The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-17-1997 Planning Packetr I ! .« . : \ NOTE: 6:30 START Til PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17,1997,6:30 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 is announced by the Chairman. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1.Navarre Housing Study - Brad Dressier OLD BUSINESS CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 3.#2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variances 4.#2308 Brook Park Realty 3760 Shoreline Drive Planned Residential Development and Class 111 Preliminary Subdivision NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.#2311 Loren Fritz 3845 North Shore Drive Variance 6.#2313 Tom and Kari Steinke 910 Dakota Avenue Variance 7.#2314 JohnBessesen 2505-2507 Kelly Avenue Zoning Amendment and Conditional Use Permit 8.City of Orono Zoning Amendment - Land Alternation Regulations and Permit Criteria I Public A ttendance Meeting Date □□C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other ____ Please fill out the information requested below for our city records . NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 5.. 6. 7, 8. 9._ 10.. 11.. 12.. 13. 14. 15._ t9139S.4 S3 35 I ^ I S I ® G) TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant^^^ November 17,1997 SUBJECT: Navarre Housing Study Throughout the summer I had worked on a study addressing the housing needs of the Navarre area of Orono. The study is comprised of two parts. The first is a mail survey which was sent to 247 residents in the defined study area. The surveys were color coded to break the study area into four specific sub-areas to identify differences in needs within the study area. The second portion of the study is a survey for which I walked the neighborhood and evaluated several features of the properties from the street. This involved the evaluation of 248 properties. A property without a residence was evaluated, which accounts for the discrepancy in numbers between the two surveys. By using a checklist form, each property was evaluated by giving it a rating of one through five ^^ere one is excellent, two is good, three is fair, four is poor and five is dilapidated. Also noted are various features of the property such as type of siding and driveways. The map attached in the following report shows where these study areas (MV) are located. Overall, this portion of the study provides an account of existing conditions and a method for determining whether a visual inspection of the study area coincides with the mail survey. The following report is a summary of my findings for the two portions of the study. Navarre Housing Study K5 i»5SPK-lft.1 V w- •. ^ •> ^ \y * •> ♦ t.' *. ‘ if • -I' . ■-^5> t'/v -TCV t!£- ,. ■ ^ >• Brad Dressier. Planning Assistant Citv of Orono 0 November 17. 1997 r ABSTRACT In July 1997, the City of Orono conducted a housing study to explore housing issues in Navarre. Two portions of the survey were used to determine such issues. A mail survey was used to identify housing issues in Navarre. The response rate was 49%. The purpose of this survey was to determine whether there is a perceived need for housing rehabilitation by the residents of Navarre and if they would be interested in applying for grant funding for home repairs. This survey is attached as Appendices A1 and A2. The second part of the survey was conducted through a visual survey, assessing the conditions of properties in the area. This checklist is attached as Appendix B. The following study is an evaluation of the findings of these surveys. ! ! ; ' ; : ; ; : r Navarre Housing Study PURPOSE The ouroose of the study was two fold. The first was to gather data about the existing hous^^tock and how it is perceived by residents. The second was to determine if there is an interest among the residents of the study area in obtaining gr^t repairs To determine differences in perceptions and housmg conditio^ ^ area, four sub-areas were identified. Appendix C shows the enure study ^ea a^ re«!nective sub-areas. Both surveys broke down the study area m this fashion. The ultimate purpose of the study is its potential use in the comprehensive plan update an in applying for housing rehabilitation grant funds. part I: MAIL SURVEY RESULTS Table l.l Rate Of Response for Mail Out Survey Rate of Response Areal Area II Area II Area IV Total rent 76 71 25 75 247 returned 40 (53%) 28 (39%) 13 (52%) 41 (55%) 122 (49%) Almost half of the residents receiving surveys responded. The response rate was over 50% for three sub-areas. Area II had a 39% response rate. Table 1.2 ]s|,.mhpr nf pi»«tidents Renting or Owning Their Residence Ownership Area I Area II Area II Area IV Total rent 1(3%) n/a 2(15%) n/a 3 (2%) own 3^98%) 28(100%) 1 1 (85%) 41(100%) 119(98%) Residents were asked whether they rent or own their residence. The vast majority of respondents own their o\^;n home. r Navarre Housing Study Table 1.3 1 gngth Re^gitlencv in the Neighborhood Longevity < 1 year 1-3 years 3-10 years (n/a: 1) Area I Area II Area II Area IV 4 (10%) 4(14%) n/a n/a 2 (5%) 4 (14%) 1 (8%) 7(17%) 11 (28%) 9 (32%) 11 (85%) 17(41%) 10-20 years > 20 years 9(23%) 13(33%) Total 8 (7%) 14(11%) 48 (39%) 3(11%) 8(29%) n/a 1 (8%) 9 (22%) 8 (20%) 21(17%) 30(25%) Respondents were asked how long they have lived in the neighborhood. Most residents have lived in the area for a significant length of time. Most have lived in their home for 3 to 10 years or over 20 years. The smallest percentage was for those living in the neighborhood for less than one year. It appears tliat turnover in the area w^ relatively low. These percentages were fairly consistent for all areas, with the exception of Area III, where the percentage living in the neighborhood for 3 to 10 years was 85%. This