Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 and 2, Lakeshore Setback and Hardcover Regulations. ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards Lol Area Lot IVidth Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1/2 acre 100 ft.30 ft.10 ft.30 ft. mi2 Warren and ChrUtlne Bielke 2565 Dunwoody Avt. 6/16/97 Page 1 Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 52,389 sq. ft.164.5 >30 ft.22.5 and 43 ’ proposed 75' to p>ool 115' to house The property conforms to lot area, lot width and yard requirements. Structural Coverage Total structural coverage is not an issue with this application because it conforms to the requirements. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75’10,935 sq. ft.220.5 (20%)none 220.5 (2.0%)no charge 75'-250'29,070 sq. ft.10,160 (34.95) 7,267.5 (25%) 10,204(35.1)2,936.5 (6.1%) 250’-500’12,384 sq. ft.1,017(8.2%)(3,715.2) (30%) 1,017 (8.2%)no change 500’-1,000’ STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has indicated that they desire more space to ac 'tnimodate their three vehicles. »22S2 Warren and Christine Bielke 2565 Dunwoody Ave. 6/16/97 Page! -4 rriteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. 4. 5. 6. 7. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The residence and garage can continue to be used. However, the q)plicants have indicated their desire for more garage space. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The amount of hardcover on the zoning lot in the 75-250' setback exceeds the Shoreland requirements. Possibly more hardcover could be removed. Previous variance resolutions indicated that owners are on notice to reduce hardcover. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for average lakeshore setback and hardcover will not change the character of the area. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Garages are allowed in residential districts. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. U2252 Warren and Chrbtine Bielke 2565 Dunwoody Avt, 6/16/97 Pagey \ & 8. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The amoimt of hardcover is specific to this zoning lot. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Hardcover requirements apply to all zoning lots along the lakeshore. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant will need to provide testimony regarding their need for a third stall and to keep the existing amount of hardcover. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The hardship for the average lakeshore setback is created by the location of the structure relative to the adjacent structure. Issues 1. *Tie existing zoning lot conforms to the lot requirements. The existing structure is located forward of the average lakeshore setback. 2. 3. The amount of hardcover existing and proposed exceeds the 25% limit. The residence was constructed in 1965. The residence was remodeled in 1984 and 1990. The pool was installed in 1991. Both remodeling projects required variances (#857 and #1574). Both of the previous resolutions contained precautions regarding no future increases in hardcover. §2252 Warren and Chruline Bielke 2565 DunwoociyAve. 6/16/97 Page 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION To amend or approve: 1. A variance to extend Uie existing garage 6* lakeward which encroaches into the average lakeshore setback. 2. A variance to increase hardcover in the 75-250’ setback from 10,160 sq. ft. (34.95%) to 10,204 sq. ft. (35.1%) for an increase of 44 sq. ft. where 7,267.5 sq. ft. or 25% is allowed. Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Location Map Plat Map Survey Enlarged Survey Floor Plan Elevation Hardcover Calculations Previous Variance Resolutions M2252 Wamn and Chrlsilne Blelke 2565 Dunyooody Ave. 6/16/91 Pages Application # pate Received ,^/g3/9^ Amount Paid .w; CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) a a Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 o o V (no change from original application) T~JT~ Variance for non-conforming structures $220^00 ■“ " After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATraCW . j - SiteAddress 3iSbS DiiyiU/o^bly /tU^» (A-Jwyz^w, 3'S’<^^I Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) JLO H7 ^2^1 ^03i _______ Attach legal description to appli^tion 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: "yC residential ___^odier (specify) Zoning District: - I C___________________ APPLICANT Name \A/c>rr6n ]pcC/\tc£, Phone (home ) AddressT _____ Phone (woric ) 939- c3^ 2- Citv: ______Zip: SS~3c^i OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ________________ Phone (home ) Phone (w'ork)___________ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmetion Cost $ ^-O.nOO_______ Describe request in detail: AckfiHon V Fffc/ /tna-iji nnA h jeeJ- lr> j-hi^ oP o^ar^cfe ^i~Ji cul^i^'fVLS kuOuU s'l/npl *. r.urfe/t^.. ----------—..................----------------------- -------------r—r------F------------ (attich additional sjieets if necessary) letter' cf cemtAf- C ac /i VARIi^CES REQUIRED Lot Area T Lot Width Hardcover ___Lot Coverage Setback:Front • Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCKIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS; Describe undue I-'^rdship or practical difficulty or unusual property ‘conditions preventing compliance with Zomng Code requirements: c^tren 1-1 jf AfiU'c ct e^ara^. U/*~ kaut. a j-klr-A Cjur and, drti/er ' nrU u/culd UlcC-—H P^' aUt, ■fa «/»/ I'A tin\o f-Ae, aara^. of'/eruyiSrA., // Uti’H cenfioa-ik^ h —r ir tr\iu ^ I'n i-ke. At\\JtiLm-\j o/onp (attach additional sheets if necessary) 9*, REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the followine information must be submitted bv the application ligadline date in order for your application to be considered complete! 1. 2. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you iiJ ^ obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of ’ Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). **^ »*'^'*'^ 3. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 854" x 11" for reproduction. 4. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SYi" x 11" for reproduction. 5. \/^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 814" x 11"). 6. 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). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not compl.u if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review- of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the bpaT^ his/her knowledge. DateApplicant’s Signature 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 yefi^^ation of this request. Owner’s Signature Dale jT- JZ ?- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Plaiuiing Coirv-mi'V '}.')n Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each moiitri. 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 LOCATION mr 2ZSZ. 4* Chnshne2SCfliS 1Xxv\M>ii ■ODC w itma titmorttitr 66/ 76.66/ 73. . *MO 5425255 7 / W'“ ■CTT (12)> \ \ \ (2?) / / \ \ > c > • wu('3>. (35) 4^7.65 N69*29*< (34) 115. M “ “ ?• sb M'JE ^-K^iSfS ,', .-Sy^ --^/,% («) (*>' */ ^ I ^109.354^ ?I6.42 V '26?.24 • s CASCO POINT RD 4^- /r.91. 1^: ®5.24 ^ ^ 13rrr^ V 15 ^ /? ,»®. « 10a. Z-^ * .-*1' ^ (0 k> X’ 40 40 5S 4 _ ..a 40 40 . Tier rj}:-:y---! “mm LOT I m i DOC NO 2931404 J 4? ’*'i" 'f S' W \ ..N' (0 • 251.5 C /@ Si//it ^ ?. / % ^ __,-• —£-•-4Mc.tf .ii^V joac.^ ^ « iiairf .-££.• ____# ____• « •«i >«(«l assr •tmmrnwmm^ .Jtjf .»tg ______^jorcL £»7t¥7i(W(f oT Jbr$^ • ( »» f^EPAREO POfT 3s/iif - ; i j •« I ; 74 .* -. I i % - t.*•; .*..»f? * « i ••« Ik- «ta-n ■ f^I•■■■ I o 9.. 8 ao -3 Q.8 j:^“1- s >. J s CD CM CM ^ 1^ iU. 9/7 ^9^991^ Tvic flbdt. /jfe^ ;ar>cy ^«X»4. *TyViw4>n«p (W.. ■t t Ji__________^ <0 8u 3 HI LU >« 12 4-» Cs> o Is iv.1 1 »• • • • « <rr«« * »■ i« • f. HARDCOVER CALCULATION 'WORKSIIEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) @ 75.J50. ; I • fcl . I I £2tlSTINC hardcover in yr>pff; A: * House 500-1000' Length Width S.F. X X X .-T- B. Garage C. Driveway ( ) I S.F. -«N S.F. f\ \) S.F. S.F. ^ X X « • N S.F. : D. Sidewalk S.F. i- 1 tx X X _s.F. /r E. Patio/Deck s.r. \ . X X £3 S3 S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. 0'^I *4: o. Olher e»A>MMlubJ/ I I S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ _ __ -i- B S.F, X 100 /09^S S.F. % A B PROPOSED HARDCOVKR IN yONP A. House ___________ X Lcngch Width X X X # t H* B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X * X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _____________ B • t 1 ij 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. It X 100 - L /OQA^ S.F. 2.^> % A B • I •' HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'250-500' 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___________ Length Wi(ilh X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ B 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 X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -i- B X 100 = xs S5fO S.F. S.F. ss S.F,: =S.F:, ,S.F. g.S.F.: s S.F. gj.43^-S.F.' =S.F.‘^ S.F., rs S.Fii rs \ S.F. B S.F.' =S.F.'^ S.F. /o/so S.F. -S.F. B % 3 got-S.F. g.S.F. B S.F. s=S.F. = haizp ^iME B 4044^S.F. B S.F. B 268 S.F. B dA.S.F. B I'ZifO S.F. B S.F. S.F. s S.F. B S.F. S.F. mioi-S.F. .S.F. SS % ^ I i K fi;-< - • A B A B r • IIARDCOVKK CALC III, All ON WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-250' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN 70NF A. House ____________. 500-1000' Length Width X X X ' *1. « i • B. Garage C. Driveway X X ..T« D. Sidewalk I. I I X X E. Patio/Deck « • F. X Landscape _______ Underlain * * By Plastic _______ X X X Ct. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ________________-i- B X too » PROPOSED HARp^OVKR IN yntSlir A. House Length Width X X X .%« I B. Garage C. Driveway ft X X ___ ^ • »»• D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^_ _ _ _ -;• B X 100 = /g/^7 /a/7 ' t f Mix S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.V V . *;.•/ S.F. S.F. S.F. . f ^ S.F. S.F. • A • • V- t • ' :r S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. *rt^ ••vv “cj 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 1 n :) City of OROIVO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2860_________ A SBSOLDTION GRANTING A VARIANCB TO MDNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 « 2 FILE #1574 WHEREAS, James and Sue Ronald (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 2565 Dunwoody Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Exhibit A, Attached, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 to permit the construction of room additions and a swimming pool, both of which encroach past the defined average lalceshore setback line, and which comprise additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone over and above the normally allowed 25% hardcover in that zone. HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota ; FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #15'^4. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family La)ceshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 20, 1990 and on a vote of 5 to 0 recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings; a. The proposed 4' addition to the side is lower in elevation than the neighboring residence on that side, and additionally there is existing vegetative screening such that no existing lalce views enjoyed by the neighboring property owner will be encroached upon. b. Lilcewise, the proposed 2' expansion of the lakeside wall of the house and the raising of a portion of the house in it*s existing footprintr will have no significant impact on neighbors views of the lake. Page 1 of 5 "X- / / 7 /CITY OF ORONO City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2860 c.The proposed pool* while encroaching 71* oasL the Will have no impact on neighbors views of the lake. s.f. Applicant proposes removals of approximately 927 s.f., hardcover to 35.6% from the pre- existing 37.5%. Planning Commission’s review of the application indicated that the proposed pool would likely have some additional hardcover after it was moved a few feet overhang setback. Applicants noted that if that occurred, there was additional hardcover Zu plastic, and driveway, that could be removed so that hardcover would never exceed 35.6% in the 75-250* zone. il 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 community°^°^^'^ variance on the health, safety and welfare of the 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this Kit and do not apply generally to other district; that granting the variance oSL affect traffic conditions, light, air nor P azard or other danger to neighboring property; would serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is PJ^®serve a substantial property right of the would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS «r-a«4. Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision permit the construction of proposed additions and pool, which additions and pool encroach past the defined average lakeshore setback *1° cement is normally allowed, and which comprise ”-250' zone above the 25% hardcover normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 ^0 / ,7 • • CITY OF ORONO City of ORO]>JO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2860 1. Construction of room additions shall adhere to the site plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit B, Any revisions to that plan will require further review by the City. 2. The average lakeshore setback encroachment by the pool shall not exceed 71'r and in no case shall the pool extend into the 0- 75* protected lakeshore setback zone. Further, the pool when constructed shall be placed such that the pool water surface is at least 10' from any other overhanging structure or decks. 3. Hardcover on the property is approved at a level of 35.6% in the 75-250' zone. The applicants are advised that all allowed hardcover approved with this variance approval is recorded in the calculation worksheet and diagram enclosed with this resolution as Exhibit B. The current property owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the currently approved level and any proposed improvements of this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal as a condition of this resolution must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. 4. 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 (August 27, 1991). 5. 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. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 J')\-4 S. CITY ' . . OF ORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1688 4. The City Council has considered this application including 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 net 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 Copiprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Cole Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a deck which will increase hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone from 6,898 square feet (or 24%) to 8,044 square feet or (29%) where only 7,018 square feet (25%) is allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. The hardcover allowed by this variance is in excess of the 25 percent allowed in the 75-250' foot setback zone. The applicant is hereby advised that the City will not approve any future improvements that result in additional hardcover, and that if such improvements are proposed, that they be counterbalanced with the removal of existing hardcover. 2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 15, 1985). page 2 of 4 City of OROIVO V V« • » ^ - . , vlCITY. llORpNOj^j RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1688_ _ _ _ _ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 - FILE #857 WHEREAS, Jerry Nelson (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 2565 Dunwoody Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Lot 11, Block 8, Townsite of Langdon Park, and that part of Lot 12, Block 8, Townsite of Langdon Park lying northwesterly of a line described as beginning at a point in the northeasterly line of Lot 12 distant 39.5 feet southeast from the most northerly corner of said Lot 12? thence southwesterly parallel with the northwesterly line of Lot 12 a distance of 188 feet; thence deflect right 8 degrees 35 minutes a distance of 147 feet more or less to the shore line and said line thereby terminating; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a deck which will increase the hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone from 6,898 square feet (or 24%) to 8,044 square feet (or 29%) where only 7,018 square feet (or 25%) is allowed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1, This application was reviewed as zoning file #857. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 17, 1984, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings; a) All setbacks of the zoning district will be met b) Overall hardcover on the property including the proposed addition is 8,884 sf where 10,740 sf would be allowed at maximum development. page 1 of 4 k To:Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission From: Date: Michael P. Gaffiron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator /)^ June 11,1997 Subject:#2240 Jim Waters/LGA Investment Group, XXXX Wildhurst Trail - Sketch Plan Review for Proposed Subdivision - 2 Additional Concept Plans Zoning District: LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre, sewered (13 ac.±) RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered (15 ac. ±) Total Area = 28 ac. ± List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - Letter from Schoell & Madson 6/11/97 Concept Sketch 3 Concept Sketch 4 Planning Commission Minutes of May 19,1997 Zoning Code Section 10.32 - PRD Planned Residential Development Memo & Exhibits of May 16,1997 This item was tabled at your May meeting so that applicant could submit additional concept plans vkdiich address preservation of open space and woods, perhaps via some single family clustering, as well as a number of other issues raised by Planning Commission. Applicant has submitted two additional concept plans. Concept Sketch 3 includes 19 lots averaging 0.97 acre in area and 140' width, with a 3.8 acre open space outlot adjacent to the park area. This sketch also contains a number of'undisturbed areas' around the perimeter. This plan avoids developing some of the more difficult steep slope areas. Concept Sketch 4 provides for 28 lots averaging 80' in width and typically around 1/3 acre in area. This is a linear clustering effect, leaving significant long, narrow blocks of open space along the north and south boundaries of the property. As noted by applicant's engineer, both sketches include a corridor for potential future road connection to the north. This will potentially provide for better emergency access and general traffic circulation, given the potential 3/4 mile length of Wildhurst Trail with no secondary route in or out. % Both concepts would require municipal sewer, MUSA boundary amendment. Comprehensive Plan amendment, and rezoning. Both would have to be reviewed as Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) per zoning code section 10.32. Neither plan provides a secondary, northerly access to the park land, and neither provides potential access to the Hennessey lot from the north. On the plus side, this yields less potential negative #2240 - Waters Sketch Plan June 11,1997 Page 2 impacts on the park. On the minus side, it yields less flexibility as to options for accessing the park or Hennessey properties. Staff has found no additional clues as to the reasoning behind the current MUSA boimdary, except that it matches the zoning district boundary created in 1975. Staff still believes that this group of properties can only be developed to the currently zoned densities if sewer is provided. Applicant should define the type of housing envisioned for each of the concept plans. Both are single family home oriented, but the smaller 80 ’ wide lots of Sketch 4 provide less flexibility in design. Park Commission Review The original concept plans (1 and 2) were reviewed by the Park Commission at their June meeting. While no concensus was reached as to whether land dedication should be required as opposed to a park fee. Park Commission did encourage the use of clustering to preserve blocks of open space. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should review the 2 new concept plans and provide applicant with direction regarding: - Whether proposed overall density is acceptable - Whether proposed general lot layout and sizing is acceptable - Whether Planning Commission would support a rezoning and MUSA/Comp Plan amendinents to accomplish either plan - Whether the open space preservation as proposed meets with Planning Commission's goals for this area - Any other development items that should be addressed Note: This item will be presented to Park Commission again at their next meeting, and also will be scheduled as a sketch plan for Council review at its next meeting. Schoell St Madson, Inc. EnginsBrs • Surveyors • P/enners So// Testi/ig • E/iv/ronmentel Services 10580 Wayzata Boulavard, Suite 1 Minnetonka, MN 55305-1525 Office 61S-S4B-VB0 1 Fax B18-54B-S085 June 11,1997 received Jl/N I 1 1997 Mr. Mike Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Cityof Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 CITY OF ORONO Subject:Highview Lane Site LGA Investment Group Inc. Dear Mike; Enclosed are three copies each of concept sketches 3 and 4 for the Highview Lane site. One 1 r x 17" reduction of each plan is also enclosed. These are submitted for concept plan review. Concept sketch 3 consists of 19 lots with a minimum lot width of 140 feet. This also shows a 3.8 acre open space area on the steep slope adjacent to the park and an outlet on the east side which is intended to be a common area shared by all lots. The plan also shows rear lot areas which are to be left undisturbed. The average lot area is 42,300 square feel Concept sketch 4 consists of 28 lots with a minimum lot width of 80 feet. This concept is intended to show a clustering of the units with large areas of park and common open area which would, in general, be left undisturbed by developmenL This development would have a homeowners association responsible for all exterior maintenance. Both plans show right of way for a street connection north to West Branch Road. Both concepts are dependent on extension of munidpal sanitary sewer. Please contact us with any questions. Very truly yours. SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. Kenneth Adolf KEA/cj cc: Jim Waters, LGA investment Group, Inc. COnej' /fO (l/ciftys Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer I /T ?A V Ijlj’ll*5h ??S5 I?S* nil*r!ihi h l\ I-i m I 8 M \A - Sq O s a 1 o f i 3 r- • • 2 ^ a a ofi }i i s r (/) ^ ; p § • o * is!-! \ - m:o o > oz^ » m </> Hsmz H e oao zm (O(O vj :o8i-n Q Oozom o U 3 H O _ (/>z ^ X =* m CO P m * mz o m \\' > ! a fii- y y ill'■V m ,?>-i »t!i IE.$l l.\111 11 ]1 mMm / >:^/Zy / \ N \ \ •* I V mwm •Jv. "-a«5Pr 1/ WMMlM <V /I '/>^//^' • •A ■m% ;.m // .vvr2; y\ / StW-M •<'/' y A A7. • / :^/ D! c oH §5 CO•«>nm O OH ill IN? ifi 'Vv l' ><w ?on ^ 00 <«4 9. VA U»J3 — o*^**’***^'^* ’*'*'^— a H 8;us ^ i* U4 • KJ ^_ . . . *! » a 6 £ S s S & * a S » v> * iissigggsiigs^iiig^ o > » f»i > roH > 50w > (/) :/)O ! ( !■ ( * . ^ ^1 111 ^ llf « f « iillf ^v\ iS5l u \ ^}m/M//^ iOSSi y / / ^ N\ / ^ !P ^'^\\\V\W \ \ \ \ l ^ I !J !I^/I^i/^^\\\\\A\\\ V /7?/i n r r \ « \ IV iirnm / .s I / imms W/M W0 fi V Nf 'W,.. 'Wi —* V *' TV N * ' \\\ ■ VT'riSS^T^x^^y^x'' 4V M' ■mm. 1 ^ '.?\ /r^ d%N \%VL V/ \ ^‘7/min / Mini; 7A V 1 1lj fell iswui ■>S3i*.ii^ «: * j -()- a ^2 - 3aO “ ifm - o «4 A ^ M mill-i X Ori P i 3 ^ d Cl O i III i -lis V. o zn;o o > ^ o7 T3dm m mcn H Smz H > Oao Hc X 1% n 7i V PIo oozo"s 2 CO P S 5rri z Ho X z> PI \ 5 *T* :S m Hm /-V~^vvwi»^ ‘ WwX ^ \'K«\1 \ ^JJiWm ^'V v -C:l»a \ \ \ 7J i.a. / \ / \\ M/’y,1 1 .L II I iSZTu / X ^ \ \ A '. 