may have been due to the construction of new units in the mid 1980 ’s. Table 1.4 Ages of Children in Households Children <5 years 6-10 years Area I Area II Area II Area IV 7(18%) 6(21%) n/a 6(15%) 8 (20%) 2 (7%) n/a 5(12%) 11-14 years 15-18 years n/a 25 (63%)7(18%) 2 (7%) n/a 3 (7%) Total 18(15%) 15(12%) 12(10%) 6(5%) 1 (3%) n/a 18(64%) 1 (8%) 12 (92%) 4(10%) 26(63%) 81 (66%) Participants were asked if they have any children living at home and if so, to indicate their ages groups. An overwhelmingly high percentage of respondents did not have children living at home. Of those respondents who did have children, there was a fairly even distribution between the under five years, 5 to 10 years, and 11 to 14 years old categories. The number of households in Area III with children is low; 12% of the households have children. r Navarre Housing Study Table 1.5 Employment Status of Head of Employment employed employed home- student, retired self other (head of household) fulltime part time maker employed employed Area I 19 (48%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) n/a 11 (28%) 7 (18%) 1(3%) Area II 18(64%) 1(4%) n/a n/a 2(7%) 7(25%) n/a Area II 7(54%) n/a n/a n/a 6(46%) n/a n/a ^ealV 30(73%) 1(2%) n/a 1(2%) 5(12%) 4(10%) n/a 74(61%) 3(2%) 1 (1%) i (2%) 24(20%) 18(15%) 1(1%) Respondents were asked to indicate the employment status of their head of household. Most heads of household are employed full time. There was also a significant number of residents who were either self employed or retired. Table 1.6 Total Household Income in 1996 Refore Household Income $5,000- __$9,999 Area I Area II Area II Area IV Total 1 (3%) 1 (4%) n/a n/a 2(2%) 3 (8%) n/a 2(15%) 1 (2%) 6 (5%) $10,000- $20,000- $30,000- $50,000- >$75,000 no $19,999 $29,999 $49,999 $74,999_________response 4 (10%) 11 (28%) 5(13%) 6(15%) 10 (25%) 2 (7%) 10 (36%) 6 (21 %) 4 (14%) 5 (18%) 3(23%) 3(23%) 3(23%) n/a 2(15%) 6 (15%) 17 (41 %) 8 (20%) 2 (5%) 7 (17%) 15(12%) 41(34%) 22(18%) 12(10%) 24(20%) Households were asked to indicate their household income in 1996 before taxes. The highest percentage of incomes were in the $30,000 to $49,999 range. There is also a sizable proportion in the $20,000 to $29,000 and $50,000 to $74,999 ranges This was consistent for three of the study areas. Area III has a much more even distribution Households making less ^ $43,000 per year are the most eligible for grant money for home improvements. This would include householders on the lower end of the $30,000 to $49,999 range. Many of the residents in the area would be eligible for grant money. f J r 1 [ Navarre Housing Study Table 1.6 Respondent ’s Highest Level of Educational Attainment Highest Level of elementary high some Education school school or technical GED school technical elementa some college other school ry school college graduate graduate _________________________ Area I Area 11 Area II Area IV 1 (3%) n/a n/a n/a 4 (10%) n/a 5(18%) 1(4%) 4(31%) n/a 5(12%) 2(5%) 9 (23%) 1 (3%) 2 (7%) n/a n/a n/a 7(17%) n/a 10 (25%) 14 (35%) 2 (5%) 8(29%) 9(32%) 3(11%) 5(38%) 3(23%) 1(8%) 13 (32%) 12 (29%) 2 (5%) Total 1 (1%) 18 (15%) 3 (2%) 18 (15%) 1 (1%) 36 (30%) 38 (31%) 8 (7%) The respondents were asked to indicate their highest level of educational attainment. The highest proportion of respondents had indicated that they had either graduated from college or had attended some college. There were also smaller groups who attended high school and have graduated from technical schools. These figures remained relatively consistent for all areas. The level of education c oincided fairly closely with the level of household income indicated. It appears that those with a technical school degree or college degree earn $30,000 to $49,999 or more. Table 1.7 Ability to Afford House Repairs I i Could Afford House Repairs yes no don't know no response Area I 29 (73%)n/a 11 (28%)n/a Area II 18(64%)1 (4%)8 (29%)1 (4%) Area II 11 (85%)1 (8%)1 (8%)n/a Area IV 28 (68%)4(10%)8 (20%)1 (2%) Total 86 (70%)6 (5%)28 (23%)2 (2%) Residents were asked if they could afford repairs to their house if needed. The majority of residents indicated they could. This was most certain for Area III respondents. There was a significant number of householders who were unsure as to whether or not they could afford house repairs. Table 1.8 Willinaness to Annlv for Loans or Grants Willingness to Apply for Funding yes no don't know no response Areal 19 (48%)12 (30%)9 (23%)n/a Area II 19(68%)1 (4%)6(21%)2 (7%) Area II 7 (54%)3 (23%)1 (8%)2(15%) Area IV 26 (63%)8 (20%)6(15%)1 (2%) r Navarre Housing Study Respondents were asked if they would apply for loans or grants to pay for house repairs. Aw to whether or not the residents would use loans or grants given the opportunity, the majority indicated they would. This contradicted the response for the previous question. Perhaps the respondents who can afford house repairs would none the less be interested in loans or grants if they were available. Area II expressed the greatest interest in grant or loan money. Many respondents indicated they would not or did not know if they would use grant or loan money. Table 1.8 Number of Respondents That Would Apply for Grants Grants yes no don't know no response Area I Area II Area II Area IV 13(33%) 2(5%) 16(57%) 3(11%) 4(31%) 1(8%) 22(54%) 6(15%) 7(18%) 4(14%) 2(15%) 6(15%) 18(45%) 5 (18%) 6 (46%) 7(17%) Total 55(45%) 12(10%) 19(16%) 36(30%) Residents were asked if they would apply for grants. This question was asked to identify what type of assistance residents would apply for if funding was available. The highest proportion of respondents indicated they would apply for grant money. Areas II and IV showed the greatest interest in grant money. Areas I and III had a high proportion which did not respond. Table 1.9 Number of Respondents That Would Apply for Low Interest Government I.oan.s Low Interest Government Loans yes no don't know no response Area I Area II Area II Area IV 15(38%) 2(5%) 16(57%) 2(7%) 4(31%) 2(15%) 20(49%) 7(17%) 8 (20%) 3(11%) 1 (8%) 4(10%) 15(38%) 7 (25%) 6 (46%) 10(24%) Total 55(45%) 13(11%) 16(13%) 38(31%) Residents were asked if they would apply for low interest government loans. The overall interest in low interest government loans was equally strong as the highest proportion of respondents indicated they would be interested in the loan money. Areas II and IV showed the greatest interest at 57% and 49%, respectively. Area I showed slightly more interest, while Area III again had a high rate of no response. 