'iilwS.'T I ! < iliilL^IA^F^l\i VmBuu^'f ffSiftii gi! I r ■L I" 'll/ II mrnP ml 6arr M v.j \ »CdT^ yy / \/^ yyh/'y ! II Fli , III' IJi!11 WIMM m 3 i fes NJ /• N 'V fy ✓ , n 'yrw^. II II minutes of the orono planning commission meeting HELD ON MAY 19,1997 (#16 - #2239 Jim Waters - Continued) Gafifron noted the following areas requiring direction: 1) Garden Lane is a pubhcii^t- of-way so would become a public road; 2) the public road would extend to the cul-d^sac as it is in 8 sewered zone; 3) drainage and grading would require the applic^ to wth the City En^eer and Schoell and Madson and conader off-ute ponding requiring permission from the MCWD. Gafifron said there were no designated wetlands on the property. The lots would use private weUs. The developer would pay to lun sewer to the lots m addition to connection charges. Drainage easements would be required. Park impacts require discussion. Gafifron questioned how access is to be gained to HennessQ^ property. McMillan suggested a private driveway. Gafifron indicated tins option inay not be appropriate as it would require going throu^ the open space. A possible swap of land has been suggested as a way to solve the Hennessey lot problem. McMillan asked that the sketch plan be reviewed by the Park Commission. Gafifron was informed that the Planning Commission had no concerns with the subdiviaon as proposed. (#17) #2240 JIM WATERS, EGA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., WILDHURST trail - SUBDIVISION/SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Jim Waters was present. Gafifron reported that tWs proposal includes three groups of property, the Van Sloun, two SoUner lots, and Morgart property, totaling of 28 acres. A portion of the property is zoned LR-IB, uwa acre, and a portion is zoned RR-IB, two acre. The MUSA line follows the zoning boundaiy. This presents an issue with possibly chan^ng the comprehenave plan to the two acre to one acre zoning and the need for a MUSA amentoent for sewering the two acre properties. The proposal calls for a 17 lot subdiviaon with 1-^ acres average per lot served by an extension road from Wildhurst TraD. The proposed road would extend north and west, with a driveway serving the back of a few lots. Gafifron indicated it could be argued that this would result in through lots with two paraUel roadways and requiring a conditional use permit for accessory structure. The use of Mghwood Lane to Garden Lane and Wildhurst is not a safe access option due to steep slopes. Gafifron indicated that the lots generally meet the 200’ lot width requirement for two acre zoning. At an average of 1-1/2 acre lots, this would place a large number of homes m m area where homes have not previously been located. They would also be located near the park land and might possibly change the nature of the park MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19,1997 (#17 - #2240 Tun Waters - Continued) Another issue is the length of the road system. There would be one way in to the homes with no additional way out creating a possible public safety issue with the cul-d^sac and Wfldhur't greatly exceeding the 1000' limit. There is a pos^ility for a connection to West Branch, though it is not the applicant's intention. If this connection is not permanent, it pos/ibly could be used by emergency vehicles. There are also topography issues to con^der. Lindquist questioned why the need for a long driveway with parallel roads. Gaffron said it was due to the steepness of the property. Waters indicated that he and residents would not desire fiont walk-outs. A change would require retaining walls and loss of trees. Aesthetically, this proposal would give the impression of traveling down a country lane as the homes to the south would not be viewed until you swing southward. It would also give the impression of two acre zoning according to Waters. Lindquist asked for comments regarding a road to West Branch. Waters referr^ to drawing C-2. This option shows a development not requiimg rezoning. While it proposes the development accessing through Garden Lane or Hi^view, it does not address the issue of the passive park and low traffic. Waters says drawing C-l addresses these issues while maintaining the country feel of the property. He noted that Wildhurst access would increase the length of the cul-de-sac by 1800'. Waters said an approach from West Branch would be satisfactory ifa lot is not lost. He indicated he would provide an casement. If service vehicles are an issue. Waters said it would probably require a hard road surface. Waters said it could become a service lane only. A gravel road could be used down Garden Lane to serve the Hennessey lot. Lindquist noted the problem with both one acre and two acre zoning. He felt establishing all one acre zoning might not be accepted by the neighbors. Gaffron indicated the re zoning would change the number of lots by only one lot. He indicated the zoning change would be sewer driven, not neighborhood driven. Gaffron said it was his opinion that the property is undevelopable with septic systems as there are limited rites. He feels H is lo^cal and reasonable to bring this property into the MUSA and not change the zoning. McMillan said she would consider possibly exchanginB *ots but did not feel it would be a good policy to do as suggested. She inquired what the gain would be. Gaffron said the gain would be the ability to develop the property. He noted lots 12-17 (Van Sloun and Morgart properties) without sewer arc not buildable. If changed to sewered lots, there would be 4-5 lots on the Sollner property, possibly two on the Van Sloane property, 2-3 on the Morgart property, with three additional lots to the east. Schroeder noted that this assumes the Met Council will agree with chan^ng the MUSA line. MINUIES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19,1997 (#17 - #2240 Jim Waters - Continued) Waters indicated that drawing C-1 was not rdevant but 02 is rdevant. The issue then becomes sewer. He suggested a communal sqjtic system. Gaffion informed Waters that he did not bdieve the City would approve that scenario. McMillan smd she b concerned with increaring the density. GafiB^n agreed that the number of lots have been increased to 21-22 lots. McMillan did not believe the Council would recommend adding the property to the MUSA. Hawn asked the applicant if he would consido* clustered houring noting it would create an esqumse to the pa^ land and still allow for expenrive houring. Waters questioned whether people would purchase thb type of housing. He noted it would still reqiure modification to the MUSA. Chrb Morgart, noting the lustory of proposals over the years for the properties, siud the MUSA bound^es currently do not make any sense. He did not believe the added housing would increase the drainage to the ravine. Gaffiron stated that the key to this application is a change to the MUSA John Hasselbalch, Realtor, noted problems with a roadway to the park land. He felt it was lo^cal to make the lots one contiguous development winding down Wildhurst Trail. The land to the east is steep. Access to the west would require condemnation and there are no plans for access to the north. He noted the Morgart property is cut off fix>m access to the north because of wetlands. McMillan adeed if the sewer units are available. Gaffron said the capacity or number of units b not the issue if the MUSA change is approved. Berg questioned whether there is the potential for the Met Council to approve such a change. Gaf&on indicated there was as it is based on merit. Gaffron suggested the property be visited during the Park Tour. Gappa said he would make that arrangement. Schroeder and Smith said they both would like to see clustered housing. The application will be reviewed by the Park Commission on June 2. Stoddard asked for additional information r^arding lustory of the MUSA The application will again be presented for review on the Planning Commisrion’s June 16 agenda. 1 \ S 10.31 F. There shall be no setback exceptions permitted for any horizontal building addition or hardcover increase of any kind within 75 feet of the shoreline or within 26 feet of any wetland. i.... ^G. There shall be no setback exceptions permitted without a Council approved variance in cases where any existing building is being reolaced by a new building, or where the proposed addition, remodeling' and/or renovation work constitutes 50 percent or more of the assessor's fair market value for the existing building. In these situations, the new work shall conform to all required setbacks. H. The exceptions authorized by this Subdivision apply only to setback requirements and do not authorize variance of any lot area, hardcover, building height, building area or any other zoning or building code performance standard. Subd. 19. Future Amendments. The "RS” District regulations adopted by this Section represent an innovative attempt to solve the unique problems relating to historic use and previously platted substandard lots on the islands while at tne same time assuring the property owners of continued reasonable use of their property. It may be found by subsequent City Councils that this Section was not restrictive enough to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and that new development potential granted to property owners by this Section may have to modified. Therefore, no new development rights granted by this Section shall be deemed to be vested property rights but shall remain subject to future modification by the City. Source: Ordinance No. 246 Effective Date: 1-13**83 SEC. 10.32. PRdJ planned RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. -n Subd.^.''' Purpose. This plan is available to land subQ^vicieirs—stfbject to Council approval, as alternative to standard minimum lot size subdivision of land. The purpose of this pla*^ to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservawion or natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of City residents. Subd. 2. Submission of Plans. Land owners may submit land subdivision plans for any "R” District without minimum lot size requirements for each building lot, provided tha the total number of building lots, or dwelling units, shal exceed the number- of such lots or units permissible minimum lot size requirements of the zoning district or discri in which such land is situated. ORONO CC 330 (4-1-84) S 10.32 Subd. 3. Council Discretion. The dwelling units permitted may be^ at the discretion of the Council and subject to the conditions set forth by the Council, in detached, attached or multiple family dwelling structures; subject to the limitations provided for in each zoning district. Subd. 4. Open Space, Etc. The dedication, ownership, use and maintenance of open spaces created by the application of the Planned Residential Development shall be subject to conditions deemed necessary by the Council to assure the preservation of such open spaces for their intended purposes. Subd. 5. Dedication of Open Space. The dedication and ownership of such open spaces may be through: (1) Homeowners Association; (20 Landlord Maintenance; (3) Special Service District; (4) Municipal Ownership; or (5) any other method deemed appropriate by the Council to accomplish the purposes of this plan. Subd. 6. Site Plan. The proposed site plan, including location, spacing and basic design of proposed buildings, street and parking plans, water and sewer (public or private) plans, and plans of open space available for park or recreational purposes, shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission and the Council. Subd. 7. Hearings. The Council may direct th::t a public hearing be held to review such plans. Subd. 8. Final Approval. Final approval shall not be granted until all conditions set by the Council are met; and, further the Council shall not approve any such Planned Residential Development prior to the legally binding establishment of the open space dedication, ownership and maintenance provisions, such provisions to be guaranteed by bonding or other means satisfactory to the Council. Subd. 9. Subdivision Requirements. All provisions of subdivision procedure established by the City Code except as modified herein above, shall govern applications under this plan. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 (Sections 10.33 through 10.39, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 331 (4-1-84) n- To:Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission From:Michael P. Gaf!ron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:May 16,1997 Subject:#2240 Jim Waters/LGA Investment Group, XXXX Wildhurst Trail - Sketch Plan Review for Proposed 17-Lot Subdivision Zoning District: LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre, sewered (13 ac.±) RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered (15 ac. ±) Total Area = 28 ac. ± Application: Applicant has filed a sketch plan for a seventeen lot subdivision involving 8 tax parcels comprising approximately IS acres located within the RR-IB zoning district and 13 acres in the LR-IB district. The purpose of the review is to consider the seventeen lot plan that includes a long cul-de-sac road, a short cul-de-sac extension, and a private driveway to serve 4 lots. Planning Commission should review the pertinent sections of the Subdivision and Zoning Codes to determine whether the subdivision conforms to requirements of the Code, as well as to the City's park plans for the area. The following ordinances are pertinent to the review: Pertinent Ordinances 1. 2. 3. 4. Section 11.10, Subdivisions 6,7 and 8 - Purpose of sketch plan review. Section 10.24 - LR-IB zoning district standards. Section 10.28 - RR-IB zoning district standards Section 10.56 (Shoreland Regulations) - Specific sections are as follows: A. Subdivision 16 (G) - Steep slopes. B. Subdivision 16 (J) - Topographic alterations/grading and filling. C. Subdivision 16 (K) (1-5) - Stormwater management. D. Subdivision 16 (L) - Hardcover limitations. E. Subdivision 18 (A-D) - Subdivision/platting provisions. Lbt of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - Application Location Map, Including Park Properties Applicant ’s Sketch of Proposed Subdivision ^2^ Sewer City Engineer Tom Kellogg Letter 5/15/97 MUSA, Zoning & Shoreland Boundary Maps #2240 - Sketch Plan May 16, 1997 Page 2 Overview of Proposed Plan Applicant has accumulated a group of 8 individual parcels located at the north end of Wildhurst Trail and north of the newly acquired Saga Hill park properties. The parcels comprise a total of approximately 28 acres of land, most of which is north-facing wooded slopes. These are typically steep slopes, ranging from 15-25%. Preliminary indication is that there are no bluffs. Topography is a primary limiting factor in the design of any subdivision of this property. The property is partly within the MUSA and partly outside it (Exhibit F). The MUSA boundary matches the zoning district boundary in this area. Municipal sewer exists at the north end of Wildhurst Trail; however, the properties outside the MUSA are not cuurently eligible for provision with sewer. Sewer is critical to the development, however, since the steep slopes will undoubtedly prohibit septic systems on most of the site. The development would require private wells. Zoning of the site is a mix of I-acre and 2-acre zoned parcels. This presents the need for a rezoning if the development goes forward, since applicants proposed plan (Concept Sketch 1) includes proposed lots of less than 2 acre area within the 2 acre zone. Concept Sketch 2 is a 1 6-lot concept that shows how the current zoning densities could be adhered to if necessary. Review Comments 1.Zoning. The zoning boundary in this area was apparently defined in 1975 when the zoning of a majority of the City was converted to 2-acre from the pre-existing 1 acre or 1-1/2 acre. Ai that time the properties to be included in or excluded from the possible sewered zone were def'ned. Staff has not found a record of the rationale for the boundary as defined. How'ever, the 1980 Comprehensive Plan contains definitions of the MUSA boundary that specifically match the zoning boundar>' between the 1 and 2 acre zones in this area. Planning Commission must first determine whether it is appropriate to rezone the 15 acres currently zoned RR-IB to LR-IB. Possible rationales for such a rezoning might include: - Conclusion that an increase in development density wrill not be out of character wdth the surrounding neighborhood Conclusion that an increase in development density will provide needed additional tax base - Conclusion that an increase in development density will allow for creation of affordable housing or other housing types the City concludes are appropriate - Conclusion that an increase in development density will allow for clustering or other non-standard development methods that help preserve open space, perhaps via developer incentives through a Planned Residential Development (PRD). Note, #2240 - Sketch Plan May 16,1997 Page 3 2. 3. 4. however, that Orono’s current PRD ordinance (Section 10.32) does not allow for such density increases... Rezoning will require a concurrent amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. MUSA. As noted above, the MUSA boundary was established at the time the Comp Plan was adopted in 1980, based on 1975 zoning boundaries. The City has rarely revised the MUSA boundary since then, except to accomplish the retrofitting of existing neighborhoods with sewer where septic systems were failing. The notable exception is Sugar Woods, where the City allowed rezoning from 2-acre to 1-acre adjacent to the Long Lake commercial district, primarily to preserve Uees by avoiding clearcuts for mound-type septic systems, but also to avoid a potential annexation. Arguably, sewer could have been provided for a 2-acre development density. It has long been staffs contention that due to septic system limitations imposed by steep slopes, the applicant's properties likely would require sewer in order to develop them, especially the Morgart 10-acre parcel (See Exhibh B). This will require a MUSA amendment. The City would have to gain Met Council approval for such an amendment. It is unclear at this time what difficulties this might entail. The Met Council has in the past taken a less than glowing view of Orono's rural residential development policies. A MUSA amendment that preserves open space or provides affordable or life-cycle housing would likely receive a relatively warm reception. Sewer availability. Municipal sewer is available in Wildhurst Trail, and capacity for the proposed additional 17 units is available. The developer would bear the cost of sewer installation, any HR station upgrades that might be necessary, and pay a connection charge currently established at $7,445 per unit ($225 base unit charge, $4750 1970 LS-1 project charge, and $2470 LS #10 Bypass charge). Credit for previously assessed units, if any, would be subtracted from this. Road layout. The proposal calls for a linear roadway extending 1800' westward from the end of Wildhurst Trail, ending in a cul-de-sac, with an additional 600' driveway serving homes on Lots 14-15-16-17 to allow standard walkouts rather than front-walkouts. The result is that Wildhurst becomes essentially a 4,000' dead-end road, with a few side cul-de-sacs but with no secondary access. The subdivision code limits cul-de-sac lengths to 1,000' although there are quite a few in the rural area of 1200-1500' in length. From an emergency serv ices standpoint, Wildhurst is already a potential problem, and the current proposal makes it significantly worse. The City has attempted to define alternative access possibilities for the Saga Hill area. The western end of the proposed road is strategically near a potential future connection to West Branch Road, although easements would be needed as well as a reconstruction of West Branch Road for this to be feasible. • t #2240 - Sketch Plan May 16,1997 Page 4 5. 6. 7. One possible option to consider is provision of an "emergency access" to the north. If some way could be developed to make this a functional passageway for emergency vehicles \vithout hav ing it become a public traveled roadway, the emergency access issue might be satisfied, although the assumed goal of providing a reasonable transportation grid is not furthered. Ultimately, the City must consider v^ether a future connection of Wildhurst to West Branch is appropriate, both from safety and transportation perspectives. Note again that due to steep slopes, access to Lx)ts 14-17 is from a driveway rather than the road. While these lots all would have the necessary frontage widths on the road, their driveway entrances would be fix)m the rear to allow for rear walkouts. Orientation of virtually all lots except Lots 12 and 13 is intended to provide for rear walkouts. Please also review the comments of the City Engineer in his letter of May 15. He raises a number of safety concerns due to the proposed design and location of the site. F.nt standards. The majority of the proposed lots not only meet the LR-IB 140' width standard but also appear to meet the 200* RR-1B standard. Also, all lots in Concept Sketch 1 meet the 1-acre area standard should rezoning be accomplished. The average proposed lot size is 62,100 sf or 1.43 acres. Note that Concept Sketch 2 shows how the 2-acre standard could be met with a 16-lot subdivision, the average lot size being 68,700 sf or 1.58 acres. The above figures represent a subdivision that requires a number of road design variances. If the road is brought into conformance as to curve radius, number of units served by a cul- de-sac or private driveway, etc. the lot sizes or number of lots may change (See Engineer's letter). Applicant should define whether any existing residential or accessory structures on the property are intended to remain, and ensure that those structures meet appropriate location standards. Crrading. Per the Engineer’s comments, grading, drainage, erosion control, street and storm sewer plans will have to be prepared by the applicant once a suitable layout for the site has beer, achieved. Access to adjacent/nearby properties. The proposed layout provides some opportunities for access to adjacent properties, but raises questions about others: - The westerly cul-de-sac abuts the City park property, affording a potential opportunity for northerly access to the park. - The private driveway along the south side of Lots 15-16-17 could be extended southward in Garden Lane to serve the Hennessey property if the City does not find #2240 - Sketch Plan May 16, 1997 Pages another resolution to that access need. However, such a driveway e.xtension would not only bisect the 'natural area’ portion of the park, but would be extremely lengthy and from a public safety standpoint, is not an appropriate option. 8.Impact on park . By virtue of proximity, the proposed subdivision is not necessarily compatible with the adjacent open space paric area. The driveway segment behind Lots 15- 16-17 places their access next to the natural area, rather than leaving a backyard-type buffer which is prevalent at virtually all other areas surrounding the park land. Placement of homes near the south lot lines as shown on Lots 1-14-15-16-17 does not tend to complement the park but rather diminishes its open-space character. 9.Private vs Public Roads. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that 'approximately 10' is the maximum number of homes that should be served from a private road in the rural area. Since this road would serve as many as 17 homes and will be sewered, staff recommends that the road be developed to public road standards and dedicated to the City as a public road. i: Land or Fee. The standard park dedication is 8% of the land, or an equivalent cash contribution to the park fund, at the discretion of the Council with input from the Park Commission. Given the adjacency of this land to a City park, a land dedication may be appropriate. Staff recommends that this sketch plan be forwarded to the Park Commission for review and recommendation. 11.Riparian lots. It appears from the sketch plan that only 1 or 2 lots might be eligible for riparian access to Lake Minnetonka. Lot 9 and perhaps Lot 10 appear to abut the 929.4 contour which defines the shoreline. The City will not consider granting access to non- riparian lots. Summary Planning Commission should address each of the eleven topics noted above, giving applicant direction where possible, and identifying any additional issues for discussion. Given the location and nature of this proposal, staff is recommending that this sketch plan application be forwarded not only to the Park Commission but also to the Council for comment. II It ^ -» /•f • \t •4 • N .-y Application # HO Date Received y/jWf 7 Amount Paid <v CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION /AC.4y^ P ^ccc PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddress UJii AWo>^it<;T Tie.iK; 1 ^ <^A OAJO Property Identification Number (PID) See Attached Please check one - Property ____abstract or_____totiens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name 3im Waters, Vice President LGA Investment Group, Inc. City Plymouth Zip 55441 Phone fworW 595-951 1 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name •• Address Phone rtiome^ Citv Zip Phone (work) (attach list if more than one)See Attached EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size * 2»Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present use (check)Residential; no. of units / Other (specific) Present Zoning District RR-13 PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new bundling sites) ^____ Subdivision for New Building Sites __Existing Units New Units Total Units Number of Building Sites 1 O- Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size I Units per |. Acres 43.560 Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable V nd Proposed Use (check) S i ng le Family Residential _________Other (specify)_________ _L^ a 8 e ••* mc£*xn .*.*■"' ..:•?