1J Navarre Housing Study Table 1.10 K.imhpr nf Respondents That Would Add Iv for Ix?w Interest Private Loa ns Low Interest Private Loans yes no don't know no response Area 1 14 (35%)3 (8%)8 (20%)15(38%) Area II 13 (46%)2 (7%)4(14%)9 (32%) Area II 6 (46%)1 (8%)1 (8%)5 (38%) Area IV 21 (51%)5 (12%)4(10%)11 (27%) Total 54 (44%)11 (9%)17 (14%)40 (33%) Respondents were asked if they would apply for low interest private loans. The survey results showed that 54% of households would be interested in private loans at low inierest rates. Table 1.11 Would Not Apply yes no don't know no response Area I 6(15%)4 (10%)10(25%)20 (50%) Area II 1 (4%)8 (29%)3(11%)16(57%) Area II 1 (8%)4(31%)3 (23%)5 (38%) Area IV 7 (17%)7 (17%)1 (2%)26 (63%) Total 15(12%)23 (19%)17(14%)67 (55%) Residents were asked if they would not apply. Most respondents did not answer this question. Only 15 respondents indicated they would not apply. Table 1.12 Affordable Housing for First yes no don't know no response Time Homebuyers in Navarre Area I 24 (60%)1 (3%)11 (28%)4(10%) Area II 23 (82%)1 (4%)3(11%)1 (4%) Area II 7 (54%)1 (8%)4(31%)1 (8%) Area IV 34 (83%) oo n')OA\ 3 (7%) A rWo'i 1 (2%) 1QH6%'1 3 (7%) 9 (7%) Residents were asked if they felt there was affordable housing for first time homebuyers in Navarre. There was strong agreement that there are affordable houses for first time home buyers in the study area. There were a sizable number of respondents who did not know if this was true in areas I and 111. This may be due to the higher longevity rates in the area. Navarre Housing Study Table U3 Perceived Affordability of Housing Houses in Neighborhood are Affordable yes aSTI 2T(63%) Area II 23 («2%) Area 11 (77%) Area IV__________________35(85 T^\ 93l75%) no 2(5%) 2 (7%) 1 (8%) n/a T(4^ do n't know no response 11 (28%) 2 (5%) 3(11%) 2(15%) 4 (10%) 20 (16%) n/a n/a 2 (5%) 4 (3%) Residents were asked if they felt houses in the neighborhood are affordable. Three out of four respondents indicated that houses in their neighborhood are affordable. This response rate strongly coincided with the response for the previous question. Overdl, there appeared to be strong agreement that the housing in the neighborhood is affordable. This study area comprises the majority of Orono ’s affordable housing stock. Table 1.14 <;taHnWv of Neighborhood Property Values Stable Neighborh ood Property Values Area 1 Area 11 Area 11 Area IV yes 17 (43%) 17(61%) 9 (69%) 23 (56%) no 4(10%) 3(11%) n/a 6(15%) don't know no response 16(40%) 3(8%) 8 (29%) n/a 4(31%) n/a 10(24%) 2(5%) Total 66(54%) 13(11%) 38(31%) 5(4%) Residents were asked if they felt property values in the neighborhood were a concern. The stability of property values did not appear to be a concern. The majority of respondents agree that property values were stable. Table 1.15 p<.rr<»ption of Hmises on Respondents Block Being in Good Condition Houses on Block in Good Condition Area I Area II Area II Area IV Total don't know no response 8 (20%) 2 (5%) 2 (7%) n/a 2(15%) n/a ___________________2 (5%) 2 (5%) 65 (53%) 39 (27%) 14(11%) 4 (3%) yes TF(45%) 15(54%) no l2 (30%) 11 (39%) 10(77%) 1(8%) 22 (54% 15 (37%) Respondents were asked if they felt the houses on their block were in good condition. There was no consensus on this issue. While the highest proportion said yes, a very large number indicated otherwise. In Area III there was overwhelming agreement that the 8 r Navarre Housing Study housing was in good condition. Area III has newer housing which may be perceived to be in better condition. Table 1.16 Perception of Houses in the Neighborhood Being in Good Condition Houses in Neighborhood in Good Condition yes no don ’t know no response Area I Area II Area II Area IV 20(50%) 9(23%) 7(18%) 14(50%) 11 (39%) 3(11%) 9 (69%) 1 (8%) 3 (23%) 18(44%) 15(37%) 6(15%) 4(10%) n/a n/a 2 (5%) Total 61(50%) 36(30%) 19(16%) 6(5%) Residents were asked if they felt houses in their neighborhood were in good condition. The response was very similar to the previous question. Most respondents indicated the houses in the neighborhood were in good condition, with a significant number that disagreed. Table 1.17 Affordable Rental Housing in the Neighborhood There is Affordable Rental Housing in the Neighborhood yes no don’t know no response Area I 1 (3%)9 (23%)29 (73%)1 (3%) Area II 2 (7%)5(18%)21 (75%) n/a Area II 3 (23%)4(31%)6 (46%)n/a Area IV 4(10%)3 (7%)31 (76%)3 (7%) Total 10 (8%)21 (17%)87(71%)4 (3%) Respondents were asked if they felt there was affordable rental housing in the neighborhood. Most residents were unsure about this question. This was most likely due to most resMents owning their homes. Table 1.18 Number Indicating a Need for A Larger Home Would Cause Them to Move in the Next Need for Larger Home yes no don't know no response Areal Area II Area II Area IV 8 (20%) 11 (39%) 3 (23%) 14 (34%) 17(43%) 10(36%) 7 (54%) 19 (46%) 5 (13%) n/a n/a 2 (5%) 10(25%) 7 (25%) 3 (23%) 6(15%) Total 36 (30%) 53 (43%) 7 (6%)26 (21%) r Navarre Housing Study Respondents were asked if the need for a larger home would cause them to move in the next year. The majority of respondents indicated that they would not move if they needed a larger home. The exception is Area II, where a higher proportion indicated they would move. This was likely due to the small size of many of the houses in the neighborhood. Table 1.19 Number Indicating a Job Change Would Cause Them to Move in the Next Year Job Change yes no don't know no response Area 1 11 (28%)12(30%)7(18%)10(25%) Area II 7 (25%)13(46 n/a 8 (29% Area III 7 (54%)n/a 2(15%)4(31%) Area IV 10(24%) 20 (49%)3 (7%)8 (20%) Total 35 (29%)45 (37%)12(10%)30 (25%) Respondents were asked if a change in jobs would cause them to move in the next year. Most residents indicated they would not move due to a job change. A notable exception was Area III, where the majority indicated they would move and no one indicated they would not move. Table 1.20 Number Tmlicating a Change in Household Would Cause Them to Move in the Next Year Change in Household yes no don't know no response Areal Area II Area II Area IV 7(18%) 11 (39%) 4(31%) 14 (34%) 17 (43%) 10(36%) 6 (46%) 15(37%) 7(18%) 4(14%) I (8%) 3 (7%) 9 (23%) 3(11%) 2(15%) 9 (22%) Total 36(30%) 48(39%) 15(12%) 23(19%) Residents were asked if a change in their household, such as a birth or death would cause them to move within the next year. The response to this question coincides with the job change question. The highest proportion of residents would not move, however. The exception was Area II, where a slightly greater number indicated they would move. Table 1.12 Number Indicating They Would Move Within the Year to Live Closer to Work Live Closer to Work yes no don't know no response Area I Area II Area II Area IV 2 (5%) 1 (4%) 1 (8%) 4(10%) 21 (53%) 18(64%) 6 (46%) 26 (63%) 7(18%) 1 (4%) 1 (8%) 2 (5%) 10(25%) 8 (29%) 5 (38%) 9 (22%) Total 8 (7%) 71 (58%) 11 (9%) 32 (26%) J r Navarre Housing Stuc'y Respondents were asked if they would move within the next year to live closer to work. The majority of residents indicated that they would not. A very small number indicate they would. Table 1.22 Number Indicating Neighborhood Nuisances Would Cause Them to Move in the Next Ysai Neighborhood Nuisances yes no don't know no response Area I 12 (30%)11 (28%)5(13%)12 (30%) Area II 6 (21%)12 (43%)1 (4%)9 (32%) Area II 1 (8%)7 (54%)n/a 5 (38%) Area IV 11 (27%)18 (44%)5(12%)7(17%) Total 30 (25%)48 (39%)11 (9%)33 (27) Residents were asked if they would move within the next year due to neighborhood nuisances. Most residents w ould not leave because of neighborhood nuisances such as noise and traffic. This coincided with comments made on the survey regarding the level of traffic and noise on County Road 19. Table 1.23 Perception That Navarre Park is in Good Condition Navarre Park is in Good Condition yes no don't know no response Areal 10(25%)8 (20%)21 (53%)1 (3%) Area II 7 (25%)6(21%)15(54 n/a Area II 3 (23%)3 (23%)6 (46%)1 (8%) Area IV 11 (27%)18 (44%)12(29 n/a Total 31 (25%)35 (29%)54 (44%)2 (2%) Residents were asked if they felt Navarre Park is in good condition. Most respondents did not believe that Navarre Park is in good condition. While the greatest proportion did not know what kind of condition the park is in, the exception was Area IV. Those who live closest to the park felt it is not in good condition. In the other areas, the response was split or slightly in agreement that the park is in good condition. Table 1.24 Households Using Navarre Park Household Uses Navarre Park yes no don't know no response Area I 6(15%)31 (78%)1 (3%)2 (5%) Area II 3(11%)23 (82%)2 (7%)n/a Area II 1 (8%)11 (85%)1 (8%)n/a Area IV 11 (27%)28 (68%)1 (2%)1 (2%) Total 21 (17%)93 (76%)5 (4%)3 (2%) r Navarre Housing Study Households were asked if they use Navarre Park. The majority of respondents do not. There are several possible reasons why this is so. The survey did not ask respondents why they do not use the park because the purpose of the study was to focus on housing issues. Table 1.25 The Most Important Improvem ents That Should be Made Most Important Improvement That Should Be Made Areal Area II Area III Area IV Total Revamping of Dilapidated Houses Traffic (noise, speeds, volume, etc.) Improve Streets Improve Street Lighting Yard Cleanup Animal Control (loose, barking, etc.) Improve Power Lines Install Sidewalks/Trails Restricting On Street Parking Control Lord Fletcher’s Externalities Better Snow Removal Overhaul Navane Park Safe Crosswalk City Purchase Railroad/Convert to Street Lower Taxes No More Biker/Jogging Events Stop Sewer Flow Into Lake Minnetonka Close Crystal Bay Road to Through Traffic Allow Expansion of Houses On Lake Bring Income Levels Together Stop Dumping in/by Wetlands and Railroad 6 7 2 8 23 10 2 n/a 6 18 2 9 n/a 5 16 2 1 1 9 13 n/a 3 3 7 13 1 1 n/a 2 4 1 2 n/a n/a 3 n/a 1 n/a 1 2 1 n/a n/a 1 2 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 1 1 n/a n/a 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 2 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 I n/a n/a n/a 1 Residents were asked to list their single most important concern regarding the neighborhood. Improving the condition of the houses in the neighborhood was the single most important improvement that should be made according to survey respondents. This concern was equally great in all study areas, except Area III, which has relatively new duplexes. Other various improvements which at least ten or more respondents listed include traffic control, improving street conditions, lighting and the cleanup of unkempt yards. Traffic control was the greatest concern in areas I and IV. The improvement of streets was chiefly a concern in areas II and IV, which are the core areas of Navarre in this study. The improvement of street lighting was mainly a concern in Area IV. Yard cleanup was also a concern