*\ • 77 ’^'•Z ■ - > MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICAtlON 1. Payment cf fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (you must obtain this list from Heruiepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Officiars Signature_________________________________ _______________________________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature________________________________________ Date_______ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [XJ those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) S230.00 Subdivision cf a Lot Line Rearrangement S350.00 _____ Subdivision Anplicatioii (Class I & II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary SuMivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing; _____Subdivision only $75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 i Totals ^SO Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class 111, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/Iineal ft.; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; lin. ft. X .50 - $ lin. ft. X .50 “ $ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x _____new tots 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 ■Die applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning-Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. ' Applicant's Signature Owner’s Signatu Date Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Comrnission 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. O Orr (Z)V. I ! : Application #1 Area Zoning MUSA PID Land Owner 5 Acres RR-IB 2 Ac. min.0711723220017 Bruce & Virve Van Sloun 8 Acres LR-IB 1 Ac. min.Yes 0711723220007 0711723220008 0711723230019 Barbara Sollner-Webb 10 Acres RR-IB 2 Ac. mia 5 Acres LR-IB 1 Ac. min,Yes 0711723210016 0711723211002 0711723210006 0711723210007 Harriet J. Morgan N K Bruce & Virve Van Sloun Barbara Solner>Webb Harriet J. Morgan 12809 Forest Meadow Drive, Minnetonka, MN 55305 17200 Melbourne Dr., Laurel, MD 20707 1003 Wildhurst Trail, Mound, MN 55364 1 MAY 15 '97 12:21 P.Ul _Quo st Real Estate. Inc. Quest Development, Inc. May 15.1997 Via Fax: ‘f73-0510 Mr. Mika Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator CITY OF ORONO 2760 KaRey Parkway p. O. Box 00 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron: Please be advised that we have fully executed contracts to purchase the parcels of land which are currently under consideration for development These are the parcels of land owned by; Harriet Morgart Barbara Sollner-Webb Bruce Van Sloun Arnold Soskin Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any guestions or concerns. Very truly yours, QUEST DEVELOPMENT. INC. Clafnes M. Waters C.0.0. JMW/lf 10700 Old CoimtyiloiMl IS • Suite 150 • Plymouth. Minnesota 55441 * Twl. 612-SSS>SSll ♦ Fax* dl3-50S*05l2 1 i r V JOHN W. HASSELBALCH BURNET REALTY Mr. Mike GafTron Planning and Zoning City of Orono May 15,1997 Dear Mr. Gaffron, I am writing you regarding iKe VanSloun, Sollner-Wekk and Morgart Properties, Mr. Jim Waters / LGA Investment Group Inc. lias signed and perfected purchase agreements with the aforementioned property owners. These purchase agreements are in our possession as the listing broker. Please call with any questions. 315 EAST LAKE STREET, WAYZATA, MN 55391 OFFICE 476-3610 HOME 472-5514 [ I VI I___kJCL a V\^ — / ? s ?5G giS ••2i 5 gg«* Tw r .la 5^ r! V'^A YlTT^r^ S V\ J \ f Hi ih^j;/' '• ' ll/_L \> r-yi~i/11, / .—\v_ / r >■ • • k’ T- sX_ isif K 'Mi I ■ ^ y* / \ j) ) -ll-l \ I 11n M )n>]i^- 4? ^fil/////^^///.^^■// / ^ / I/ •'/ iMwi mi'^iMmujii////M^Jt f/ 1 "Oro % ' « mmimii 6/0.31 ?O*4 5 ‘30*f WOWJ f/ \ n H,/./j WWWdmiLr.r^ /J MIMk m, ■■ V/^Sfc' \\ ■ — -tl % » ’. • / 4 ^\ / / w /.' . /A / / K • • AN ITAR Y I ___■rarMari^rr-'v*' -n ■ It^k i ^ m Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& |\ I Associates Engineers & Architects Bones:roo. Rosene. AnderUk and Assocuttes. Inc ts an Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer Rrmapats Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderlik. PE • Marvin L Sorvala. PE • Richard E Turner, PE • Giersn R Cook. PE • Tr>omas E Noyes. PE • Robert G Schunichi PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene, PE and Susar> M Eber(m. C PA . Senior Consultants Associate Principals Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferie. PE • Richard W Poster. PE • David O Loskota. PE ■ Robert C Russek. A I.A. • Mark A. Hanson. PE • Michaei T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenr>eth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE . L S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St Paul Rochester, Willmar and St Cloud. MN • Mequoa Wl May 15,1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Hi^view Site Sketch Plan File No. 139-2240 KiM 1 6 W97 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the sketch plan prepared for Jim Waters on the proposed Garden Lane Site, a subdivision of PID Numbers 07-117-23-22-0008, 07-117-23-22-0007, 07-117-23-22-0017 and 07-117-23-21-0002, located south of County Road 151 in the northwest quarter of Section 7. There are several issues that need to be addressed relative to engineering matters and included with the plan. 1. Utilities: The current MUSA boundary includes Lots (8) and (7) and excludes Lots (17) and (2). It appears that including Lots (2) and (17) into the MUSA area would be a logical assumption from an engineering standpoint The slopes in these areas would make it difficult to find two suitable septic sites on a two-acre lot A sanitary sewer will need to be extended north and west from Wildhurst Trail. Plans and specifications should be prepared for the sanitary sewer, with as-built plans provided to the City upon completion. Please note there is no municipal water service available for this area. Each lot will be required to be served by a well. 2. Streets: City code specifies a maximum length of 1000 feet and ten units on a cul-de-sac. All streets require a 30-MPH design speed and a 275-foot centerline radius. Neither of the two concept sketches meets these requirements. No more than two units may be served from a private driveway. Private streets serving three to seven units must be paved 24 feet wide, more than seven units require 28 feet. Public streets serving three to ten units must be paved 28 feet wide, more than ten units require 32 feet. All streets require 50 feet of right-of-way. Due to the existing topography on the site it may be impossible to meet all of the code requirements. A shorter centerline radius could be mitigated by placing curve ahead warning signs at both ends of the curve. It may be possible to shorten the cul-de-sac or liimt the number of units on the private driveway on sketch 1 by constructing another cul-de-sac south between lots 14 and 15. Or, construct a driveway within the Highview Lane right-of-way from Wildhurst Trail to lots 14 and 15. Public safety issue will need to be addressed. How will the fire department fight a fire in this area without hydrants? Where is the nearest water supply to fill tankers? From a safety and access standpoint, it would be very beneficial to make a street connection from West Branch Road (C.R. 151) to this development. 3. Grading: Once an acceptable concept sketch has been prepared, a grading, drrunage and erosion control plan should be prepared that shows both the existing and proposed contours, building pad locations and elevations, and erosion control measures to be used during construction. Plans should be prepared for the street and storm sewer construction. 2335 West Highway 36 > St. Paul. MN 55113*3898 • 612-636*4600 Mr. Michael P. Cqffivn City of OroHO Page -2- May 15,1997 4. Draini^: The drainage from the site is primarily nofth, then east toward Forest Lake. The develc^ment will need to provide some type of storm water treatment prior to reaching the lake. This could be accomplished by constructing a storm water quality pond on the north side of Lot 12 (sketch 2). The City’s Comprdiensive Storm Water Plan, which is presently being prepared, identifies the need for regional storm water ponds at this location and north of Lot 2. The second pond will likely need to be constructed by the City. This development should be responsible for reimbursing the City for a portion of die cost rftiie regional pond north of Lot 2. Final plans should be submitted to the Minnesota DNR and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review and tqiprovaL 5. Easements: Drainage and utility easements should be provided S feet wide along all intoior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway ri^t-of-ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all drainage ways and ponding areas. 6. ftnandal Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the required financial guarantee, unless the improvements will be d<me by the City. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLDC & ASSOCIATES. INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 1 f iMOLSFELD J LAKE i City of Orono, Minnesota SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT Natural Environment (NO Lakes lake Classen Dickey lake French lake lydiard lake lake Katrina Wolsfeld lake (Medina) OHWL 9743' 9853' 9303' 970.0' Recreational Devetonment (RD) lakes OHWl long lake 944.3' Mooney lake 900.0' Tahager lake 929.4' Hadley lake (Plymouth) 961.4' General Development (CD) lakes OHWl Forest lake 929.4' lake Minnetonka 929.4' Trihutanr Streams Painters Oeck Stubbs Bay Oeek long lake Creek Wolsfeld Oeck Dickey lake Creek norm mm DISTRICT BOUNDARY I 1 BASIN WETLANDS INCLUDED FLOODPLAINS To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Lindquist & Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaf&on, Asst. Planning & Zoning Adminishator Jime 12,1997 #2251 Marc and Tracy Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - Proposed Subdivision - Sketch Plan Review Zoning District: RR-1 B Single Family Rural Residential Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B - Area Plat Drawing C - Sketch Plan D - Preliminary Plat Drawings E - Letter from City Engineer - June 11,1997 F - National Wetland Inventory Map G - 'Back Lot’ Performance Standards (Subdivision Code Section 11.31, Subd. 5C) H • Msq} of Potential Highway 12 Impacts on Area I - Staff Memos and Selected Exhibits: Sketch Plan Review Memo - January 16,1991 Planning Commission Action Notice - January 25,1991 Preliminary Subdivision Memo - February 14, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes - February 19,1991 Staff sketches (1991):- Slopes > 18% - Drainfield Site Locations; 275' Radius Alignment - Possible cul-de-sac location within plat - Possible cul-de-sac loaction outside plat - Possible cul-de-sac at end of Lyman Avenue - Staff Conceptual 3-lot plat Summary of Proposal Applicants propose a subdivision to create 3 new buildable lots adjacent to their existing residence. This application was reviewed as a sketch plan in January 1991 and as a preliminary plat in February 1991. Applicants did not proceed with the subdivision at that time, and no approvals were ever granted. The current proposal is identical to that reviewed in 1991. The property is characterized by steeply sloped wooded hills and interspersed wetlands. A small (1/3 acre) pond on the property appears to be man-made but is for all intents considered as a wetland for regulatory purposes. The property is difficult to develop because the slopes and wetlands severely limit the feasible locations for septic systems. Applicants ’ formerly failing trench septic system has been replaced with a new mound since the 1991 review. < -'-IT #2251 - Whitehead Sketch Plan June 12,1997 Page 2 Access to the site is via Lyman Avenue, a long, narrow dead-end road connecting with Smith Avenue and Orono Orchard Road. The westerly paved portion of Lyman is City-maintained dedicated right-of-way; the unpaved easterly portion serving applicants home and 4 others, consists merely of unplatted driveway easements, and is privately maintained. Proposed lot area data is as follows: Dry Wetland*lolal Loti 2.0 ac 1.9 ac 3.9 ac Lot 2 2.0 ac 0.3 ac 2.3 ac Lot 3 (w/house)2.3 ac 0.3 ac 2.6 ac Lot 4 2.0 ac -2.0 ac Outlot A 0.22 ac -0.22 ac Outlot B 0.33 ac -0.33 ac 8.85 ac 2.5 ac 11.35ac •There appear to be additional non-Orono-protected wetlands on the property which have not been delineated but which appear on the National Wetland Inventory Map Because this subdivision is extensively discussed in the attached 1991 staff memos and Planning Commission minutes, please refer to those memos (especially the staff memo of February 14,1991) for detailed discussion of the following issues: A) Upgrade of Lyman Avenue B) Access to proposed lots C) Septic issues D) Lot standards Code and Regulatory Changes Since 1991 There are a number of City Code changes as well as State and Federal regulations changes since 1991 which will impact this subdivision: 'Back Lot' performance standards adopted in 1993 will require that Lots 1 and 2 meet 150% of the 2-acre lot area requirement, and 150% of the yard depth requirements. Will the City grant a variance for the extra acre to be wetland rather than dry buildable? The wetlands on the property are now regulated by the Wetland Conservation Act as well as City regulations. At least one additional wetland not on City maps is shown on the National Wetland Inventory map and will have to be delineated. The location of this wetland will have an impact on Lot 2's proposed house location. This #2251 - Whitehead Sketch Plan June 12,1997 Page 3 subdivision is subject to review by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Stormwater facilities will be required as part of the subdivision, and these will have an impact on available developable area. Staff has concluded that staffs concerns raised in 1991 regarding the need to have all 4 proposed lots served by a new 'interior road', is probably not applicable to this subdivision because it doesn't abut or directly access a major road. Individual driveways onto Lyman Avenue are not a problem. However, this does not negate concerns about the condition of Lyman Avenue. Staff Recommendation Please carefully review the memos and minutes fiom 1991. Most if not all of the staff comments and recommendations from the February 14,1991 memo are still valid. Also review the City Engineers comments in his letter of June 11, 1997. Provide applicant with direction regarding the variom issues noted above including lot standards and layout, access and necessary road upgrades, septic concerns, and any other issues of concern. 1 Application # Date Received Amount Paid -^j^sO A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPUCATI •' K-jrIT • _.i ▼ PROPERTY LOCATION Site address L'iJ7)/iX) /JUlAJU^__________________ ^ Vf • 327 ' Property Identification Number (PJD) ‘b'^- 7 ~=s- ^c/- c>cX) 3 •lease check one - Property at r t •/ 3L/C- 307 o Please check one - Property abstract or____torrens? yy-/ Attach legal description to application. APPUCANT Name Q^d T~£/1CV Ii)H Address L\J m AJ ,______Phone (home) S"Z>7 ? City (/)/q ZipT5d9/Phone(work) al CUTJ L. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _________*_____ Address City__Zip Phone (home) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size - /T".^l^P^cres Dry Land cres Wet Land^ .^0. Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL // ■ 3 V* Acres Total, all parcels ^ Residential; no. of units__/ Other (specify)_________ |g.^> 13 Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites Existmg Units New Units Total Units 3.^ Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) ;s/_____Umt^per AcreL Jf.c -Z'4> Dry BuildableLand Residential Other (specify) B C 1 SKETCH PLAN of Whitehead Property . c dir ,0i>^^^ dm jym^ dmdr p. ^»**y d>^d» jn>i^ J^m • Jk90^• dvrr ^ ^ 7~ ^ IZTJi:: *::':.*tir2 s::n\:i«n.rs ^.SI • •.># L«*><*^ u** kp»*»*» ■■■^ •* ••• jC JiiXddi^L, I^IWIF^RILA iMlI^A^iAiS !r77^;w- CHOMCCf»<} 8PJ^>^ »1«*i>r^.. . x4^xif ^ S.a/'ttTa 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WHITEHEAD ADDITION XX" ^ J9^ Xx/tr *r- XX• x^ x^^Xerex^ x^ x^y • XX9 z- 9 xfj^yx^^x S $ •/0^xy/4A^ 0X xx0^ x,x€if f^rx'M sxx rsxxxrr y» xA^xx. xyxx0^ MERILA St HTAS- GcASSOCIATES —'•—«• CMCMttnNO turMTVO PlAMMO BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES 1/11 Bonestroo Rosene &=5 Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects ©612 6361311 06/10/97 14:42 0 :01/02 NO:851 BOf^Sfroo. Auoc'«»fes »f «»n 4rf*on f47uM Opparturvtif E-^nptoytf^ Prtnc$Q4Ul Otto Q Bonestroo • Joicp^ C Ande-iii •! • MArvi*^ L So'vam • ticnertf f Turner PE • Glenn R Coofc Pi • RoC*erf o Scnur.ee? Pf • je»fy A Bourdon Pf • RoOe't W Rosene. PE And Susaa M Eoe'i«n C ^A Smio' ConscitAots AtfucfArr Pfinctp^s Howl'd A Senfo^d • <c-tn A Cordor* PC • Robert R Pfff^erle. PC • R'ChAfd W Poster PE • D av IO O lo^^ute •€ • Robert C Ruisek AIA • Mat A A Henioa Pi • M-c^AeJ T RputmAnn. PE # Ted It Pte»d PE • wenneih P Ande'ion PE • Mata R Rolfs. PC • Sidney P Williamson. P£ R S • Robert P 0//'cev St Paul. Rochester Wiiireer and St Cioud MN • Mi’-v.'oSee u*r June 11.1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 Re: Whitehead Subdivision F.leNo. 139*1619 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the preliminary plat and slatch plan for the proposed Whitehead subdivision. The property is generally located south of the Luce Line, north of Lyman Avenue and east of Smith Avenue in the southwest quarter of Section 35, and the northwest quarter of Section 2. There are several significant issues that need to be addressed relative to engineering matters and included with the plan. 1. Streets: Lyman Avenue presently exisis as a 12-foot to 15-foot wide paved access from Smith Avenue to approximately 900 feet east. From »proximately 900 feet to 1800 feet east of Smith Avenue, Lyman Avenue exists as a 12-foot wide gravel access. There is no existing turnaround or cul-de-sac on Lyman Avenue. Five homes are presently served by the gravel portion and an additional thrM hoines are served by the paved portion of the road. The present access is not acceptable from an engineering standpoint and would limit the ability to provide access for fire and emergency vehicles. If the proposed development is to proceed, we would recommend that the developer be responsible for the upgrade of Lyman Avenue to private street standards, from Smith Avenue to the driveway location of Lot 3. A cul-de-sac should be constructed at this location, requiring that the existing 8-inch culvert be replaced. Widening of Lyman Drive should be to the north of the existing alignment due to trees and existing topography. The access point for Outlet B onto Lyman Avenue has poor site distance and should be reviewed. The City code specifies a maximum length of 1000 feet and ten units on a cul-de-sac. All streets require a 30-MPH design speed aitd a 275-foot centerline radius. No more than two units may served from a private driveway. Private streets serving three to seven units must be paved 24 feet wide, more than seven units require 28 feet. All streets require 50 feet of right-of-way. Due to the existing house locations and topography on the site it would be impossible to meet all of die code requirements. A shorter centerline radius could be mitigated by placing curve ahead warning signs at both ends of the curve. A 20-foot paved surface may be an acceptable access if a variance is granted by the City. Public safety issue will need to be addressed. The fire department should review the plans and provide comments. 2. Grading: Constructing the proposed mound systems, houses, and driveways will require nearly complete clearing and grading of the property. Due to the length of the driveway on Oullot B it should be constructed to a 20-foot width to provide access for fire trucks. The grading for this driveway will likely require an 8-foot tall retaining wall. The wall should be designed by a registered engineer. The driveway 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 • Fax; 612*636-1311 BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES 1^612 6361311 06/10/97 14:42 0 :02/02 N0:851 Mr. Michael F. Gaffron City of Orono Pu^e-2- June II, 1997 to Lot 4 from Lyman Avenue v^rill likely exceed acceptable grades even with a “tuck under” garage. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan should be prepared that shows both the existing and proposed contours, building pad elevations, driveway locations, and erosion control measures to be used during construction. Plans should be prepared for the street construction. 3, Drainage: Approximately one third of the property drains directly to the manmade pond at the center of the subdivision. It is likely that this pond wouH be classified as a wetland and protected undei the current State and Federal laws. The property may have as many as five separate wetland areas, none of which are regulated by the DNR. A wetland investigation and delineation should be conducted on the property to determine the wetland limits. It appears that the development of Lot 2 will impact a portion of one of the wetland areas. Existing drainage ways along the west and north lines of Lot 2 should be defined and improved. A culvert will be required under the driveway to Lot 2. The pl^s should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review. The development will likely need to provide some type of storm water pond to meet the MCWD mles. If the manmade pond is determined to be exempt from the wetland regulations, it would be ideal for this purpose. An outlet strucnire should be constructed to control the pond levels and outflows. 4. Easements: The platting should include a dedicated right-of-way for Lyman Drive and the cul-de-dac. The cul-de-sac will require a lot split/combination, or easement from the adjacent property. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of-ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 5. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. 2>. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono m0 LIUe>H # *t »i* 4'•V 93F'>tHW. • •• •I T N‘. • ■m. *|A «v ’ ■ wc:f^MCd P06I ♦: / JlT • ^pe^p j- V'.; X \ _-^,V • -0+ i^'fj VV^.■% • •'•^* PEMCA: r fU^F <\ »£MF^ < 1 -A ,.. , ^V, <?-H! * • >, % ♦ Cd. PE^ 'i •V.' 3'^'y^ fOBFd ■'v '•••* Y^^PCMC > • f .0 I' t M r K V.PEMC 2 \ 1*PEMF 1 PU6b, ii/fe Pvi^iA V- yye>(D X* p «*y • >-), ps*v»r '•» % L2U6C? i/-PFOIC PEMC • • • • • «^ f ’^‘ * Xi"' ii <^W'HS 4 V •. • '^jt/ . .-y ORDINANCE NO. 122 . SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE AND SUBDIVISION CODE BY DEFINING STANDARDS FOR THE CREATION AND USE OF LOTS WHICH DO NOT ABUT A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROAD THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.02 and Municipal Subdivision Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 2 are each hereby amended by adding the following definitions: "Lot-Back" - A lot typically separated from a public or private road by another lot and which gains access to the public or private road via a narrow corridor. Such a separated lot is considered to be a "back lot" when the corndor is platted as an outlet. A separated lot is considered to be a "flag lot" when the corridor is platted as part of the lot. When the corridor is merely an easement over another lot, the separated lot is considered to be an "easement back lot". "Lot-Front" - A lot abutting a public or private road, across which an outlot has been platted for access to a back lot. SECTION 2. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 is amended by adding Subdivision 27 which shall read as follows: Subd. 27. Special Standards for Back Lots Created After January 1, 1994. Back lots as defined in this section which were created as part of a subdivision that received preliminary subdivision approval after January 1, 1994 are subject to the following special requirements in addition to the standards required in Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 of the Orono Subdivision Code: A. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: 1. 2. Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setback line of a lakeshore back lot, or at the front yard setback line of a nonlakeshore back lot, shall meet the zoning district width requirement. The street yard or front yard for any back lot will be a yard starting where the narrow access outlot corridor ends and the lot begins. Lakeshore back lots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line, and at the street yard setback line. 1 3. D. The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150% of the zoning district front yard requirement. 4. The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150% of the zoning district yar»* requirements. Th^ required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. B. Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created as part of a front/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area, width and setback standards, except that the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlet shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning district. C. Access requirements. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Access outlets shall be 30 ’ minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. In approving fronoTjack lot divisions, the City may require that both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlet if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10 ’ from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. No access outlot may be platted abutting an adjacent access outlot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlots for creation of a public or private road meetmg City standards. Screening requirements. 1. Driveways constructed in access outlots shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the City, at all points to the rear of the required street yard of the front lot, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yard of adjacent lots. 2. The street yard of the back lot shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the City, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. Standards for accessory structures. Accessory strucnires shall adhere to all requirements of the zoning code, with the following additional requirements: 1. 2. Accessory structures within a back lot shall be allowed no closer than 10’ to a neighboring property ’s side or rear yard. Accessory structures shall not be allowed within the required street yard of a back lot nor within the required rear yard of a front lot which abuts the street yard of a back lot. 3. No accessory structure shaU be allowed within an access outlot. SECTION 3. Orono Municipal Code Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 is hereby deleted and the following language substituted in its place: Subdivision 5. Double frontage lots, access to lots, and front/back lot divisions. A. Double frontage lots. Double frontage and reversed frontage lots shall be avoided except where necessary to provide separation of residential development from traffic arterials or to overcome specific disadvimtages of topography and orientation. B. Access from any arterial roadway. Lots shall not, in general, derive access exclusively from an arterial roadway. Where driveway access from any arterial roadway may be necessary for several adjoining lots, the Council may require that such lots be served by a combined access drive in order to limit possible traffic hazard on such roadway. Where possible, driveways shall be designed and arranged so as to avoid requiring vehicles to back into traffic on any arterial roadway. C. Front/back lot subdivisions. "Flag lots" and "easement back lots" as defined in this Chapter (see definition of "Lot-Back") shall not be created. Front/back lot divisions shall be allowed only in conjunction with the creation of an outlot to piovide access from the back lot to the public or private road. Such outlot shall not be allowed as creditable lot area for either the back or front lots. Front/back lot subdivisions shall adhere to the following standards: 1. Applicability. a. FrontA)ack lot divisions may be used when existing property dimensions are narrow and deep, such that lot width does not allow for a side-by-side lot split, but acreage is adequate to provide a "front lot" and a back lot without requiring an area variance when the area of the outlot access corridor is excluded. b. Front/back lot divisions may be used for individual "lot splits", but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely a conven’ence to the developer rather than supported by unique site factors. c. A front/back lot division shall not be allowed when any existing residence on a neighboring property abutting the proposed access outlot is located nearer its affected side lot line than a distance equivalent to the zoning district required front yard depth. 2. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: a. b. c. d. Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setback line of a lakeshore back lot, or at the rear of the front yard setback line of a nonlakeshore back lot, shall meet the zoning district width requirement. The street yard or front yard for any . back lot will be a yard starting where the narrow access outlot corridor ends and the lot begins. Lakeshore back lots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line and at the street yard setback line. The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150% of the zoning district front yard requirement. The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots • shall be 150% of the zoning district yard requirements. The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. 3.Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created as part of a front/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area, width and setback standards, except that the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlet shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning district. 4. Access requirements: a.Access outlets shall be 30’ minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. b.In approving front/back lot divisions, the City may require that both front lot and back lot. share a driveway access within the access outlet if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. c.Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10 from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. d.No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlet. e.No access outlet may be platted abutting an adjacent outlet except when the intent is to combine the two acce^ outlets for creation of a public or private r.ad meeting City standards. 5. Screening requirements and accessory struemre stancto^. Front/back lot subdivisions shall be designed in a manner such that the screening requirements and accessory structure standards of Section 10.03, Subdivision 27 can be met. 6. The requirements and standards of this section shall apply only to those front/back lot divisions which receive preliminary plat approval after January 1, 1994. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 13 th day of December , 1993, by a vote of ayes and nays. ------- Edward J. Callalfan, Jr., May ATTEST: orothy M.(l^ in. City Clerk To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson j-/ From: Date: Subject Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator January 16, 1991 #1617 G. Marc & Tracy Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - Subdivision - Sketch Plan Review Zoning District - RR-IB, Single family rural residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Sketch plan review of 4 lot subdivision. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Pertinent Facts - 1. Application Plat Map Staff Sketch Road Systems Sketch Plan - Review of Property Ownership & Total Property Area =11.35 acres + Dry Buildable = 9.15 acres + Wetlands = 2.Z acres + Proposed Lot Areas Dry Wetland Total Lot 1 2.0 ac 1.9 ac 3.9 ac Lot 2 2.0 0.3 2.3 Lot 3 (w/house)— o«.e.2.6 Lot 4 2.0 -2.0 Outlot A 0.22 -0.22 Outlot B 0.33 —0.33 9.15-ac 2v2- ac 11.35 ac *wC.2.S' At- 2."Orono Orchards" was originally platted in 1924. The vacations of Spencer Avenue and Charles Street occurred in 1968. The existing Whitehead residence on proposed Lot 3 was constructed in 1968-69. 3.The property currently exists as two separate tax parcels, the first consisting of 2.5 acres including the house, the other consisting of approximately 8.85 acres including wetlands. Zoning Application #1617 January 16, 1991 Page 2 4. Applicant proposes to create three new building sites in addition to the residence. The layout of the proposed division is a result of working closely with their septic site evaluator, in order to define available drainfield sites before drawing lot lines. The proposed division yields primary and alternate drainfield sites for each of the four lots, and indicates potential house sites which do not conflict with drainfield sites. Road and Access Issues - Please review Exhibit C, a sketch indicating the locations of public roads, private roads and driveways serving existing residences in the area. Note the following: A. The City maintains only the first 600' of Lyman Avenue, the remaining 1,275' being unpaved and privately maintained. Starting at Orono Orchard Road, the Smith Avenue/Lyman Avenue dead-end road system is 2,800' ir length or just over % mile, with no alternative access, currently serving 19 residences. B. The easterly 900' of Lyman Avenue is merely an easement road, not within a dedicated public or private road corridor. Two-thirds of a cul-de-sac have been dedicated at the easterly terminus during various zoning/subdivision applications in the 1980s. That cul-de-sac has not been constructed. The applicants are proposing that Lots 1 and 2 be served by a 30' wide driveway outlot extending westward from the existing easement road. The portion of the easement road within applicants' property is proposed to be retained within a private road outlot 25' either side of the existing center line. Applicants propose that the existing house maintain its current driveway access to the easement road through the neighboring property to the east. Lot 4 is proposed to access directly to Lyman Avenue. With this layout, applicants intend to avoid construction of an interior full-width private road and cul-de- sac for their subdivision. This brings up the following issues: 1. Given the City's history of requiring all lots to be served by interior roads, is the nature of Lyman Avenue so minor that direct access to it causes no circulation problems? If that is the case, is the proposed driveway outlot acceptable? Zoning File #1617 January 16, 1991 Page 3 2, Under the current proposal, if the future developer of Lot 4 proposed to access to Outlot B, becoming the third user of Outlot B, would the City allow that without it being a full-fledged private road with cul-de-sac? The same question could be asked about Lot 3, although there is less likelihood of changing that existing driveway due to septic conflicts. 3. The City Engineer has briefly reviewed the sketch plan and driven the existing road, and makes the following initial comments: A. Perhaps the developer should be responsible for upgrading portions of Lyman Avenue to the standard 28' paved width and construct a cul-de-sac where applicants' existing driveway joins the easement road. He notes that steep topography in the area of the dedicated cul-de-sac further east would hinder cul-de- sac construction at that site. B. Certain design aspects of the existing easement road do not meet City standards for radius of curve, hence there is some question as to whether parts of the road should be relocated. If Outlot B was widened to 50' and provided with a 100' diameter cul-de-sac at its west end, it is likely that applicants would lose at least one lot. Septic Issues - The applicants currently have a failing septic system which needs replacement, hence both a primary and alternate site have been located within Lot 3. Each of the three new building lots has both a primary and alternate drainfield site located. On Lot 2, the alternate site is 60' from a low ponding area which appears to have been artificially created by a dam or berm at its west end. If it filled up, this area would be about 1/4 acre. This alternate drainfield site sits significantly higher in elevation than this intermittent ponding area, hence staff would not expect this pond to affect the septic system or vise versa. The applicants have not completed a topograhical survey of the property, however, the site evaluator indicates that the drainfield sites meet code requirements for maximum slope and are capable of supporting 5 bedroom homes. We are also advised that the tested sites are probably the only feasible sites on the property. Physical protection of the sites as well as covenant restrictions will likely be a necessary part of this plat. Zoning File #1617 January 16, 1991 Page 4 Wetland Dedication - The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement be dedicated over the wetland in Lot 1; The low area within Lot 2 may be so insignificant as to not require an easement. Status of this "wetland" will have to be determined once topographic information is submitted. Park Dedication *- As in all subdivisions which create new building sites, this subdivision would be referred to the Park Commission for determination of Park Land Dedication, or a Park Dedication Fee in lieu thereof. Staff Reconendation - The Planni"^g Commission is requested to advise applicant regarding the following issues of concern: 1. Is Outlet B acceptable as a 30' driveway outlet, or will the City require that it be a 50' outlet with 100' diameter cul-de-sac? If so, would this road have to be built as part of the subdivision? 2. Should applicants be required to upgrade Lyman Avenue, and should they be required to obtain an easement in the adjacent property to construct a cul-de-sac near their driveway intersection with Lyman Avenue? 3. Under the current sketch plan, does Planning Commission agree with the front, side and rear setback designations as proposed by the applicants (consider east lot line of Lot D? 4. Any other concerns? X-2_ ZORIB6 FILE NO. 1617 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bayr MN 55323 HOTICB of FLMiHING COMMISSION ACTION 473»7357 Date of Notice; 1/25/91 TO: Tracy & G. Marc Whitehead 1220 Lyman Avenue Wayzatar MN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision (Sketch Plan Revie»») DATE OF MEETING: 1/22/91 VOTE: - For - Against Planning Commission recommends the following: No action required NOTES AMD SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission reached a concensus on few issues related nlat However, the general feeling was that this subdivision creates Inough additional impact that portions of Lynan to Citv standards at the applicants' expense. Subdivision Code section 11.32/subdivision 1 (A) provides for this improvement. There was no strong concensus on whether such upgraded portions should then be maintained by the City. Planning Commission left open the question of be allowed as a shared driveway for 2 lots only, or whether it must be expanded and constructed to City private road standards. Technically, if Lots 3 or 4 were to also use "“o' triggers the need for a road upgrade to private road outllt with 24 ’ paved road, and 80- diameter paved 11.33, Subdivision 4). outlot B as proposed could *>® leaving restricted so that Lots 3 and 4 can’t ever use it. Outlot B as a 30 ’ driveway outlot serving only Lots 2 and 3, rests on finding a suitable access directly to Lyman Avenue for Lot 4, maintaining your existing access for Lot 3, and upgrading portions of Lyman Avenue in or adjacent to your property to the 28' paved width required for more than 6 users. Planning Commission did not discuss the orientation of building envelopes proposed for each lot* As we discussed at the meeting, your next step should be to make a formal plat application. Please call City staff if you have questions. If you desire certified copies of the official minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Tos Planning CoDnmlssion Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson X-3 From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Dates February 14, 1991 Subject: #1619 Mark & Tracy Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Rearing Zoning District - RR-IB, Single family rural residential unsewered, 2 acre minimum* Application - Pour lot subdivision to create three additional building sites. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H “ Application Plat Map Property Owners List Proposed Plat Drawings Staff Sketch Plan Memo 1/16/91 Notice of Planning Commission Action 1/25/91 Selected Comprehensive Plan & Subdivision Code Sections Staff Sketches - Road Options/Septic Layout/ Steep Slopes Pertinent Facts *> 1. Proposed lot area data is as follows: Dry Wetland Total Lot 1 2.0 ac 1.9 ac 3.9 ac Lot 2 2.0 0.3 2.3 Lot 3 (w/house) 2.3 0.3 2.6 Lot 4 2.0 —2.0 Outlot A 0.22 -0.22 Outlot B 0.33 —0.33 8.85 ac.2.5 ac.11.35 ac 2.At the sketch plan review, it was the clear intent of the Planning Commission that Lyman Avenue be upgraded as part of this subdivision, because this development will Increase traffic on an already substandard roadway. Code Section 11.32, Subdivision 1 requires that the subdivider at his expense improve the public and private roadway to a standard acceptable to the City. However, the issue as to how far east this developer should be responsible for, is not defined because the developer does not own the property where his driveway accesses the existing private easement road. The question is, if the City requires this developer to provide a cul-de-sac (which is definitely needed for maintenance purposes) should it be dedicated from within this plat, or from neighboring properties to the east? i Zoning File #1619 February 14r 1991 Page 2 3. 4. 5. A primary and alternate drainfield site has been defined for each lot by the site evaluator. In many cases, these sites are marginal, just meeting or in some cases partially exceeding the maximum slope requirements. Three of the eight sites identified are less than the 75* required set back from the 0.3 acre man-made pond in the center of the property. To the applicants' credit, drainfield sites were tested and defined prior to drawing the lot lines. However, the extremely steep slopes over a great portion of the property, coupled with mottled soils which indicate the need for mound systems for the entire property, severely limit the development capability of the property. Two major wetlands exist on the property, both being fairly low in the topography. The westerly wetland is about 3 acres, of which approximately 2 acres are within Lot 1. The northeasterly wetland is about 1.5 acres, of which approximately 0.3 acre is within Lot 3. There is a 0.3 acre man-made pond in Lot 2. This pond averages about 60* across and about 200* in length. While the area of the pond certainly is not dry buildable land, it does not have nearly the significance in the watershed as the 2 other wetlands. This small pond is not a City designated wetland. Staff would recommend that a Conservation and Flowage Easement be dedicated on the plat only for the 2 major wetlands. There is an issue of the drainage swale leading north from the probable pond overflow location. This swale will generally be adjacent to the proposed house site on Lot 2. City Engineer recommends that a channel be designed and constructed within the drainage easement within Lots 1 and 2, in order to direct the pond drainage in a positive manner to avoid its affecting the house site. This swale will have to take into account driveway construction for Lot 2 and staff would suggest that the driveway also be designed in conjunction with this swale. Zoning File #1619 February 14, 1991 Page 3 6.Lot 4 is proposed to be served by a single driveway exiting directly to Lyman Avenue. The applicants have not defined a location where that driveway would be constructed, however, sight distance will be a key factor. Lots 1 and 2 are intended by the applicants to be served via a 30* wide private driveway. Outlet B. Construction of that driveway may have to extend outside the boundaries of the outlet because for a distance of approximately 200', the outlet is on slopes of 30-40%. To make a functional driveway in that area, either extensive retaining walls would have to be built, or one would expect that the width of the disturbed area to create that driveway would be in the neighborhood of 50' in order to maintain appropriate side slope stability. 7.Referring to Exhibit H-1, approximately 3.15 acres of the total 8.85 acres dry buildable, has slopes of 18% or steeper. While the Orono Subdivision Code excludes slopes of 18% or greater from the definition of dry buildable land, in practice, the City has rarely excluded such steep slopes from credit towards dry buildable. However, staff would note that 48% of the dry land in Lot 1 is 18% slope or steeper and 63% of the dry land in Lot 4 is 18% or steeper. Discussion - For the sake of clarity, the following issues with this subdivision will be treated individually in greater depth: A) B) C) D) Upgrade of Lyman Avenue; Access to proposed lots; Septic issues; Lot standards. A) Upgrade of Lyman Avenue After discussing this subdivision with the City Engineer and the Public Works Director, it is the City staff's strong recommendation that this developer be required to upgrade Lyman Avenue as required by Code. Due to the number of houses being served not only within the proposed plat but existing further east, the City's ultimate goal is that a 50' right-of-way be dedicated generally along the existing public and private portions of Lyman Avenue ending at a cul-de-sac further east which has been partially dedicated in prior applications. Once constructed, this road would likely be maintained by the City. As an absolute minimum, the developer should be required to dedicate right-of-way generally over the existing roadway, and upgrade to City standards the portions of dedicated roadway adjacent to and within his property boundaries. Zoning File #1619 February 14, 1991 Page 4 However, this upgrade will not necessarily meet the intent of the City's access requirements, since no cul-de-sac is yet provided and the Engineer and Public Works Director feel that as a minimum, a temporary cul-de-sac should be constructed by the applicants so that reasonable maintenance and emergency access can be obtained for this area. The problem becmes where such a temporary cul-de-sac should be located. If it is located within the property boundaries, it is likely that at least one drainfield site will be wiped out, and applicant will lose at least one lot. A logical place for a temporary cul-de-sac would be at the point where applicants' driveway enters the private liriveway easement road; but this location is on a neighboring property which applicant doesn't control. Staff has sketched a number of options for cul-de-sac locations, each of which has a significant effect on the subdivision, or on neighboring properties (see Exhibits H-3, 4 5). One additional issue for discussion is the curve radius of the existing road. As Lyman Avenue heads north, the existing curve radius is about 200-225', not meeting the 275' radius reqr'.tv'^ by the subdivision code. The City Engineer has advised that, if a variance were granted to allow this radius, the street would have to be posted with a 25 mile per hour speed limit. The ramifications of requiring the 275' radius to be met is that the easterly drainfield site on Lot 4 will be encroached upon and it likely will eliminate that site, leaving Lot 4 unbuildable. The site evaluator is currently aware of the possible alignment change and is checking to see whether the system can be shifted to accommodate that realignment. B) Access To Lots Subdivision Code Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 (B) states that lots shall not derive access exclusively from an arterial roadway. The word arterial is key, in that Lyman Avenue would be defined as a local street rather than an arterial roadway, and there is no other specific standard in the code that access must be directly to a local street. Section 11.32 requires that new roadways must be constructed, or existing private or public roadways must be improved, to provide adequate access to a subdivision. Zoning File #1619 February 14, 1991 Page 5 The Orono Comprehensive PlcUi indicates that a maximum of 3 residences should be allov<ed per shared driveway in rural areas. The Subdivision Code Section 11.33, Subdivision 4 Indicates that a private street serving 3 to 6 units should have a 50' right-of- way and 24' paved width. Interior access to the proposed subdivision therefore relies on at least 1 of the 4 lots accessing somewhere other than a single shared driveway. Although the CiLy's policy has been generally consistent in requiring a full-fledged private road for 3 lot subdivisions, the inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the standards in the subdivision code has never been resolved. If Lyman Avenue was an arterial roadway, there would be absolutely no question that a private road and cul-de-sac should be created within the proposed subdivision to serve all 4 lots. It is likely that if such a road and cul-de-sac was required, at least 1 lot would be lost. The final additional Interior access issue to consider is whether the existing house should continue to have its driveway access onto a private easement road outside the plat boundaries. This would not seem to meet the intent of the code in providing that lot with an acceptable access to a private road that meets City standards. Clearly, applicants' existing driveway accesses to a substandard private road, it being defined as a road because it serves more than 3 residences. C) Septic Issues/Buildinq Snvelopes/Site Planning Drainfield sites for each lot were tested before proposed lot lines were drawn. In many cases, the drainfield sites either just meet the setback and slope requirements, or in some cases, have portions of sites exceeding the slope limit of 6% adhered to in Orono's Septic Code. Orono's Septic Code is in some respects more strict than the current State model regulations for mound systems, in that the State allows mounds on steeper slopes than 6%. Orono's Code is somewhat ambiguous in that while in 2 places it states that mounds should not be considered for areas with slopes of greater than 6%, in an additional section it gives criteria for mounds on up to 12% slopes. It has been City staff's clear policy to consistently hold near the 6% limit, although variances have been granted to put mounds on slopes up to 7 or 8% in cases where there is a low potential for affecting improvements downslope. .! zoning File #1619 February 14, 1991 Page 6 Further, 3 of the 8 proposed mound sites are located less than the Orono Code requirement of 7 5' from a wetland area. However, there are no State setback requirements frm wetlands to septic systems except if those wetlands are part of a "public water". None of the wetlands in question meet this category. The State requirements would merely require that soil and water table conditions be appropriate for a given design of septic system at a given site. Orono has generally attempted to maintain a 75* setback from wetlands to limit nutrient Inflow to the wetland as well as keep the drainfl' i.d system far enough from the wetland to eliminate any wetland effects on that system. In the case of proposed Lot 2, a dralnfield site with the southerly mound toe being 35* from the 0.3 acre pond, the dralnfield site is approximately 3-4' higher than the probable overflow elevation of the pond, hence flooding of the dralnfield site would not be a problem. It is unlikely that the pond would have a significant impact on raising the groundwater table to an elevation where it would detrimentally affect the mound system. The other question is whether the mound will affect the pond. There is the possibility of nutrients from the septic system flowing through the ground and entering the pond. However the pond is probably nutrient rich already due to inflow of natural nutrients, and the added nutrients from the septic system would likely have an insignificant effect localized