in Area IV. i . I I • X* • J'r*.''rrTinr . rr-Ti^ Navarre Housing Study Table 1.26 Other Concerns of Respondents Other Concerns Traffic (noise, speeds, volume, etc.) Unkempt Yards Unkempt Houses Anir-*U Control (loose, baridng, etc.) Condition of Streets Street Lighting Lord Fletcher's Externalities High Taxes Poor Telephone Lines Revamp Navarre Park Appearance of Church Area Overgrown Trees Boat Traffic Gas Stations Over Restrictiveness of Zoning Regulations Poor Snow Removal Children Playing in Street Piles of Railroad Ties Along RR More Crosswalks More Police Patrol Cannot Afford Home Improvements Low Income Driven Out by High Income Too Much Chlorine in Water Increasing Property Values Condition of Municipal Parking Lot Unstable Electricity During Storms Theft by Lake Access: Unfamiliarity With Neighbors Hazards Presented by RR Clogged Drain Tiles Two Families in One Family DwtUing Need for Sidewalks/Trails Limit Building Attitude of Wealthy Better Recycling Program Area I Area 11 Area III Area IV Total 6 1 1 8 16 2 2 2 5 11 1 3 n/a 3 7 1 2 n/a 3 6 1 n/a 1 3 5 n/a n/a n/a 5 5 4 1 n/a n/a 5 2 1 n/a n/a 3 2 1 n/a n/a 3 1 1 n/a n/a 2 n/a 2 n/a n/a 2 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 n/a 2 n/a n/a 2 n/a n/a 1 1 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 2 1 1 n/a n/a 2 n/a 1 1 n/a 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 2 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 Respondents were asked to list any miscellaneous concerns they had regarding the neighborhood. The response for this question was very similar to the previous one. While the order of concern is different, it is important to keep in mind these were secondary concerns, where the previous question addressed primary concerns. Traffic was the most important issue, with unkempt yards second. The areas where issues were r nwriil.: ^ r*ir '''•*• Bi *wvr« Navarre Housing Study of greatest concern closely coincide with the previous question, reinforcing the respor^se. The only new issue that appears is animal control. Table 1.27 ^^pri»ms T.isted 10 or More Times Concerns Total Traffic Dilapidated Houses Unkempt Yards Inadequate Street Lighting Inadequate Streets Animal Control Areal 16 7 2 2 3 2 Area 11 3 10 5 1 9 3 Area 111 1 2 5 1 1 n/a Area IV T? 11 12 14 8 5 Total 34 30 24 18 21 10 There were six concerns listed by 10 or more respondents. Traffic was the primary concern, with the condition of houses being a close second. Poor yards was the third most identified problem. Street lighting was a major concern in Area IV. Inadequate streets and animal control were listed as problems, particularly in Areas II and IV. Overall, it appeared respondents in Area IV, had the most concerns. r PART II: WINDSHIELD SURVEY RESULTS Housing Table 2 Type of Housing Navarre Housing Study I :! J t Type single multi-family seasonal n/a other Areal 75 (99%)n/a n/a n/a 1 (1%) Area II 62 (86%)n/a 8(11%)2 (3%) n/a Area II n/a 24 (96%) n/a 1 (4%) n/a Area IV 71 (95%)1 (1%) n/a 1 (1%) 2 (3%) Total 208 (84%)25 (10%) 8 (3%)4(2%) 3(1%) The type of housing was noted in the visual surv ey.The overwhelming majority of housing in the neighborhood was single family. The notable exception was Area III, which is entirely multi-family.This is the area of duplexes near the water tower. There were a few houses in Area II near the lake which appeared to be seasonal in nature due to a lack of cars on the property, a lower level of maintenance and/or a great deal of mail having accumulated in the mailbox. Table 2.1 Number of Houses Appearing Lived In Lived In yes no n/a Area I 75 (99%)n/a 1 (1%) Area II 68 (94%)2 (3%)2 (3%) Area III 24 (96%)n/a 1 (4%) Area IV 73 (97%)2 (3%)1 (1%) Total 240 (97%)4 (2%)4 (2%) Houses were evaluated as to whether or not they appear lived in. Most houses are occupied. There are a few houses that did not appear to be occupied that were in serious disrepair. Table 2.3 Condition of Roofs Roof excellent good fair poor dilapidated Area 1 12(16%)27 (36%)21 (28%)13 (17%)3 (4%) Area II 10(14%)25 (35%)20 (28%)11 (15%)4 (6%) Area III 4(16%)20 (80%)n/a n/a n/a Area IV 7 (9%)28 (37%)22 (29%)15 (20%)2 (3%) Total 33(13%) 100(40%)63 (25%)39 (16%)9 (4%) Navarre Housing Study The roof condition of residences was evaluated. Most roofs were in fair to excellent condition. Some roofs had buckling shingles and moss growing. There were very few roofs that were physically slumping or warped. Roofs were especially good in Area III, since this neighborhood is relatively new. Table 2.4 Tondition of Siding on Houses Siding ____________excellent poor Areal Area 11 Area III Area IV Total 24 (32%) 20 (28%) 12(48%) 27 (36%) 83 (33%) good f^r 31(41%) 15(20%) 6(8%) 23 (32%) 20 (28%) 5 (7%) dilapidated 7 (28%) 5 (20%) n/a 23(31%) 17(23%) 7(9%) n/a 2 (3%) n/a n/a 84(34%) 57(23%) 18(7%) 2(1%) The condition of siding on houses was evaluated. This issue was of minimal con^ overall. The siding on almost all houses rated in the fair to excellent categones. Tins was specially true of houses with vinyl and stucco. Area II had a couple of houses with siding in the dilapidated category Table 2.5 Type of Siding on Houses Area I Area II Area III Area IV Total wood brick vinyl stucco other need pain t 56(74%) Hm 11(14%) 7(9%) T(T%) 9(12%) 58(81%) 1(1%) 7(10%) 4(6%) n/a 9(13%) 20(80%) n/a 4(16%) a'a n/a 7(28%) 48 (64%) 1(1%) 18(24%) 6(8%) 1(1%) 8(11%) 182 (73%) 3 (1%) 40(16%) 17(7%) 2 (1%) 33 (13%) The type of siding on residences was noted. Most houses in the study area had wood siding. There was a small number in each neighborhood that needed paint, but the siding itself appeared sound. Table 2.6 Tondition nf Foundation on Houses Area 1 Area II Area III Area IV Total excellent 20 (26%) 11(15%) 11 (44%) 4 (5%) 46 (19%) good 35l46%) 33 (46%) 13 (52%) 45 (60%) 126 (51%) fair 17(22%) 21 (29%) n/a 20 (27%) 58 (23%) poor 2 (3%) 3 (4%) n/a 4 (5%) 9 (4%) dilapidated 2 (3%) n/a 1 (1%) ! ' Navarre Housing Study The foundations on residences were evaluated. Almost all foundations were in fair to excellent condition. This was especially true in Area III where all foundations were in good to excellent condiuon. The number in poor to dilapidated condition was very small. Table 2.7 Tondition nf Windowfs on Residences excellent goodWindows fair poor dilapidated Areal Area II Area III Area IV 29(38%) 32(42%) 14(18%) 1(1%) 21 (29%) 37(31%) 8(11%) 2 (3%) 14(56%) 10(40%) n/a n/a 18 (24%) 43 (57%) 11(15%) 2(3%) Total 82(33%) 122(49%) 33(13%) 5(2%) n/a 2 (3%) n/a n/a 2 (1%) The condition of windows were evaluated. Windows were in good to excellent condition overall. There were a few structures that have older window frames and were experiencing minor rotting or weathering. Many of the traditional wood frame windows in the neighborhood have been replaced by vinyl or aluminum. Table 2.8 Windows that were broken or having screens missing were noted. As the previous question states, most windows were in relatively good condition. Table 2.9 Overall Appearance of Houses Overall Appearance excellent good fair poor Areal Area II Area III Area IV 14(18%) 12 (17%) 12 (48%) 5 (7%) 44 (58%) 34 (47%) 12 (48%) 47 (63%) 15 (20%) 18 (25%) n/a 18(24%) 3 (4%) 5 (7%) n/a 3 (4%) dilapidated n/a Total 43(17%) 137(55%) 51(21%) 11(4%) 1 (1%) n/a 1 (1%) 2 (1%) The overall condition of houses were documented. Most houses were in fair to excellentcondition overall. Few residences were in poor to dilapidated condition. Number of Windows Broken or Havinc Screens Missing on Residences •broken screens missing Area I 1 (1%)n/a 1 Area II 1 (1%)2 (3%) Area III n/a n/a Area IV 1 (1%)n/a Total 3 (1%)2 (1%) J r Navarre Housing Study Garages I Table 2.11 Number of Attached and Detached Garages Attached or Detached attached detached both n/a Area 1 13 (17%)48 (63%)1 (1%)14(18%) Area 11 25 (35%)34 (47%) n/a 13(18%) Area 111 24 (96%)1 (4%)n/a n/a Area IV 13(17%)36 (48%)1 (1%)25 (33%) Total 75 (30%)119(48%)2(1%)53 (21%) Whether garages were attached, detached or non-existent was noted on each property. Most garages in the area were detached. These duplexes were built on wider lots than most houses in the older parts of the neighborhood. Duplexes in Area III had a much higher proportion of garages in the good to excellent categories than the other areas. There were also many properties that do not have a garage at all. This may be due to the lot sizes and widths that make the construction of a garage in the side or rear yard difficult. Table 2.12 Condition of Roofs on Garages Roof excellent good fair poor dilapidated Areal Area 11 Area 111 Area IV 10(13%) 17(22%) 23(30%) 9(12%) 3(4%) 7(10%) 22(31%) 16(22%) 10(14%) 4(6%) 4(16%) 20(80%) 1(4%) n/a n/a 3(4%) 19(25%) 15(20%) 10(13%) 3(4%) Total 24(10%) 78(31%) 55(22%) 29(12%) 10(4%) The condition of garage roofs was examined. The majority of garage roofs are in the fair to excellent categories. There were a few garages which have roofs in poor to dilapidated condition. In some cases, the roof may be beyond repair. Table 2.13 Condition of Siding on Garages Siding excellent good fair poor dilapidated Area 1 19 (25%)25 (33%)10(13%)8(11%)n/a Area 11 16(22%)15 (21%)23 (32%)3 (4%)2 (3%) Area 111 12(48%)7 (28%)6 (24%)n/a n/a Area IV 6 (8%)20 (27%)16(21%)3 (4%)5 (7%) Total 53 (21%)67 (27%)55 (22%)14 (6%)7 (3%) Navarre Housing Study The siding conditions for garages was examined. Once again, there was a fairly even distribution between excellent, good and fair siding conditions. There was a large number in poor to dilapidated condition. Most garages have wood siding. Table 2.14 Condition of Foundations on Garag es Foundation excellent good fair poor dilapidated n/a Area I Area II Area III Area IV 17(22%) 29(38%) 12 (16%) 3 (4%) 1(1%) 7(10%) 31 (43%) 17 (24%) 3 (4%) 1 (1%) 11 (44%) 13 (52%) 1 (4%) n/a n/a 3(4%) 30(40%) 7(9%) 6 (8%) 3 (4%) Total 38(15%) 103(42%) 37(15%) 12(5%) 5(2%) n/a n/a n/a 1 (1%) 1 (1%) The condition of foundations on garages was examined. It does not appear as though garage foundations were as great of concern as other structural components. There was a small number that sliowed cracking and slumping. Table 2.15 Condition of Windows on Garages Windows excellent good fair poor dilapidated n/a Area I 20(26%) 28(37%) 10(13%) 1(1%)1 (1%)2 (3%) Area II 16 (22%) 29 (40%) 8(11%) 3 (4%)3 (4%) Area III 14(56%) 10(40%) 1 (4%) n/a n/a n/a Area IV 6(8%) 30(40%) 11(15 n/a 2 (3%)1 (1%) Total 56(23%) 97(39%) 30(12%) 4(2%)6 (2%)3 (1%) The condition of garage windows was evaluated. Most garage windows were in fair to excellent condition. Table 2.16 Overall Appearance of Garages Overall Appearance excellent good fair poor dilapidated Area 1 12(16%)33 (43%)10(13%)7 (9%)n/a Area 11 12(17%)24 (33%)17(24%)3 (4%)3 (4%) Area 111 12(48%)12(48%)1 (4%)n/a n/a Area IV 3 (4%)24 (32%)12(16%)7 (9%)4 (5%) Total 39(16®^>93 (38%)40(16%)17(7%)7 (3%) The overall appearance of garages was evaluated. Overall, the appearance of most garages could be considered fair to excellent. The proportion in the excellent and good categories was slightly lower for garages than it was for houses. Area III had nearly all garages that were in the good to excellent categories that are attached. r Navarre Housing Study Yards Table 2.18 rondition of Driveway and Sidewalks Driveway/Sidewalks excellent good fair poor dilapidated Areal 23 (30%)31 (41%)15(20%)7 (9%)n/a Area II 25 (35%)18(25%)22 (31%)5 (7%)1 (1%) Area III 16(64%)8 (32%)1 (4%)n/a n/a Area IV 24 (32%)29 (39%)20 (27%)1 (1%)n/a Total 88 (35%)86 (35%)58 (23%)13(5%)I (1%) The condition of sidewalks and driveways was evaluated. In most cases, driveways and