within^ the pond itself. From that standpoint, the location of dralnfield sites less than the 75' setback from wetlands on this property should have no real public health, safety or welfare impact. However, they may be a nuisance for homeowners in attempting to keep the pond free of vegetation. Soil testing on the property indicated that each of the proposed dralnfield sites would need a mound system rather than a trench system due to high seasonal water tables. The site evaluator notes that soil borings were made even on some of the sloped areas to determine whether trench systems would be feasible, however, soil conditions dictated that mounds be used. The following is a review of the septic sites for each lot; 1 Zoning File #1619 February 14, 1991 Page 7 Lob 1 — the dralnfield sites are located on a relatively flat area at the north half of the lot. These sites are about 18* vertically higher than the major wetland to the west, and are located on slopes ranging from 2 to 6%. These sites force the house to be located in the south half of the lot at the edge of the 40% slope leading down to the wetland. The house location further north on the lot would leave minimal setbacks to the mound systems and require that a driveway be constructed along the 40% slope, leaving a major cut just downhill from the primary site. Because of the steep slopes and location of septic systems, this lot is severely limited to a single buildable envelope being approximately 175* in length and ranging in width from 50* to 90*, the Planning Commission and Council allow a 30* setback from the east lot line of Lot 1. Lot 2 - has drainfield sites centrally located just north of the small pond. The primary site ranges in slope from 4% in the south end to near 9% at the very north end. The alternate site just to the west averages 6% slope. These sites are located immediately uphill from the proposed house site. Due to this, and coupled with a drainage swale from the pond being located on the west side of the house, plus the 50* rear setback requirement, this is at best a very poor building site with drainfield sites that are marginal due to site topography. A further issue with Lot 2 is that an extremely long driveway will have to be constructed to reach the proposed house location. If Outlot B is allowed as a private drive way, the actual driveway length from the proposed house site on Lot 2 to the point of access on Lyman Avenue is 650*. The State Fire Code will likely require that the driveway be provide with a turnaround, and be not less than 20* unobstructed width, hence this will make a shared driveway on Outlot. B just that much tougher to construct. Lot 3 - contains the existing house which has an existing failing septic system. Both the primary and alternate drainfield sites have been tested on this property. The primary site has a slope of approximately 2%, the alternate site has a slope of about 6%. With approximately 40* between the easterly tip of the primary mound and the east lot line, it might be feasible to relocate the driveway within Lot 3 to a point where it could access Lyman Avenue within the boundaries of the plat, eliminating the need for a driveway easement on the neighboring property. However, the sight distance for Outlot B's access point to Lyman Avenue is already minimal if not unacceptable, hence an additional access at that location may not be a wise decision. Zoning File #1619 February 14» 1991 Page 8 Lot 4 - the primary site on Lot 4 is located at the east end, and would conflict with the road if it is realigned. This site is at 5% slope, but could be pushed uphill and slightly northward if necessary to accommodate a road realignment. However, that would place the slope in the range of 7-9% at the uphill side of the mound. The secondary site is at the opposite side of the lot in the only other flat area on the lot. This site has a slope in both directions approaching 6-8% at the northerly toe of the mound. The house site is somewhere in or on the hill. In summary, the locations of drainfield sites on Lots 1 and 2 severely limit the buildability of those lots as proposed. On liOt 4, the primary site may be in conflict with the roadway if the City forces a right-of-way alignment change to meet the minimum required curve radius. D) Lot Standards Only Lot 4 contains the necessary 200' frontage on a public roadway. Lot 3 will have approximately 40' of actual frontage on Lyman Avenue. Lots 2, 3 and 4 all meet or exceed a 200' width standard at the setback from the access driveway outlet. Lots 1 and 2 do not abut either a public or private road, but merely abut a private driveway outlet. In that respect. Lots 1 and 2 are similar to many other "back lots" which the City has from time to time approved. In past cases, the lot line abutting the end of the private driveway outlet has been considered the front lot line, hence one can reasonably argue that, while the width along that front lot line is satisfied, a 50* setback should be required, yet applicants propose only a 30* setback to maximize their already limited building envelope. If Planning Commission accepts Outlet B as an access driveway serving just 2 lots, with Lot 3 being served across a private easement on neighboring property to access Lyman Avenue, and accepts Lot 4 as accessing only to Lyman Avenue, then the major variance technically is that the east line of Lot 1 should be the front, hence a 50' setback from the east lot line should be required. The other variance is for 2 new lots (Lots 1 and 2) not abutting a public road. Summary - It is staff's opinion that from a functional standpoint, the proposed lots are marginal at best. The extreme topography limits the quality and availability of drainfield sites. The drainfield sites in turn dictate the location of lot lines as well as the shape and size of building envelopes. These factors in combination create the need for significant variances. These variance Include; Zoning File #1619 February 14, 1991 Page 9 a) front setback for Lot 1; }0»Z.Z direct driveway access to unimproved private roadway not meeting City standards for Lot 3j /1,3'Z. / c) drainfield sites that do not strictly meet wetland setback or slope requirements; x>e^c>r:. • t'i r«c-. 2..3>(V d) variance for lack of approved cul-de-sac within the public or private roadway serving the properties e) technically, a variance for allowing slopes in excess of 18% as creditable dry bulldable area (the City has rarely made use of this code section, but this may be the time to use it); i/.0‘^.\*4 f) further, depending on Planning Commission's interpretation of access requirements, a variance may be needed for the width of Outlot B and the lack of a cul-de- sac for Outlot B. !(,%% <5^ . LJ I L g) Lots 1 and 2 require a variance for lack of frontage on a public road, z-o^/fjc coOtr ap Ler> Copies of the various pertinent code sections have been attached for reference purposes. Staff Recosmendation - Staff recommends as follows: 1.The developer should be required to upgrade the portions of Lyman Avenue abutting his property and within the current public right-of-way. 2.The developer should be required to dedicate additional right-of-way over the existing portions of Lyman Avenue within his property boundaries. 3.Additional land in the southeast quadrant in Lot 4 should be dedicated for right-of-way to obtain a 275' radius of curve for the roadway. This requirement should only be considered for a variance if applicant agrees to post the road at a 25 MPH 1imit. The issue of sight distance may be less significant because most traffic leaving Outlot B will not be turning left across traffic coming from the south, but will be turning right. ! ' Zoning File #1619 February 14, 1991 Page 10 4.The applicant should be required to provide a cul-de-sac or looped turnaround within the subdivision to provide for road maintenance and public safety vehicles. As em alternative, applicant should be required to provide a temporary or permanent cul-de-sac somewhere off the property for the same purposes. 5.The Planning Commission should determine whether continued use of the existing driveway for Lot 3 is acceptable, given that such approval would be a variance unless Lyman Avenue is upgraded to City standards at the point where applicants' driveway enters the existing easement portions of Lyman Avenue. 6.Applicants should be required to define a location for driveway access to Lot 4. If that access is directly to Outlot B, then staff would recommend that Outlot B be upgraded to a 50' width with 100' diameter cul-de-sac, per the direction in Subdivision Code Section 11.33, Subdivision 4. 7.If any of the above recommendation or requirements result in the need to reconfigure the proposed plat drawings, then the application should be tabled. If not, then the Planning Commission should determine whether hardship exists to grant a variance to allow the 30' setback requested from the east lot line of Lot 1. 9.Applicants should be requested to provide the following information: a) Pond drainage swale design for Lot 2, to protect the proposed house location. b) Driveway design for Outlot B, indicating elevations and sections, indicating extent of development to be located outside of that outlot. The following would be recommended standard plat approval conditions: a. Conservation and Flowage Easements for the major wetlands at the west and northeast ends of the plat shall be required. b. The standard drainage and utility easements shall be required within all lots of the plat. c. The plat will be subject to park dedication or park fees to be determined as required in Section 11.62. • • • Zoning File #1619 February 14, 1991 Page 11 K i 1 lUii - d* Tbe dralnfleld slbes shall be fenced during road upgrades and driveway construction within Out lot B. A covenant shall be filed In the title of each lot defining the location of approved dralnfleld sites and requiring that such sites remain undisturbed until they are used. ' >1 ■ M .UC.L. ■ JtU MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 19, 1991 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. w jThe O’-ono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Planning commission Chair Charlie Kellev and Planning Commission Members Maureen Bellows, Ed Cohen, Jim Hanson, Candace Rowlette and Sara Moos. ^5** absent. The following represented the City Staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Jabbour was also present. (#l)ZONING FILE #1619-G. MARC & TRACY S. WHITEHEAD 1220 LYMAN AVENUE PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Marc Whitehead irid his sucvsyor. waiter Gregory, were present. ?:C0 O..U. , and askedKelley opened the Public Ilcjaring Gaffron to make his opening comments. Gaffron displayed a sketch oc tie I.oitehead property and the existing roads and drivei/ays- Ho stated that Lyman Ayenue currently serves five hour.os w-uJ could potentially serve eight. Sr said? -The Whitehe. s -re proposing to have a total of four lots on this propertyr two of which would bs served from a private driveway outlot. It is still the Whiteheads' intention to have Lot 4 served by an access directly off of Lyman Avenue. The existing house is served by a driveway that crosses an easement and intersects Lyman Avenue." Kelley asked Gaffron to show where Cutlot A is located and asked how wide it will be. Gaffron depicted Outlet A on the plat drawing and stated that it is 25' off of the existing center line." Walter Gregory confirmed Gaffron's statement. Gaffron stated that the major issues involved with this subdivision are potential upgrading of Lyman interior lots, septic, and lot standards. Gaffron began reviewing these issues by sununarizing the information presented irhTs February 14, 1991 memo. He aisplayed sketches showin. various options for locating a cul-de-sac if it not constructed where a partial dedication has occurred. Gaffron stated that one option within the ate a conflict with a septic site. Another option would be to locate a cul-de-sac within the Whiteheads' driveway easement. He saia, "The Whiteheads do not have the right to the existing configuration of roads v/ith that easement. If this . option is considered, it would be necessary to obtain neighboring property." - 1 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (#1)ZONING FILE #1619-WHITEHEAO CONTINUED Rowlette stated that only three-quarters of the property has been dedicated for the existing cul-ds-sac shown at the end." Gaffron stated that the City would have to take a 50 foot wide outlot in order to access that cul-de-sac. He said/ "Another issue to consider is whether the applicants should be responsible for upgrading Lyman Avenue all the way to Smith Avenue. There is a precedent situation with Woodhill Avenue to the south. Planning Commission may wish to consider whether any hardships exist to allow an upgrade of Lyman Avenue to be less than what City standards require. There are some trees on the Pesek property that could be disturbed." Gaffron continued his review of the issues pertaining to this preliminary subdivision application. Bellows asked Gaffron how old the failing septic system is that serves the existing house. Whitehead stated that it was constructed in 1969. He asked if he could make his statements at this point. Kelley asked him to proceed. Whitehead stated that he has lived on this particular piece of property 22 of the 27 years he has been an Orono resident. He said/ "We have tried to plan this subdivision so that we can preserve the unique and beautiful character of this special property. I v/as present when this property was rezoned to two acres in 1967. At that time/ there was a big issue about whether or not municipal sewer was going to be installed from the Long Lake treatment plant to serve this entire area. During the rezoning hearings/ the property on Lyman and Smith Avenues was identified as a unique and protected area. One of the reasons that this area was rezoned to two acres / was to preserve the properties between Woodhill and the Orono Golf Course. VJhen we moved into our house/ there was only one other residence on the road/ which belonged to Mr. Eisencramer. Mr. Eisencramer was a retired Orono City employee/ which is why Lyman Avenue is maintained up to the driveway serving that lot. Lyman Avenue was never opened as a public road and was never authorized as such. The property we purchased is already platted. VJe approached the City and the owners of 1200 Lyman Avenue regarding a driveway access so we could preserve the trees and drainage areas. The City approved the vacation of other existing streets in the area, with the express understanding that the driveway would be located where it is now. I would now like to respond to items specifically addressed in Mike's report. First of all/ we are definitely planning to bring the - 2 - % ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (#1)ZONING FILE #1619-WHITEHEAD CONTINUED access, and we would put a covenant in the deed, for Lot 4 directly out onto Lyman Avenue. There are great sight lines and it is the most logical place for a driveway. The real issue is what should be done with Lyman Avenue. We purchased this property after it was rezoned specifically because the City had deem.sd it to be special and unique. Everybody that lives on Lyman Avenue likes it the way it is. We like it small so people have to slow down, which is beneficial to children. Those of us living on the road have never experienced any problems. In response to Mike's memo, wherein he states that the road must be upgraded, the City code requires upgrading only when it is necessary for additional development. I don't believe it gives you the power of upgrading for existing development. The additional development here is only two houses. Lot 4 has ^no affect on the portion of Lyman to which yea are referring. The road is very much in keeping with the rural character of the area. V7ith regard to a cul-de-sac, the City Code states that it shall be located at the end of a dead-end road. That is where the City has it. There does not seem to be any reason to locate a cul-de-sac in the middle of the road. On page two of his memo, Mike states that the development capability of the property is limited. In my opinion, the lots conform, and if there is a limited development potential, that is my problem. The pond on the property was dug by Harold Eisencramer and is a breeding ground for wood ducks. V7e would like to keep the pond, and I do not believe it is necessary to maintain setbacks from it because it is not a designated wetland. The pond has never overflowed during the 22 years that I have owned the property. I would next like to address Mike's comments regarding access. As he states in paragraph #6, Loc 4 is proposed to be served by a single driveway existing directly to Lyman Avenue. With regard to Outlot B serving the two interior lots, Walter Gregory has assured me that we have adequate area to conform with the Code and is feasible. We do have an overhead to show what we would do in the event we need additional land. Section Four in the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states as a matter of policy that most new rural lots will be directly served by privately owned and maintained roadways. Vie are not interested in public road or public maintenance. The Plan also states that joint driveways are allowed in rural areas wi--h a maximum of three residence per driveway. Outlot B v/ould only serve two houses and would therefore qualify under the City s Comprehensive Plan to be served by a private driveway. We would be happy to provide an outlot if that is what the City needs. - 3 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (#1)ZONING FILE #1619-WHITEHEAD CONTINUED Looking at page four, Mike comments on the need for a temoorarv cul-de-sac. I would really argue against that. I do not understand the need for it, and it would be necessary to remove a great number of trees in order to construct a cul-de-sac. Any tvpe of cul-de-sac would be environmentally damaging and may affect an existing drainage swale that runs through that area. As Mike notes, a temporary cul-de-sac may eliminate one lot. We are hoping to construct a new home for ourselves and really need three lots. I do not believe there should be concern regarding the curve radius because no one drives 30 miles per hour on this road. We would be hapoy to post the road at whatever speed the City recommends. We would strongly urge the City to give us a Variance on the 275' radius requirement. states that no subdivision shall be approved unless the area has access to a private roadway open to traffic. We do have access from a private roadway for all of these lots in a manner that complies with your Code. With respect to septic sites, Mike notes that there is some discrepancy about the allowed slope percent. Most of the sites have 6% slope, a few have 7% oi *%. I do not believe that septic sites are an issue. Lastly, I believe that the 30' front setback proposed for Lot 1 is necessary because of the topography." Dick Cornwall. 1200 Lyman Avenue, stated that hs endorses Mr Whitehead's comments concerning the uniqueness of the area. He said, "We would very much like to see the unique environment preserved. The discussion about the road upgrading and possible cul-de-sac is disturbing to us. We prefer the small gravel road. The only comment I care to make is that this boils choosing among the lesser evils. The least evil of the cul-de-sac alternatives is the middle location on the corner the Whiteheads' property. I have adjacent land that I would be willing to discuss contributing for that kind or solution." Brian Palmer, 1190 Lyman Avenue, also expressed concern can be done to maintain the character of that area should be - 4 - ORONO PLANNING COHMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (#1)ZONING FILE #1619-WHITEHEAD CONTINUED done." Howard MacMillan, 1275 Lyman Avenue, echoed the concerns raised by Palmer, Cornwall and VJhitehead. He said, "I have read that Barbara Peterson, our MayDr, seems to be interested in upgrading all non-standard roads. That concerns me. I would like to ask Mr. Vlhitehead if he has given consideration to the number of trees that will need to be removed to construct three homes and driveways on this property." Whitehead stated that only a minimal amount of major trees will have to be removed. Mabusth said, "I would just like to announce that Mr. MacMillan did quote the Mayor. That was an incorrect quote. The Mayor did not say that. The writer of that newspaper article has been so advised." Cohen stated that though he had read the material on this application, he had been unable to visit the site, and would, therefore, abstain from any discussion or voting. He suggested tabling the matter because of the number of issues involved and the different positions of Staff and the applicant. Hanson asked Whitehead to respond to Staff's conceptual drawing of a three-lot plat. V7hitehead replied, "In my opinion, the only real issue with the four-lot proposal is the road. Mike put a lot of things in here, but they are really very minor and can be solved. Our needs are such that we have to have four lots. We love the land and have tried to plan this in an environmentally responsible manner." Hanson asked, "Am I correct then to state that there would be ten houses served by a substandard private road?" Kelley said, "I will state ray position straight out. I am not going to approve the subdivision unless there is an upgrade to that road." Hanson added, "I would further that by saying I would not consider a four-lot subdivision under the circumstances. Many of the issues that Mr. Whitehead is trying to address by careful siting really arise because of an attempt to force four lots out of the subdivision." Whitehead replied, "But they comply with your Code." Bellows replied, "The lots do not comply with our Code. They require Variances and we typically do not give Variances - 5 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (#l)r.ONING FILE #1619-raiTEHEAD CONTINUED with subdivisions." Hanson stated that in his opinion, Lyman Avenue is one of the more hczarJous private roads in the City. Kelley said, "You cannot der.y the fact that there have been accidents on that corner." Bellows stated that she was almost struck by a car coming out of the V7hiteheads* driveway. Rowlette concurred that the road is unsafe, particularly when going around the corner. Whitehead said, "If the City wants to make the road a public project and upgrade both Smitn Avenue and Lyman Avenue, that is one thing. It does not make sense to have a road 16 feet in width entering a road 24 feet in width." Hanson said, "I think your point may be taken on that. It seems to me that the issue of access to the existing cul-de-sac has to be addressed." Kelley said, "If the Whiteheads develop this property it is likely that people will put in swimming pools, tennis courts, etc., and the trees will come down. The characteristics will be lost and this site will change dramatically. I would also state that I am not in favor of filling in the man-made pond. In my opinion, that i3 a designated wetland and the restrictions regarding the septic sites are applicable. I also will not grant any Variances to our Codes for the subdivision of this property. The applicant has the option of requesting us to table this .matter, but I have stated my position." Whitehead asked if the Planning Commission would w.alk through each Variance to explain their position for denial." Kelley advised Mr. Whitehead that it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide hardships to substantiate the need for Variances. Kelley stated that in this application, he sees no hardships. He said, "I think you are forcing a bad situation on a unique piece of property." Bellows added, "And you are forcing it for economic reasons. It is our responsibility as Planning Commission members to consider the safety of the c.itizens of this Community. It is up to us to interpret the Codes. You have stated all evening that the only issue is the road. For most of us up here, that is all the further we need to go to recommend denial. There is a serious problem with putting more traffic on a substandard road. - 6 - ORONO PLANKING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (#1)ZONING FILE #1619-WHITEHEAD CONTINUED Kelley stated that the City has been under more pressure to develop substandard properties. He said, "The position of the Planning Commission has been that we are not going to give into those pressures and we will not grant Variances for subdivisions." Rowlette added that she was concerned about the access for Lot 4 coming directly onto Lyman Avenue. Whitehead stated that he would like the record to include his written comments to Mike Gaffron's February 14, 1991 memo, and the City's Transportation Plan, as well as any photograph he may take of the road. There were no further comments from the public and Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 8:03 p.m. He asked Mr. Whitehead if he would like the Planning Commission to act on this application or table it to provide an opportunity to revise his plan. Whitehead replied, "I would like the Planning Commission to act on this and state their reasons so w.* have something with which to work from. At this point I have no guidance. I have no idea v;hat this Planning Commission thinks about the alleged Variances, which we deny are needed, or ever are Variances. I have no idea where to go. I am not accepting that we need to go to three lots because we comply with the Zoning Code. I think you need to make your decision. Obviously, if we v/ant to come back with a three-lot plan, we can do .hat. I do not want to be tabled in limbo with no guidance from the Planning Commission, which is where I sit right now. I have no way of even sitting down and negotiating with Staff given the current status of your record." Rowlette stated that the three-lot conceptual drawing provided by Staff was more acceptable because it eliminates most of the issues involved with Mr. Whitehead's proposal. She said, "This plan would allow Lyman Avenue to remain the unique country road that everyone likes. The three-lot plat makes a lot of sense. Just because you have enough land to create four two-acre lots, does not mean it will work." Whitehead said, "The Planning Commission has a lot of discretion. They can either take arbitrary views, or they can try to work with people to make things happen." Bellows said, "Mr. Whitehead is asking us for guidance. I believe we have clearly stated that we want the road to be improved and will not consider anything without it. Further, our preference seems to be that if you would go to the three-lot subdivision, where Variances would not be required for any lots, that v;e would then consider a subdivision of this property." t 4 - 7 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (#1)ZONING FILE #1619-WHITEHEAD CONTINUED Whitehead stated that ha may be willing to negotiate the road issues if he knew that the rest of the proposal would be acceptable. Moos stated that in her opinion the road is the major issue, but that she would not approve any Variances. She added, "Staff has conceptually drawn one alternative, there may be others." Whitehead said, "I understand where tho Planning Commission is coming from. I do not mean to lecture the Planning Commission. However, the* Planning Commission does not have the ability just to not do something because they don't like to. There are laws and ordinances. When we qualify for a Variance, certainly you have some disiretion, but it is limited. I think for you to concern yourselves with the hardship that is presented by relatively minor aspects of the Code is an obligation of the Planning Commission. If the laws allow you to have four lots, whether somebody is going to build tennis courts is not your concern. It is a concern whether we comply with the Code." It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Hanson, to recommend denial of the preliminary subdivision for Marc and Tracy Whitehead, based on there being no demonstrated hardship for the Variances requested, and that what is being proposed for Lyman Avenue poses a threat to the public's health, safety and welfare. Motion, Ayes“5, Nays-0. Cohen abstained. (#2)ZONING FILE #1570-CHUCK DOWNEY 2665 CASCO POINT ROAD CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Chuck Downey was present. Kelley re-opened the Public Hearing on this matter at 8:10 p.m., and asked Mabusth to present the information pertaining to Mr. Downey's application. Mabusth stated that Staff met with Mr. Downey at the site to discuss alternatives to the tiers of retaining walls, which were too intense and did not fully address the drainage problem. She said, "Mr. Downey is now proposing to construct a 25 lineal foot retaining wall with a height of three to three and a half feft. The wall will channel drainage along the lot line where it will then fan out toward the lake. In order to preserve mature trees and an existing boathouse in the lakeshore yard, a retaining v/all approximately 58 feet in length, and four to four and half feet high would be constructed. The City Engineer has requested that additional 'deadmen' be added to the installation of the wall to provide moce support. Mr. Downey also intends to remove the existing steps and replace them with cement pads that are three feet wid^s and would be trimmed with timbers. Hardcover within the 0-75' and 75-250' setback areas would be reduced." - 8 - I \ c- / % \ \ \ \ -/I \ \ \ \ I. \ » * \ ^ '\, II « ^ , ' ■ ' >> \ J >;:5 Cn \ \ ^, V\\ V\ ' N. N \ \\ \ • i', V-'O Jis. j^, N-* xw . V' 'X ^ \4^____ % ■ ':>' ?A 114. «Sv X ll!' i^-.«^'jv .4^ Pi7'W('m-Mfm^mmm k mWT O vo S N V- ^s y / ;/06 *1 » * off'''\\ \ \K' A »ri ‘ ! f \ n: n.^^\vvv sx V*’\ \ ^yXA'. Cn V>.\• u-<vS^'-'i'A> XXS/ \ ' \ C' •. \ ' ''V\ ' S N \\\ N k '' X \ 'K \ \\Jv '- N. s " V '■-iSSmsSir.flit ///'///;^1«_/'- 'U-^iilin xXi^ 1 'fc' ^\v^\\t N »3i V .N%\V v\%\ -1., k\ '*A >\ \ /^^ryt7 '-'fcvV'^Are .1^ 6r npfr ' «% %-i*." •• N. -y ‘ipy/yUmt r/ I'r I Ic \ \ \\ \ ^ ■%%- "<3 % \ \ f{rr':‘ A •| \v>- • :> \h • V c-/', \ t\. \ \ \ v=\ *v V\ - M ,* V N iV «\ C) n: ;^e>»%535rj % I • -/- :ii li k- “P^W V^'V*=jk Vv\'N\ V \ i-'4f V''W5i'-i\-''1 \,\va%4-" "^v\v\ \ \ k y /06}' \ \ \ 1 ^ ^ I ^ ^ s « \ A\ r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 19,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above dale with the following members present' Cfuur Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroedcr, Sandra Smith, Jaiuce Berg, Elizabrth Hawn, William Stoddard, and Lili McMillaiL The following represented the City Staff; Assistant Zoning and Planning Administrator Michael Gaflfron, Public Services IM^or Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomcren, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBUC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#1) #2165 CITY OF ORONO - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION NORTH OF TONKAVIEW LANE - 7:01-7:0* P.M. The Affidavit of Pub’Jcation and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Gaffiron reported that the application is for a metes and bounds division of property west of unimproved Garden Lane with park parcels to the cast The subdivision is in n^nse to a request from the Valek's who previously owned the tax forfeit parcel. A portion of the property is used as a yard and for their drainage system. The Valek's asked the City to separate this 1/2 acre parcel from the tax forfeit parcel so they may reacquire the property. This division wiU not affect the park property as the City plans to access the park property from Garden Lane in the future. The City feh this request was appropriate and Staff recommends iqiproval. The Valek's were not present. There were no public comments. McMillan inquired about vacation of the right-of-way. Gaffion informed her that a vacation is not part of the application. The Valek's have proposed to acquire some neighboring property and will likely ask for the vacation at the time of subdivision. She was also informed that the Valek's will most likely create one new building site in the future. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve the proposed metes and bountb subdivision to separate a half-acre parcel for potential future acquisition by adjacent property owners. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. I , ' minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON MAY 19. 1997 PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ZONING AMENDMENTS (#2) TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE - ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR ANTENNA TOWERS AND LOCATIONS - 7:08-7:56 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mating were noted. The application had been tabled at the April Planning Commission Meeting to allow for the City Attorney to advise the Planning Commission regarding this issue. A letter is included in the package from City Attorney Radio. Van Zomeren noted that the City expert retained by the City in this field. John DuBois, was unable to attend. Van Zomeren reviewed the ordinance which is the same as previously reviewed with some new language added. Van Zomeren informed the Commission of what is included in telecommunication services, why there is such a demand for antenna placement, and the types of amenna structures. Telecommunications is a line of sight technology. Vei^ors may co-locate on an amenna structure but each subsequent vendor must meet cert^ criteria to show that the structure can handle the additional antenna without affecting the other antennas on the structure. Van Zomeren said industry companies would prefer to use existing structures rather than erect their own structures due to the high cost. The ordinance would allow PCS wireless placed on municipal structures as a secondary- use in the RR-IB Zoning District under administrative permit. The ordinance would generally not allow such use in residential areas. The commercial and industrial areas would allow secondary use on municipal structures only. The structures meeting such criteria include the two water towers, one by the City Offices and the other m Navarre. Each water tower could hold up to three vendor ’s antennas. The ordinance would be a start in providing such services in Orono. Van Zomeren said additional sites can be addressed in the future. The draft minutes from the Council meeting regarding this issue was given to the Planning Commission members. Representatives from several PCS companies were present. Van Zomeren said Staff recommends approval of the ordinance noting the moratorium expires on June 10, 1997. The meeting was opened to public comment. Michelle Johnson, zoning coordinator for APT, 1701 East 79 St., asked to addrws tte Commission. Johnson said she believes the ordinance is problematic due to the limiting of antennas to the two municipal structures. While indicating her company is not currently seeking location for antennas in Orono, they will probably require one site in the City in the near future. Johnson indicated the City may not act so as to prohibit antenna placement within the City. She said the towers only allow limited space and questioned whether they can actually accommodate antenna usage. minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#2 - Telecommunications Ordinance - Continued) Johnson said she felt it would be reasonable for the City to allow antennas as a ronditional use in industrial and commercial zones. She asked to meet with Stafif and Planning Commission to discuss her company’s viewpoint in a work session in order for the City to gain a better understanding of the industry needs. Hawn indicated that the moratorium is ending on June 10. She said the ordinance could be further reviewed after passage and amended if necessary. Johnson said she preferred the moratorium be extended to allow for further consideration of the ordinance. Hawn noted that the ordinance has also been extended. Van Zomeren said the City needs to act in a timely manner. Schroeder referred to comments made by City Attorney Radio in his letter responding to this issue. It is Radio's legal opinion that the ordinance is satisfactory. Van Zomeren said the City's expert, John DuBois, who is a radio frequency en^eer sees the ordinance as phase one. Van Zomeren said she understood the need for a work session but fdt the process ^ould be allowed to be^ Van Zomeren noted she and Greg Gappa have attended a training session regarding this issue. Discussion included the need to start acting on this issue immediately. Van Zomeren said the demand for the services is not yet known and a work session could further review the uses and needs. Lindquist noted that both the City Attorney and consultant recommended approval of the ordinance. He felt the issues could be refuted at a work session. Schroeder noted that Radio indicated the City could probably prohibit ante^ in readential zomng. He noted the industry would like to have maximum flexibility but the City does not want aiitennas placed in certain areas of the City. He also indicated that service be provided from towers in other surrounding communities as well. Van Zomeren said she felt the ordinance wiU work. She noted that it may not be adequate in the future but this could be addressed later. Stoddard asked to schedule a work ses^on with the Council. Lindquist suggested recommending approval and scheduling the work session for June. Michelle Johnson saw the passage of the ordinance as a drawback. She questioned if an application is made and the antennas cannot be placed on the noted structures, the issue would require litigation. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19. 1997 (#2 - Telecommunications Ordinance - Continued) Schroeder informed her that this was not necessarily true. He said he felt the water towers would be adequate for antennas for the time being. He also indicated other communities could provide the service. McMillan asked if any assessment lias been ntade of the water towers. Van Zomeren indicated that while no analysis has been made, the consultant was aware of the height and location of the water antennas. Gappa said the consultant based his use recommendation on data indicating the four mile distance separation between the water towers and on areas of heavy telecommunication usage and high topography. Gappa said, while the structures were not personally reviewed, there was no reason to believe antennas would not operate from these locations. McMillan noted that the City, which is primarily residential, is concerned with the proper placement of antennas. Steve Mangold, US West Wireless. 426 North Purview, St. Paul, said his company has a central oflBce located south of the water tower by City OflBces. A switch has been located there since the 1950’s, which will provide for PCS services to Orono, Wayzata, Long Lake, and Spring Park. This switching station is an extension of their business and servi^, and Mangold was of the opinion that the location for providing such service should be from this cemral office of US West. Mangold iridicated that all ^Is come through this switch regardless of the company. He said it is a secure location with ^ adequate protection from major calamities. Mangold said he would like to work with the City. He would like to see a co-location pole on the switch station for overflow. He indicated his company does not anticipate further growth until later in the year. Van Zomeren inquired of Mangold how tall the tower would be required. Mangold said 90-120* depending on co-location. He indicated that drive tests have not been completed. McMillan inquired what »he zoning was for the switch station. Gaffron indicated B-1 Ron Gunderson, Sprint, said he is in favor of the ordinance with the caveat that the City would be willing to enter into further discussion in the future. He feh the ordinance would not provide for all carriers. He noted other communities which he has worked with regarding this issue and where antennas are allowed. He indicated that Sprint will be requesting location on the City Offices water tower. Smith noted that the industry is in the current stage of locating towers for ant^as. Van Zomeren said the FCC has auctioned off licensesj A and B licenses were sold in the early 1990's and C, D, and E licenses were recently made available. She noted it would be a violation of the anti-trust law to master plan locations and grid the City for best locations, co-location may occur on a site-by-site ba^s but companies may not work together. i minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#2 - Telecommunications Ordinance - Contimied) Lindquist inquired of Commission members whether they would prefer tabling the ordinance or passing the ordinance and scheduling a work session. Schroeder preferred to pass the ordinance. Van Zomeren referenced response #2 of the telecommunications act, noted in section 704 on page 3. She indicated there is a risk of prohibiting antenna location if the water towm prove inadequate b t noted that the City Attorney and consultant were of the opinion that the ordinance w» not prohibiting the service and in fact, making the service initially available. Van Zomeren did note that the switch station location would not be allowed under the ordinance. Stoddard suggested passing the ordinance and then reviewing the subject. He said he is relying on the advice of the City Attorney. Stoddard moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of the ordinwce and scheduling of a work session with members of Council, Planning Commission, Staff and industry representatives with the understanding that the ordinance may require amending. McMillan questioned the zoning of the water tower on Hwy 12. Van Zomeren indicated the zoning is RR-IB. She questioned whether there were other locations that could be opportunities for such antenna placement in the RR-IB. Van Zomeren said there were no other municipal structures. McMillan questioned what is considered a municipal structure. Schroeder suggested tabling the issue. McMfllan suggested these concerns regwding definition be expressed to the Council. Hawn suggested the wording of the ordnance be changed to "water tower" instead of municipal structure. Stoddard amended his motion. Smith seconded, to reflect this change. Schroeder inquired why the members would like to move the ordinance forward to the Council. Lindquist noted the documentation from the City Attorney and co^tant regarding the ordinance being acceptable. Schroeder agreed that the Council has the option to schedule the work session and extend the moratorium if need be. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19,1997 (#3) HOME OCCUPATIONS - AMENDING DEFINITION AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS - 7:56-8:00 P.M, The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Van Zomeren suggested to Lindquist that this item be tabled due to the need for additional information She noted agenda item #9 is affected by the home occupation licensing. Lindquist informed Mr. Holzer that his application would likely be tabled due to the need for the Comnussion to further discuss this issue. He asked that Mr. Holzer present his comments at that time. Van Zomeren said she would like to present the benefits of home occupation licensing, use of accessory structui es, employees, and zoning ordinance list of allowed occupations. This item includes many issues that will require further discussion. Lindquist suggested a work session be scheduled later in the meeting. ACTION ITEMS (#4) #2182 HERBERT TERRY OLSON, 3640 BAYSIDE ROAD - VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 8:01-8:21 P.M. The Applicant was present. Jane Olson reported that the application is for variances and conditional use permit to rebuild the existing two car detached garage in the same location. Van Zomeren indicated the accessory structure is located on a thru-lot with roads on both sides. Maintaining the garage in this location requires a CUP. The variance is for reducing the street setback from 50* to 9*. The discussion from previous Planning Commission review is included. The garage was at that time proposed for location 6' to the east but presented a problem with the sewer. Van Zomeren reviewed the three options available as well as the previous recommendation. It was noted that this proposal presents a different replacement situation but does not meet the hardship criteria. Lake views would be impacted if the garage was located elsewhere on the property. The length of the driveway is not considered a hardship. Mrs. Olson had no additional comments at this time. Smith clarified that the intention of the applicant is to rebuild the garage as is currently stands. IvffinjTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19. 1997 (#4 - #2182 Hcibcrt Tcny Olson - Continued) Stoddard inquired of the garage's ctistance from the roadway. Van Zomeren indicated it is 9' from the lot line. Mrs. Olson said there is an additional 6-T past the back-out area from the road itself. There were no public comments. Hawn stated she was supportive of the replacement of the unsafe garage noting it would have created problems to change the location. Hawn noted the applicant does not wish to move the garage to the north. Mrs. Olson indicated that it would require excavation to locate the garage and tum-around to the longer driveway off of Stubbs Bay ^ad. A paved driveway would also create an added expense. Olson said the garage is also used for boat equipment storage McMillan asked if there were any drtunage problems. Mrs. Olson said water will occasionally pool when it runs down and around Stubbs Bay Road but does not present a problem. Schroeder inquired why the garage needs to be replaced. Mrs. Olson said the concrete blocks are cracked and floor is heaved. The garage is at least 50 years old. She believes isurrent construction methods will create a more stable garage. The Olson's art coiitracting the work out. The walls will be replaced. Lindquist asked that the plans be submitted. Van Zomeren indicated the plans will be a condition of the CUP. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the replacement of the garage in the exact location with a 9' street setback and submission of plans as approved by building inspector and coinciding with current footprint and height. Sn^h inquired why the Commissioners are taking a different position than that previously taken. Schroeder responded that the concerns were attempted to be met. Lindquist indicated that the Commission usually allows replacement of a detached garage. Smith said this does not always occur. McMillan noted the need to review the hardship issue. She indicated the drcumstances do not satisfy the criteria. McMillan said tear-downs are usually required to be placed in conformity with setback requirements if adequate space is available. Stoddard asked the applicant about the cost to move the garage and sewer line 6'. Mrs. Olson said they felt the cost would be substantial. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#4 - #2182 Herbert Terry Olson - Continued) McNfillan questioned whether cost estimates should be gathered for placement of the garage near the home. Mrs. Olson said it possibly would involve moving the well depending on location and disturbing the landscaping and sidewalk Smith asked if there was an acceptable location where the well would not be affected. Mrs Olson said there was but it would require further excavatioiL McMillan asked if there were other garages located along Bayside Road similar to the applicant's. Van Zomeren said ihCTe were no large garages but some storage structures. McMillan questioned whether this replacement is in keeping with the neighborhood. Sherokee Use, 3613 Eileen Street, said she lives on the back side of the applicant ’s property and has a dock on Bayside. She noted the quaintness of the house in its picturesque setting on the hillside. She felt the garage was tucked into the hill and fit its surroundings. A change would alter the look. She noted a neighbor removed trees to enjoy the lake view. Use said the neighborhood supports the garage replacement and prefers its location. Hawn asked that the City Engineer review the plans for driunage and structural integnty. Hawn said she would have preferred to sec the plans. Schroeder asked Hawn what her concerns were. Hawn sad the cement block has cracked indicating a possible water problem firom the hillside and is concerned with the same problems reoccurring. Mrs. Olson said the problems are due to the age of the garage and settling. Schroeder amended his motion to include City En^eer review of structural and drainage issues. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 2, Stoddard. Smith. Smith noted the proposal presents a difficult decision but felt the applicant had been asked to consider a more desirable location. A location change would not affect the well or lake views. Smith does not feel the proposal is much different than that previously proposed. Stoddard said the hardships are not convincing and no attempt was made to obtain cost estimates for moving the garage 6’ as requested. Mrs. Olson said her husband may have done so but determined the cost was too Wgh. Smith indicated this information would have aided the applicant. Schroeder suggested the information be available for Council review. Van Zomeren noted the application will be presented to Council on June 9 and asked applicant to have requested information submitted by June 1. McMillan asked what would occur if the City Engineer found a problem with drainage or structure. Van Zomeren smd the application would go to the Council with that additional information and possibly may need fiirther Planning Commission review. 8 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19. 