sidewalks were in good to excellent condition. Those in fair and poor condition were experiencing cracking or overgrowth of weeds, depending on whether or not they were paved. There are also some driveways in these categories that had potholes. Table 2.19 Number of Paved and IJnpaved Driveways paved unpaved both n/a Area I 41 (54%)33 (43%)2 (3%)n/a Area 11 37(51%)31 (43%)3 v4%)1 (1%) Area III 25 (100%)n/a n/a n/a Area IV 39 (52%)34 (45%)1 (1%)1 (1%) Total 142 (57%)98 (40%)6 (2%)2(1%) Whether driveways were paved, unpaved or both was noted. While most driveways were paved, there is a sizable number that were unpaved. Every driveway was paved in Area III. Table 2.21 Presence of Debris and Outdoor Storage Debris/Outdoor Storage excellent good fair poor dilapidated Area 1 22 (29%)28 (37%)16(21%)5 (7%)5 (7%) Area 11 6 (8%)23 (32%)24 (33%)13(18%)6 (8%) Area III 12 (48%)10(40%)2 (8%)n/a 1 (4%) Area IV 12 06%)33 (44%)20 (27%)6 (8%)4 (5%) Total 52 (21%)94 (38%)62 (25%)24(10%)16(6%) The presence of debris and outdoor storage was observed. With the exception of Area III all other areas had numerous properties in the poor to dilapidated categories. Many residences had miscellaneous items in their yard. 1 r Navarre Housing Study Table 2.23 abandoned vehicles recreational vehicles weeds, brush Area 1 6 (8%)8(11%)18(24%) Area 11 3 (4%)12(17%)37(51%) Area III n/a n/a 2 (8%) Area IV 6 (8%)11 (15%)28 (37%) Total 15 (6%)31 (13%)85 (34%) Specific items of debris and outdoor storage were noted. The*-e was a significant number of abandoned vehicles and recreational vehicles on properties m the study area, by far the greatest concern was the presence of excessive weeds and brush observed. A third of the properties had excessive weeds and brush. Table 2.24 Overall Appearance of Yards Overall Appearance excellent good fair poor dilapidated Area 1 Area 11 Area 111 Area IV 23 (30%) 6 (8%) 13 (52%) 12(16%) 31 (49%) 24 (33%) 10(40%) 32 (43%) 13(17%) 23 (32%) 1 (4%) 21 (28%) 7 (9%) 13(18%) n/a 6 (8%) 2 (3%) 6 (8%) 1 (4%) 4 (5%) Total 54(22%) 97(39%) 58(23%) 26(10%) 13(5%) The overall appearance of yards was documented. The overall appearance of most yards were in the fair to excellent categories. There were some that needed to remove debris and weeds. Table 2.25 Additional Observations Additional Comments Areal Area 11 Area III Area IV Total weeds and brush along lake n/a 14 n/a n/a 14 excessive bush/vine growth 4 4 n/a 2 10 weedy/overgrown yard 5 2 n/a 3 10 dead grass 1 3 1 2 7 new house 2 4 n/a 1 7 junk in yard 3 3 n/a n/a 6 house additions/remodeling 3 n/a n/a 1 4 deck in disrepair 1 2 n/a 1 4 small cabin 2 1 n/a 1 4 very small residence 2 n/a n/a 1 3 unsightly fence 2 n/a 1 3 potholes in drive 1 1 n/a n/a 2 J r Additional Comments (co ntinued) garage doors in disrepair landscaping taking place ice fishing house in yard significant front setback porch in disrepair pile of gravel double wide trailer noisy/loose dogs new landscaping construction materials lying around empty lot garage roof in disrepair dead bushes foundation in disrepair excessive amounts of flowers have tennis court dilapidated retaining wall storage shed in disrepair cracking chimney should be razed has extra cabin landscaping becoming shoddy noxious weeds steep topography outdoor car storage natural looking yard old shop garage in disrepair terraced front yard flower planter in disrepair missing front steps wood piles Area 1 1 2 n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a I n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a I I Navarre Housing Study Area II n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Area 111 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Area IV Total 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 2 2 2 2 n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 1 1 n/a n/a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Noteworthy features of properties not on the checklist were specifically noted. When the neighborhood was inspected, notable features were cited specifically. There were three comments which were cited 10 times or more. In Area II, many properties had weeds and brush growing up along the lakeshore. There was excessive growth of bushes and vines in many areas. There was also a significant number of properties that were weedy or overgrown. These top three additional comments related to the maintenance of yards. FINDINGS The mail back and visual surveys conducted in July 1997 that there is an interest in funding for housing improvements. Survey results indicate that many residents may qualify for some types of loans or grants based on income reported. The visual survey substantiated that there are properties that would benefit from repair. Navarre Housing Study Navarre contains the bulk of what can be considered affordable housing in Orono. Affordable housing is defined as $115,000 per unit in this part of Twin Cities metropolitan area according to the Metropolitan Council. The houses in the area are generally smaller and more affordable than other houses elsewhere in the community and lake area. The city is required to update the comprehensive plan and address housing issues. Orono is woridng with other Lake Minnetonka area communities to develop a housing plan. It is expected to be initiated in January and completed within six months. 4 Appendix A1 NEIGHBORH*•nil SURVEY For the following questions, please check the box left of the answer most applicable. 