1997 (#5) #2221 SVEN A. WASBERG AND ARLENE DECANDIA, 3115 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBUC HEARING - «;21-8:37 P.M. The Applicant was present along with Architect. Michael Sharratt, Van Zomeren reported that the plans have been revised. The proposed residence will be oriented differently. She indicated there is some calculation information still required. The revised plan has pulled the re«dence back further on the lot but still encroaches the 75* setback. Side yard, hardcover, and average lakeshore setback variances are required as well as lot area, lot width, and a CUP for excavation in the 0-75* setback. Van Zomeren said the applicant and architect met with Staff regarding concerns. As a result, there is a 450 s.f reduction in hardcover and the residence will be located 16* further back from the lakeshore. A smaller turnaround area is planned. The applicant indicated the first floor will be 1200 s.f Mike Sharratt corrected that amount to 1305 s.f of occupied space (not including garage) noting the current residence exists at 1375 s.f The neighboring home to the east is located 54' away with trees masking the view. Lindquist noted that the neighbor to the east had originally objected to a second story. The applicant said the second story is built into the roof line and this neighbor's home is also a two story. The two-car garage will be increased about 500 s.f from 20'x24' at 1800 s.f located behind the 75* setback. Sharratt noted two different schemes were presented. Proposal A would have 32.87% hardcover; current proposal B is 32.89%, and 28.72% with a short driveway. The total finished area is 2400 s.f with two stories and no basement. The soil requires the home built on pilings placed 35-50* deep. Other homes in this area also are on pilings. The current residence shows signs of a^ng and deterioration. The architect said he recommended removal of the existing residence as the foundation would not hold a second story or possibly further improvements. There were no public comments. Hawn inquired alout the traffic pattern for the property. Sharratt explained how the driveway would operate noting its minimal amount. It was suggested the City Engineer review the driveway. McMillan was informed that the side yard setbacks would be at 4* on the east and 6* on the west. The current residence is at 1.5* on the east. I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#5 - #2221 Sven Wasberg - Continued) Lindquist noted that the applicant is allowed 1500 s.f. minimum for principal structure and garage. Sharratt noted this amount is determined by lot area which will allow for 2500 s.f meeting structural coverage requirements. Schroeder noted the lot configuration as the hardship. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2221 with conditions as noted subject to submission of large set of plans. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#6) #2230 GEORGINA HACKNEY, 2184 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:37-8:39 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application was sent back before the Planning Commisaon due to an additional variance required for a porch. The Planning Commission previously approved the variance for the kitchen with interior staircase. The hardcover will increase from 25.1% to 25.8% in the 75-250’ setback to allow for a front entry and kitchen addition to the existing residence. A side yard variance is also required. The plans for the improvements are part of the package. The applicant had no further comments. There were no public comments. Stoddard clarified that the only difference in this request is the porch. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2230. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#7) #2231 EVAN ANDERSON, 1260 SPRUCE PLACE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:39-8:42 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that it was difficult to determine whether a variance was required. The 75-250' hardcover variance is for a fi”ont porch over an existing concrete slab. The applicant clarified that it was actually a roof over the front entry stoop and wording was changed to reflect that notation. MINUTES OF THE ORONO H-ANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19.1997 (#7 - #2231 Evan Anderson - Continued) There were no public comments. Stoddard noted the necessity of having a covo-ed entry during the wintor months. Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2231. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#S) #2232 WOODSMITH, LTD., 1520 FOX STREET - VARIANCES - PUBUC HEARING - 8:42-8:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Muling were noted. The /^plicants, Allegra and Paul Parker, were present. Woodsmith, LTD., is the contractor for the application. Van Zomeren reported that the property address b Fox Street but access is gained firom a private road. She indicated the property is an unusual shaped lot The proposal is for enlargement of the master bedroom for additional closet space and rearrangement of bathrooms. The floor plans and elevations were shown. The proposal requires a ? ide yard variance fi’om the 30’ requirement in the RR -IB Zoning District. The existing structure does not meet that requirement and the improvements cannot be located elsewhere. Van Zomeren indicated Staff recommends approval noting acknowledgment letters received fix>m the nughbors supporting the improvement. The applicants reported that they recently purchased this property but have lived in Orono for 34 years. There were no public cotiments. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to iq)prove Application #2232. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#9) #2233 WALTER HOLDER, 1130 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:45-8:59 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#9 - #2233 Walter Holzer - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the applicant is seeking a height variance to allow for construction of an accessory structure that would provide storage for his business, an office, and bathroom. There is considerable distance between the residence and proposed accessory structure. The applicant has also applied for a home occupation license. Code requires an accessory structure to be the same height or lower than the principal structure. The residence was built in the late 1800's and is short in stature. Van Zomeren noted that the principal structure docs not have an attached garage. Van Zomeren agreed that the height variance makes sense but resolution of the home occupation license must first occur. Lindquist informed the applicant that no action will be taken on this application due to the home occupation licensing issue. He asked for applicant's comments. Hotzer said the distance between the two structures is to maintain the chruaaer of the house which has a shallow pitched roof. He would like to add on to the home at some time in the future. Lindquist noted that a bathroom is also not allowed in an accessory structure. Holzer said he is self-employed and would also use the space for ffisplayiitg of a collection and office. The main purpose is to store his plumbing equipment. Lindquist informed Holzer that he would probably have a problem with running the business firam his home. Holzer question^ where the line is drawn from that of a s^es person uang garage for storage of business items. Lindquist advised Holzer to attend the work session regarding home occupation. Smith noted that if the applicant was using the space for storing cars it would not present a problem. She noted the number of oversized garages and guest houses in Orono. McMillan noted that economic hardship is not a valid reason for requesting a variance. Stoddard indicated that the work session wili re\new the differences in how people now conduct business. He noted that aesthetics and use are key issues. He asked how large the accessory structure would be. When informed of the size, 1200 s.f, Stoddard si uod a variance would be required fi’om the 1000 s.f allowable. Lindquist reported that the two issues are the size of the accessory structure requiring a CUP and home occupation license. Van Zomeren said the application requested a variance approval only and the CUP would have to be reviewed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#9 - #2233 Walter Holzer - Continued) Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2233 to gather additional information and further discuss the home occupation licensing. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Van Zomeren will notify applicant of time and date of woric ses^on. (#10) #2234 DOUGLAS E. WALDOCH, 4215 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE - PUBUC HEARING - 8:59-9:02 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District requiring one acre lots. The property is substandard at .664 acres and at a lot width of 56* at lakeshore and 95* at front setback, where 140* is reqiured. The applicant proposes to remove and reconstruct a new readence which will reqiure a lot area and width variance. The location will improve the garage location, street setback, and structure's proximity to side lot line. Van Zomeren indicated that Staff recommends approval. The applicant had no comments. Schroeder asked if the new residence is the same size. Van Zomeren siud it was not calculated as no variaiK:e is required. South noted that the proposal is for a two-story residence in contrast to the current one story. Van Zomeroi indicated the neighbors have voiced their support of the proposal Smith questioned whether the property will be landscaped between the driveway and property line. She was informed that this is not required. McMillan noted the driveway and curb cut was ^)proved. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to approve ^plication #2234. Vote; Ayes 7, Na]^ 0. (#11) #2235 MARTIN B. SCHNEIDER, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT - PUBUC HEARING - 9:02-9:33 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Muling were noted. The Applicant was present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#11- #2235 Martin Schneider - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the application is for an amendment to a conditional use permit originally issued in 1984 to allow for a non-conforming use of the structure as an arts school. The current proposal is a change from one non-conforming use to another use by the Lake Minnetonka Environmental SdKX>I. The change of occupancy changes the Building Code classification from B2 to E2 which requires improvements to the buildinK for handicap access and life safety standards. Van Zomeren asked the Commis»on to review hours of operation and parking that would result in any new inq)acts. Van Zomeren said Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the CUP sut^ to standards and conditions 1 and 2 rega^g certificate of occupancy and amendment if any changes occur to the CUP. Review of the plans are also required. Martin Schndder informed the Commission that the building is the Old Hill Schoolhouse. He explained the background of the building and its use by the art center. He sold the biulding in 1994 but gained it back in F^ruary, 1997. Schneider said he does not believe there is any change in the occupancy. He indicated the age group had not been previously specified. B2 aUowed for adult education but children were the majority attendants. Schndder said the change in occupancy will require the fire code regulations to go into effect requiring a fire suppression system. The property does not have city water and would require pressure tanks. While he supports the need to provide handicap access ramps and bathroom, he objects to the fire code regulation due to major expense and what he feels is not a change in occupancy. Lindquist informed him that the Planning Commission has no authority over these requirements. Van Zomeren said no variances are allowed from the Building Code. The code requires a 2-story structure in the E2 classification to meet certain standards including a sprinkler ^stem. Van Zomeren referenced a letter from Building Inspector, Lyle Oman, regarding issue. Schroeder informed the applicant that the Planning Commission is only to conrider what the future use will be. If the E2 requires fire suppression equipment, children cannot be put at risk. What has occurred in the past, whether right or wrong, does not affect this application. Stoddard noted that the fire suppression system involves building code requirements beyond that required by the Chy. Van Zomeren noted that the art school had moved into the building without a certificate of occupancy. Letters fiom the Building OfiBcial had been sent to the art school regarding required improvements that were not made over a three year period. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#11 - #2235 Martin Schneider - Continued) Snuth asked the building inspector required. Van Zomeren said the building would require interior steps and a 6re escape under the B2, which is not as extensive as the requirements under the E-2. Lindquist noted that the applicant questioned the classification change fit>m B2 to E2. Schneider asked the Commission to proceed with the application as recommended, and he would work with the building inspector. Smith informed him that if the building was classified E2, there would be areas where compliance with regulations would be required. Schneider said he did not know if he could make those improvements and might posably have to sell the property. The tank and heated building for the tank would be prolubitively e}q)en9ve. During public comments. Van Erickson informed the Commission that the building is old and fdt the number of fire exits was adequate for safety. He did not believe the building diould be required to have a ^rinkler system. There were no additional comments. Lindquist asked the ^plicant if he had reviewed the recommendation and conditions. Schneider said he had some disagreement but asked the Commission to move forward, and he would work to resolve those issues. Berg inquired of Schneider if the issue was the code or occupancy. Schneider said it was the code as it changed the occupancy. Van Zomeren said the change to the CUP triggers the need for an amendment regarding occupancy and building codes. A member of the Lake Minnetonka Environmental School Board asked that the certificate of occupancy be supplied without all of the work completed as parents of the children will be performing some of the required work. Lindquist informed her that the Planning Commission does not have this authority, and the matter would have to be taken up with the Building Inspector. Van Zomeren indicated that it was a liability issue. Sherokee Use asked if this request was not possible, if the school could hold open houses. Lindquist again related that the Commission does not have the authority to waive Building Code requirements. Smith indicated that the interpretation of the code would be by the State. Schneider disagreed in that he felt the issue was the adult versus children occupancy. He believed the issue will have to be reviewed by the City Attorn^. He informed Stoddard that the recommendation could be subject to building codes. Schroeder srud he was in support of the use itself He asked if there were any significant changes to hours or otherwise. Schneider sud there would be no change to hours and people in attendance. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19,1997 (#11 • #2235 Martin Schneider - Continued) Snuth asked if there would be any effect on the neighborhood. Schneider said the use would not be increased and amount of parking stalls is excellent. He said he has not received any neighborhood complaints. Smith asked if the second story was not used, if the code would still apply regarding a fire suppression system. Van Zomeren said H would. Van Zomeren reported that if the application was approved, the comprehensive plan would need to be amended to reflect the change in use. Stoddard moved. Smith seconded, to approve the amending and continuation of the conditioiud use permit to provide for class instruction for the Lake Minnetonka Environmental School as outlined in application, subject to Staff recommendations and review of appropriate use classification and required building and State rules and regulations for iq>propnate use. The Staff recommendations subject the approval to the following standards; The building shall have a certificate of occupancy before the school rdocates 'mto the building. A future change in tenancy shall require an amendment to the conditional use permit. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (The meeting was recessed for ten minutes.) (#12) #2236 WILLIAM H. BOCKMANN, 1090 LOMA LINDA AVENUE VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:43-9:50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the applicant is seeking variances to street setback, ude yard, and hardcover for removal of a one-car garage and rq)lacement by a two-car garage. A lot area variance of 78.5% b required. Hardcover in the 75-250* setback would increase fix)m 37.2% to 38.98%. The street setback would remain the sa.me. Van Zomeren indicated that the lot area, width, and well location, which limits the location of the garage, are the hardships. Other homes in the area also have two-car garages. Staff recommends approval. Acknowledgment form has been received from adjacent neighbor at 1082 Loma Linda Avenue supporting the proposal. The applicant provided a letter from his neighbor indicating support for the garage to be located r from the north property line. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19.1997 (#12 - #2236 William Bockmaim - Continued) South suggested that the Planning Commiston would not recommend any further structural coverage on the property. Stoddard questioned how the overhang on the garage would affect the garage location to the prc^teriy line. Bockmann said he spoke with the Building Inspector and a well company who supported the 6* separation. The overhang would resuh in the garage being 6” from the lot line. The applicant said he would be required to install a fire wall. Hawn moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2236 subject to requirements of Building Inspector with construction of a fire wall, removal of driveway, and a notation that no addhioiuil structural coverage would be allowed or reconunended by tlus Planning Conunisuon. The applicant inquired whether he could maintain the driveway. He vna informed that it would have to be removed. Vote; Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#13) #2237 JIM AND ROXANNE STASIK, 1270 WILDHURST TRAIL VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:50-9:54 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is for a hardcover variance to replace an existing deck replacing structural hardcover over non-structural hardcovw. Staff reconunends approval. The applicant said she has worked with the building inspectors and was unaware of the requirement for a variance. The deck replacement had been stopped in progress. Tlie deck had deteriorated and is in a dangerous condition. The deck will be replaced as it existed. There were no public comments. Smith noted the large amount of hardcover. The applicant said the residence met code when it was built. Smith noted that any additions to the home would be difficult in the future. The applicant said she has no plans to do so. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2237. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#13 - #2237 Jim and Roxanne Stasik - Continued) The applicant requested the application be presented to Council at their May 27 meeting. (#14) #223* CmC DWIGHT AND FRED GUTTORMSON, 1220 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBI 1C HEARING ^;5u-I0:27 P.M. The Afi^da^it of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Fred Guttormson was present Gaf&on rqx)rted that the application was a two-part request. The first request was for an afier-the-Iact lakeshore setback and 0-75* hardcover variances for an enclosure of a room bdow the pre-existing deck. The applicant received approval for this enclosure last year with the condition that particular hardcover be remov^; the condition was not met. The second request is for a 75-250' hardcover variance for construction of a detached 30W2' garage. The garage will be located to meet the 15' side setback. The garage meets the 1 O' street setback with side facing doors. Hardcover exists at 36.4% in the 75-250' setback where 25% is allowed. The proposal wo*jid result in 35.9% hardcover with removal of a shed and portion of the driveway. A portion of the garage is over gravel. The 0-75' hardcover exists at 10.9% which includes an 8' gravel driveway which exhibits new gravel, and a 4'x9' shed. Another shed appears to have been removed. Gafih’on noted there is a loop driveway located in the 0-75' setback. The deck exists at 34' from the shoreline. The enclosure did not meet building code standards and was completed without a permit. If it is approved, the enclosure would require rebui>^*ng. A hardship statement was provided for the gai No hardship statement was presented for the deck enclosure, but the enclosure had been approved previously but expired because the resolution was noi *gned and no permit was issued. Gaffron pointed out that the lakeshore deck and gra' driveway are stUl present on the property. Their removal was required in the previous resolution. Gaffron asked the Conur.ssion to consider whether hardship is demonstrated and if other removals should be required to reduce the hardcover. He questioned whether the loop driveway should be in the 0-75' setback. He asked the Commission to verify that conditions of Resolut'on 3611 should be applied. He suggested the possibility of allovring the applicant five years in which to remove the lakeside deck. Gaflron said Staff does not necessarily recommend approval of such an amortization period but recommended conditions 1-4 as outlined in the packet. Guttormson said he had added windows placed on the existing railroad ties to enclose the deck. He believed this would not be considered permanent as the windows arc removed in the summer months. He then found he needed an approval and the work performed to building standards. Guttormson said he would like to maintain the lakeshore deck. 18 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEtlTNG HELD ON MAY 19. 1997 (#14- #2238 Chic Dwight and Fred Guttormson - Continued) Schroeder was informed that Guttormson has owned the property for three years. Smith questioned why the origin?! resolution was not signed and the gravd was not removed. Guttormson said he parks his motor home on the gravd driveway but woukl have removed it if the enclosure was made permanent. Lindquist askco tfthe applicant intends to finish the enclosure and remove the gravel driveway noting the need for a building permit. Guttormson said he would if allowed. He wou'd also remove the driveway and reseed to the lakeshore. I ifytqnijgt inquired if the lakeshore deck would be removed. Smith noted it was a condition of the prior resolution. The applicant stated he did not complete the proposed improvements and would like to maintain the deck. Hawn suggested removal and sodding of the loop portion of the drivew^ with a back-out area behind the garage. The parking location of the RV was discussed. The applicant said the garage doors would have to be heightened He would prefer to park the RV in the loop of the driveway. Lindquist informed Guttormson that the intention is to eliminate hardcover in the 0-75' setback. Guttormson said he would store the RV elsewhere during the winter months but park it on the property the two weeks each memth that it was not bang used. Smith inquired of the time firame if the applicant were to remove the driveway to the lake. The ^>plicant said he would request 60 days. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2238 subject to Staff recommendation #1, elimination of the loop driveway in the 0-75' setback noting sufficient spacing for a turnaround elsewhere, conditions #2 and #3. Guttormson said he would like to remove the proposal for the garage and maintain the loop driveway. Guttormson was informed that he could present that request to the Council. Gaffi-on indicated the garage request could be removed from the application. Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to eliminate the loop, with conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4. If the applicant chooses to eliminate condition #4, a permit would be required to reconstruct the garage. The applicai * said he wanted to maintain the loop driveway. MINUTBS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#14 - #2238 Chic Dwight and Fred Guttormson - Continued) Lindquist informed him that h b the intention of the Planning Commission to reduce hardcover in the 0-75* setback and any changes would include the loop driveway. Stoddard he would support the driveway in the 0-75* setback due to the configuration of the lot. He would recommend clutter be removed, gravel driveway to lake eliminated, and sheds removed. He noted the loop driveway cannot be seen. Hawn said she fdt the applicant wants the loop driveway to park the RV. The applicant said he would park it elsewhere. Schroeder suggested the garage door be hd^toied to house the RV. The tqjplicant said this could be done. Hawn said die felt it was iniq^^priate to house the RV on the driveway. Lindquist informed the applicant that the loop driveway would have to be eliminated before any further improvements a*e allowed. The ai^licant suggested tabling the application Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2238 to allow applicant to condder the loop driveway, garage, and deck enclosure, and working with Staff on options. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#15) #2241 KYLF. HUNT AND PARTNERS, INC., 1185 FERNDALE ROAD WEST - VARIANCE • PUBLIC HEARING - 10:28-11:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants, Cheryl and Gary Costley, were represented by Kyle Hunt. Van Zomeren reported that the .887 acre pioperty is located in the LR-1 A, one family lakeshore, Zoning District requiring two acres. The proposal requires variances to side yard, hardcover, and lakeshore setback for construction of an addition to the residence under the existing deck for an exercise room, a third stall addition to the garage reducing the dde yard setback to 19. T, and increasir.g the 75-250' hardcover 137.5 s.f to 25,5%. Lindquist read a letter from the neighbors, Bradley and Mary Bowman, expressing objection to the garage location. It was noted that the adjacent properties are located closer to the side property lines than that proposed by the applicant. Van Zomeren reported that the lot width measures 200' at the setback, 245’ from Femdale Road, 45' fiom the west, 14 from east, and 71' from the lakeshore. The building pad is limited by the 26' separation requirement from the pond reducing the pad to approximately 92' in width. The property is further limited by the location of a well in the yaurd. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#15 - #2241 Kyle Hunt and Partners - Continued) Hunt questioned the lot area. Van Zomeren darified that the lot area is dry huildable only. He noted that the proposal would indude swapping of hardcover resulting in 100 s.f less than allowed with the modification. Bitununous hardcover and patio pavers would be eliminated. Van Zomeren said this would diminate the hardcover requirement. Hunt noted the 0*75' setback dips the coma* of the existing deck. Van Zomeren indicated that the average lakeshore setback is doser to the lake than the 0-75* setback. Hunt said the exercise room would encroach no further than the existing footprint and the third stall garage would He located within the 30 ’ setback as exists with adjoining prop^es. The hardwver for the third stall is included in the calculations. Hunt exi^ained that the house is currently placed cm pilings and cannot be heightened without a variance. The pond creates a problem for building on the property. The setbacks will not allow for a detached garage. He noted the placement of large evergreens that don't inhibit si^t lines in his opinion. Schroeder was informed that the Bowman’s ade encroachment is at 12' and 15' and other ndghboring property is at 15'. McMillan asked what the hardship would be for the third stall Hunt said the applicants have three vehicles and would like additional storage space. The residence currently has a two-car, tuck-under garage. Lindquist sdd he supports the exercise room addition but questioned the need for the tMrd stall as no hardships exists. Schrceder asked if there would be any view obstruction. Mrs. Bowman said it would obstruct the view from her gardens. She noted the evergreen trees are next to the property line as well where the garage is intended to be placed. Mr. Bowman suggested a detached garage located to the west. Hunt said it would add to hardcover. Van Zomeren said it would also present a problem for the 26* separation from the pond. Stoddard said he usually places value on the neighboring viewpoint but noted that both neighbors have the same circumstances as the applicant in terms of setback. Mrs. Bowman indicated the home builder built the residence to the maximum of setbacks. Van Zomeren said this only applied to one side of the property. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#15 - . '2241 Kyle Hunt and Partners - Contiiiucd) Hunt informed McMillan that the 14'x24’ garage stall would be set back somewhat from the other two stalls. Other remodeling is currently undoway. Hunt said he could be flexible with the location of the garage stall. Mr. Bowman indicated that the current garage is 36’x23' and could provide for tandem vehicle spacing. He noted there b also a died on the property. Hunt indicated that the tandem area b a tornado shelter where the applicant plans on adding a 3/4 bath. Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2241 for lakeshore setback for construction of an exercise room under the existing deck. The third garage stall b not recommended for approval. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. SKETCH PLANS (#16) #2239 JIM WATERS, LGA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC, WILDHURST TRAIL - SUBDIVISION/SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Jim Waters was present. Gaffron reported that the proposed seven lot subdivision under sketch plan review is comprised of two parcels, 7 acres and 1-1/2 acres in size and located in the Saga Hill park area. The properties are owned by Soskin and Sollner. Access is proposed from the undevelopeo platted right-of-way known as Garden Lane. The topography of the lots favors access to the west. Building sites include two rear widk-outs. Lot 2 reqiures 1/2 acre dry contiguous on the southeast side of the ravine. Access to the park areas b required to the north and west. A cul-de-sac as shown would present a problem with primary access to the Saga Hill park. The City will require access to the 9 acre park parcel to the west from Garden Lane and to th;; open space park property which straddles Garden Lane to the east. Gafifron indicated that the City Engineer expressed concern with drainageways impacting the neighboring properties. He suggested drainage be directed to the northerly ravine for less erosion potential and potential development of a NURP pond. Gaffron said the City would not be served if Garden Lane is vacated and presented options in the Staff memo. The property is one acre sewered with sewer posable from Tonkaview Lane but njost likely from Wildhurst Trail. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19,1997 (#16 - #2239 Jim Waters - Continued) Tun Waters said he would like to iwovide an opportumty to solve issues for the city. He suggested access options F-1 and F-2 as proposed by Staff are reasonable. He indicated how the road would be terminated is open to discusMon and design. One sketch proposes the road extend to the Hennessey properly and the other to a parking lot for the park land. Waters said he prefers Garden Lane for access. He noted all lots meet minimum requirements, tite development would have minimum impacts, and provide access to the park land. Waters said the development meets the desire of the property owners. Lindquist noted that the proposed access would include a cul-de-sac between lots 1,2, and 3 with the Garden Lane easement remaining. During public comments, Chris Morgan, 1003 Wildhurst Trail, said this plan makes the most sense of all ideas that have been presented for the properties while solving access to the park land. He supports the subdivision. Smith noted sketch F-1 refers to direct park access, F-2 shows a temporary cul-de-sac, and F-3 relates to potential park dedication. These plans were generated by Gaflfron to assist in addressing adjacent or nearby lots of record requiring access. GafBron asked Commission to consider whether the Sollner property should be included in the subdivision and whether sewer should come from Wildhurst Trail, and how to assess the lots outside of the sewer system noting the proposed lots are within the MUSA. Smith said she supported Gaffron's suggestions regarding access and temporary cul-de- sac. McMillan said she would like to see the park access developed so the purchasers of these lots will know that the road will extend into the park. Waters agreed that it would be best to accomplish this up front McMillan inquired of the time line for the stormwater management plan. Gafifron indicated that it would require another 4-6 months. Schroeder questioned whether the Park Commission should recommend taking land instead of a fee. McMiUan noted the ravine would be protected anyways as there would be a drainage easement over the ravine. Waters indicated he would review the lots for size. Lindquist noted the cul-de-sac could extend to the edge of Lot 1. McMillan agreed that this w(Hild allow for a turnaround. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#16 - #2239 Jim Waters - Continued) Gafifron noted the following areas requiring direction: 1) Garden Lane is a public right- of-way so would become a public road; 2) the pid>lic road would extend to the cul-de-sac as it is in a sewered zone; 3) drainage and grading would require tl» applicant to woric wth the City Engineer and Schoell and Madson and consider off-»te ponding requiring permission from the MCWD. Gaflfron said there were no designated wetlands on the property. The lots would use private wells. The developer would pay to run sewer to the lots in adthtion to connection charges. Dranagc easements would be required. Park impacts require discussion. Gafifron questioned how access is to be gamed to Hennessey property. McMillan suggested a private driveway. Gaflfron indicated this option may not be appropnate as it would require going through the open ^>ace. A pos^le swap of land has been suggested as a way to solve the Hennessey lot problem McMillan asked that the sketch plan be reviewed by the Park Comnussion, Ga&on was informed that the Planning Commission had no concerns v.ith the subdivision as proposed. (#17) #224J JIM WATERS, LGA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC, WILDHURST trail - SUBDIVISION/SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Jim Waters vras present Gaffron reported that this proposal includes three groups of property, the Van Sloun, two SoUner lots, and Morgart property, totaling of 28 acres. A portion of the property is zoned LR-IB, one acre, and a portion is zoned RR-IB, two acre. The MUSA line follows the zoning boundary. This presents an issue with possibly chan^ng the comprehensive plan to change the two acre to one acre zoning and the need for a MUSA amendment for sewering the two acre properties. The proposal calls for a 17 lot subdivision with 1-1/2 acres average per lot served by an extension road from Wildhurst Trail. The proposed road would extend north and west, with a driveway serving the back of a few lots. Gafiron indicated it could be argued that this would result in through lots with two parallel roadways and requiring a conditional use permit for accessory structures. The use of Highwood Lane to Garden Lane and Wildhurst is not a safe access option due to steep slopes. Gafiron indicated that the lots generally meet the 200 ’ lot width requirement for two acre zoning. At an average of 1-1/2 acre lots, this would place a large number of homes in an area where homes have not previously been located. They would also be located near the park land and might possibly change the nature of the park. MINUrES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19,1997 (#17 - #2240 Jim Waters - Continued) Another issue is the length of the road system. There would be one way in to the homes with no additional way out creating a possible public safety issue with the cul-de-sac and Wildhurst greatly exceeding the 1000' limit. There is a possibility for a connection to West Branch, though it is not the applicant's intention. li'this connection is not permanent, it possibly could be used by emergency vdiicles. There arc idso topographj' issues to consider. L'mdquist questioned why the need for a long driveway with parallel roads Gaffron said it was due to the steepness of the property. Waters indicated that he and residents would not de^ front walk-outs. A diange would require retaining walls and loss of trees. Aesthetically, this proposal would give the impression of traveling down a country lane as the homes to the south would not be viewed until you swing southward. It would also give the impression of two acre zoning according to Waters. Lindquist asked for comments regarding a road to West Branch. Waters referred to drawing C-2. This option shows a development not requiring rezoning. While it proposes the development accessing through Garden Lane or Hi^view, h does not address the issue of the passive park and low traffic. Waters says drawing C-1 addresses th«»e issues while maintaining the country feel of the property. He noted that Wildhurst access would increase the length of the cul-de-sac by 1800'. Waters s«d an approach from West Branch would be satisfretory if a lot is not lost. He indicated he would provide an easement. If service vehicles are an issue. Waters said it would probably require a hard road surface. Waters said it could become a service lane only. A gravel road could be used down Garden Lane to serve the Hennessey lot. Lindquist noted the problem with both one acre and two acre zoning. He felt establishing all one acre zoning might not be accepted by the neighbors Gaffion indicated the re zoning would change the number of lots by only one lot. He indicated the zoning change would be sewer driven, not neighborhood driven. Gaffion said it was his opinion that the property is undevelopable with septic systems li-ther are limited ates. He feels it is logical and reasonable to bring this property into the MUSA and not change the zoning. McMillan said she would consider possibly exchanging ’ Ms but did not feel it would be a good policy to do as suggested. She inquired what the gain would be. Gaffion said the gain would be the ability to develop the property. He noted lots 12-17 (Van Sloun and Morgan properties) wiffiout sewer are not buildable. If changed to sewered lots, there would be 4-5 lots on the Sollner property, possibly two on the Van Sloane property, 2-3 on the Morgan property, with three additional lots to the east. Schroeder noted that tliis assumes the Met Council will agree with chan^ng the MUSA line. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19,1997 (#17 - #2240 Jim Waters - Continued) Waters indicated that drawing C-1 was not rdevant but C-2 is relevant. The issue then becomes sewer. He suggested a communal sq>tic system. Gafifron informed Waters that he did not believe the City would approve that scenario. McMillan said she is cof^med with increasing the density. GaSron agreed that the number of lots have been increased to 21-22 lots. McMillan did not beheve the Council would recommend adding the property to the MUSA. Hawn asked the applicant if he would consider clustered housing noting it would create an expanse to the paA land and still allow for expensive housing. Waters questioned whether people would purchase tMs type of houring. He noted it would still require modification to the MUSA. Chris Morgan, noting the history of proposals over the years for the propeities, said the MUSA boundaries currently do not make any sense. He did not believe the added housing would increase the drainage to the ravine. Gaffron stated that the key to this application is a change to the MUSA. John Hasselbalch, Realtor, noted problems with a roadway to the park land. He felt it was logical to make the lots one contiguous development winding down Wildhurst Trail. The land to the east is steep. Access to the west would require condemnation and there are no plans for access to the north. He noted the Morgan property is cut off fi-om access to the north because of wetlands. McMillan asked if the sewer units are available. Gaftion said the capacity or number of units is not the issue if the MUSA change is approved. Berg questioned whether there is the potential for the Met Council to approve such a change. Gai&on indicated there was as it is based on merit. Gaffron suggested the property be visited during the Park Tour. Gappa said he would make that arrangement. Schroeder and Smith said they both would like to see clustered housing. The application will be reviewed by the Park Commission on June 2. Stoddard asked for additioital information regarding history of the MUSA. The application will again be presented for review on the Planning Commission ’s June 16 agenda. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19. 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#1S) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF APRIL M, 1997 AND MAY 12,1997 (#19) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION A Work Session was scheduled to discuss the Honne Occupation Licen^g for Wednesday, June 4, at 7:45 a.m. Gaffron noted that there be a meeting regarcUng the Spring Hill Golf Club E AW on Wednesday, May 21, 1997 at 6:30 p.m. The CUP and variances >vill be discussed at the Coundl Meeting of Tuesday, May 27,1997. (#20) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE APRIL 21 1997 MEETING Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to approve the Mnutes of the Planiung Commisaon Meeting of Apiil 21, 1997. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#21) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF MAY 26,1997 AND JUNE 9,1997 May 27 - Lindquist June 9 - Schroeder ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to adjourn at 12:11 a m. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Dale Lindquist, Chair Pereon 4 ElMi m Public hearings Chris Smith n Minnesota, various state statutes require cities to hold public hearings prior to taking certain actions. The fundamental purpose for holding a public hearing is to ensure due process—the protec* tion of indiridual rights prior to governmental action. Due process encourages objective decision making by providing all persons who have an interest in the city's decision with the opportunity to be heard. Most city actions do not require a prior public hearing. A public hearing is only required if a specific law or charter provision mandates that a hearing be held. This article will focus on the requirements and procedures for public hearings in land use deci sions. While much of this article is applicable to all public hearings, it is necessary to check state law or your city ’s charter for specific procedural requirements for other types of decisions. Land use decisions Public hearings arc required before the adoption of any zoning ordinance or amendment, and before the granting of variances, conditional use permits, or rezonings. Notice must be given at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and notice must be mailed to property owners within a 350-foot radius of the land in question. Public hearings should include a complete disclosure of what is being proposed, and a fair and open assessment of the issues raised. A public hearing must include an opportunity for the general public and interested parties to hear and see all information and to ask questions, provide additional information, express support or opposition, or suggest modifications to the proposal. Role of the chairperson The chairperson has the responsibil ity of conducting the public hearing. Tht chairperson should explain the procedure to be followed before the meeting begins. People should know when they will be allowed to participate and the rules of conduct Order must also be established at the beginning of the hearing. The chairperson should explain that the hearing is a formal procedure, that everyone will be given an opportunity to participate, and that comments should be germane and concise. If many people share the same vivHpoint the chairperson should encourage the appointment of a spokesperson to avoid repetitive testimony. Hearing procedure Many cities believe that a formal meeting procedure is inappropriate. Land use decisions, however, may be subject to judicial reriew; therefore, a formal hearing procedure should be followed. The following procedure is suggested to allow opportuniues for ewryone to participate: O Staff presentation City staff should identify the subject property, describe the nature of the application, present the zoning and planning issues, and explain the action to be taken by the planning commission, board of appeals, or city council. The commission, board, or councilmembers should ask the staff questions to ensure that they fully understand the information pre sented. Applicants should also be given the opportunity to ask ques tions of staff, to provide additional information, or to clarify information presented by staff or included in the planning report. City staff should also entertain questions from the general public or other interest''d parties about the information presented. O Applicant's presentation In this portion of the hearing, the applicant has the opportunity to present his or her ca»e. This is the applicant's opportunity to present factual information to demonstrate the proposal's compliance with the city ’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance standards. The planning commission, board of appeals, or city council should ask the applicant whatever questions they have about the proposal. The public should also be allowed to ask questions of the applicant No sutement. however, either for or against the proposal should be accepted at this point. O Statements from the public The chairperson should ask for statements from the public in support of the application. Even though large crowds against a proposal may be intimidating, the chairperson must ensure an opportunity for those who wish to speak in favor of the proposal. The chairperson should then seek statements from the public in opposition to the application. The chairperson should encourage people to present factual evidence for public consideration. Cl Conclude the public hearing After al ’ nidence has been received and ev< .yone has been given an opportunity to be heard, the public hearing should be concluded. The planning commission, board of appeals, or city council should then discuss the proposal. It should be remembered that for purposes of the open meeting law, a meeting is still being held and the discussions must be open to the public. O Action The planning commission or board of appeals should make a recommen dation to the city council on the applicadon. If the hearing is before the council, the council should either deny or approve th- applicadon. The matter may also be condnued for further consideration. The public record and findings of fact The public record is being increas ingly reviewed by the courts to deter mine whether the city ’s acdon involved MINNESOTA CITIES / MAY 1997 > ». 1 ■« « r* a reasonable means to a legal end. The law provides that cides have consider able discredon in developing plans, setdng standards, and deciding applicadons. The public record, as a whole, must demonstrate that the city acted reasonably in enforcing its plans, standards, and reguladons. It does not matter that the city acted reasonably if it is unable to prove its acdons through the public record. In reviewing the public record, courts look primarily to a city council's findings of fact A cit) council must apply the facts to the law and find .reasons upon which to base its decision. The reasons or rationale are referred to as findings of fact and need to be clearly stated. There must be an adequate factual basis in the public record to support the council’s deci sion. Inadequate,findings may result in a reversal of the council's decision. 60-day rule Cities must remember that they have only 60 days to make most land use decisions including rezoning requests, conditional use permits, and variances. The 60-day peri^ begins to run when a written request is received by the city. Failure to act within 6p days results in automatic approval of the application. A cit .nay extend the 60-day limit for an additional 60 days by giving the applicant written notice ^fure the initial 60-day period is O' cr. The written notice must indicate the reason for the extension and the length of the extension. Additionally, applicants may agree to waive the time limits. Any such waiver should be in writing. Coiiclusioii , Failure to follow stotUtory or charter provisions for public l|earings such' as notice.rc()uirements coul^ invalidate a f city’s aciiohs. Additionally, cities nitist ensure that the public hearing provides the participants with due process. Public hearings must include a com plete disclosure of what is being proposed, a fair and open assessment of the issues raised, and provide the effective participation of the public and interested parties. After the hearing, the city must make findings of fact to support its decision. Adequate findings will help ensure that a court does not disturb the city's action, y -t ' Public hearing requirements The following is a partial list of statutes that require cities to hold public he^ngs. Consult your city charter and state statutes for other types of actions, and for the specific procedural requirements. Chris Sml^i.is^taff attorney with thd League of Minnesota Cities. . • ♦ Minn. Stat § 16B.62,subd. 1 Minn. StaL § 44.08, subd.2 Minn. Stat. § 103F.902, subd.2 Minn, itat § 115A.94, subd. 4 Minn. Stat. § 160.263, subd. 3 Minn. Stat. § 205.84, subd. 2 Minn. Stat § 216B.16, subd. 2 Minn. Stat § 238.081, subd.6 Minn. Sut § 238.083, subd. 2 Minn. Stat § 238.084 Minn. Stat § 275.065 Minn. Stat § 327C095, subd. 4 Minn. Sut § 340A.504, subd. 3 Minn. Sut. § 340A.602 Minn. Sut. § 412.641, subd.l Minn. Sut § 412.851 Minn. Sut § 414.033, subd. 2b Minn. Sut § 436.20 Minn. Sut § 428A02, subd. 1 .Minn. Sut § 429.031, subd.l Minn. Sut § 443.30 i:. Minn. Sut. § 444.18, subd. 3 ' Minn. Sut § 462.355, subd. 2 Minn. Sut § 462.358, subd. 3b Minn. Sut § 469.003, subd. 2 Minn. Sut § 469.029, subd. 2 Minn. Sut § 469.093 Minn. Sut § 469.105, subd. 2 Minm Sut § 469.175, subd. 3 ' Enforcement of sute building code Dismissal of civil service employee Esublbhment or restoration of a wetland Esublishment of organized waste collection Designation of bicycle lanes Redefining ward boundaries Changing public utility rates Cable franchise applications , ■T • • Sale or transfer of cable franchise Termination of cable franchise Truth in taxation Closure of manufactured home park On-sale Sunday liquor license ;. Continuation of municipal liquor store Removal of city manager Vacation of streets Annexation by ordinance t Appropriations to the municipal liquor store EsublishmeiU of special service districts Special assessments Esublishing jtibbish disposal rates? Storm sewer improvements Adoption of comprehensive plan Subdivision applications Creation of an HRA Sale or lease of HRA land Creation of an EDA , . Sale of EDA land Approyal of TIF plan \ • • i I ' 1 ' I * I ■H- , i t. % • . !♦' . i ■'* ’V ' ’ !i t22 I ^ ■k.MINNESOTA CITIES / MAY 1997