1. Do you rent or own the property you live in? □ Rent □ Own 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. How long have you lived in the neighborhood? □ Less than I year □ 7-5 years □ 3~10years □ 10-20years □ Over 20years If there are children under 18 in your household, please indicate all age groups that ^ply □ Under 5 years old □ 6-10 years old □ 11-14 years old □ 15-18 years old What is the employment status of your head of household? □ Employed full time □ Employed part time □ Homemaker □ Student, unemployed □ Student, employed □ Retired □ Unemployed □ Self employed What was your total household earned gross income in 1996? (wages and salary ^fore taxes) □ Under $4,999 □ $5,000- $9,999 □ $10.000-$19,999 □ $20.000-$29,000 □ $30,000-$49,000 □ $50.000-$74,999 □ Over $75,000 □ Choose not to answer What is the highest level of education you have completed? □ Elementary school □ Some high school □ High school or GED □ Some technical school □ Technical school graduate □ Some college □ Post graduate □ Other Is your house adequately equipped or designed to meet your needs? For example, do you have or will you have mobility limitations that make it difficult for you to continue living in your home? D Yes t3 No □ Don't Know 8. If your house needed repair would you be able to get it fixed?□ Yes HNo □ Don't Know If you own your home, would you consider major remodeling or other improvements to your home if affordable loans and grants were available? □ Yes O No □ Don't Know Please see other side of page 10. 11. 12. Appendix A2 If you could not afford to get your house fixed, would you J^ply for any of the following types of funding options? (rate all that apply) Grants OYes □No O Don't Know Low interest government loans □ Yes O No □ Don't Know Low interest private loans □ Yes □ No □ Don't Know Would not apply □ Yes □ No □ Don't Know Do you agree with the following statements? There are houses in the Navarre area that are affordable for first-time home buyers to purchase. Houses in the neighborhood are affordable. The property values in the neighborhood are stable. The houses on my block are in good condition. The houses in the neighborhood are in good condition. There is affordable rental housing in the neighborhood. □ Yes □ No □ Don't Know □ Yes O No □ Don't Know □ Yes □ No □ Don't Know □ Yes □ No □ Don't Know O Yes O No O Don't Know n Yes O No n Don't Know Which of the following reasons would cause you to move from your current residence within the next 12 months? Need for a larger home □ Yes □ No □ Don't Know Relocating due to a job change □ Yes O No □ Don't Know Change in household or family (birth, death, etc.) □ Yes O No □ Don't Know Need to live closer to work □ Yes O No □ Don't Know Neighborhood nuisances (noise, traffic, etc.) □ iVs GNo D Don't Know Other_______ 13. The neighborhood park (Navarre Park) is in good condition. □ Yes □ No □ Don't Know 14. My household frequently uses the neighborhood park (Navarre Park). □ Yes □ No □ Don't Know For the foHowine questions, please write in vour answers in the spaces provided. 15. What is the single most important improvement that should be made in your neighborhood to improve things in the future? 16. Are there any other issues or concerns that you have regarding your neighborhood? PLEASE RETURN IN POSTAGE PAID ENVELOPE BEFORE .JULY 11.1997, Thank you for your participation! r Appendix B HOUSING CHECKLIST gtrcet;Address; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1= excellent Type □ single family number of units:__ O multi family Docs It Appear Lived In Dyes Ono Roof Siding Uwood Foundation □ vinyl □ brick Windows □ screens missing □ broken 7. Overall Appearance Owner; 2^ good Zsfair 4= poor □ seasonal 1 2 3 I 2 3 □ in need of paint 1 2 3 I 2 3 1 5s dilapidsded 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 Garage; 8. Attached or Detached G attached D detached 9. Roof 10. Siding 11. Foundation 12. Windows 13. Overall Appearance 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 Yard; 14. Driveway/Sidewalks O paved □ unpaved 15. Debris/Outdoor Storage □ abandoned vehicles 16. Overall Appearance 17. Additional Comments:__ 1 □ recreational vehicles 1 2 3 4 O weeds/brush TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator November 13,1997 SUBJECT: Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use-Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, One-Family Lakeshore Residential District, (l^ Acre) Sewered Lot Size:22,420 sq. ft. (.51 acres) Application:Applicants are seeking a conditional use permit in order to grade within 5' of the southerly property line to install 25' of retaining wall along the edge of the driveway wliich would allow the driveway to be iq>proximately 24'- 25' wide in front of the garage doors instead of 21' where 30' is typically needed for a 3 car side-loading garage. Background: The applicants applied for variances (#2206) in March 1997 to allow removal of a residence and construction of a new residence. Resolution #3851 granted approval for the following variances: 1. To allow the deck to be located 8' forward of the average lakeshore setback. 2.To allow 3,685 sq. ft. (29.64%) of hardcover in the 75'-250' setback where 3,562 sq. ft. (28.64%) was existing and 3,109 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed. 3.To allow 1,208 sq. ft. (31.23%) of hardcover in the 250'-500' setback where 1,429 sq. ft. (36.95%) was existing and where 1,160 sq. ft. (30%) is allowed. 4.To allow 3,435 sq. ft. (15.32%) of structural coverage where 2,510 sq. ft. was existing and 3,363 sq. ft. (15%) is allowed. U2290 Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page-l r The house construction proceeded following 2^pproval for the variances. The topo information that was used to obtain the variances was based on city topo maps which are drawn from aerial photos. These topo maps can be off on an individual zoning lot by 2'. It was discovered during construction that the topo maps did not reflect the actual elevations on site. Fill from the excavated basement was used to elevate the site to provide for a lakeside walk-out. During the footings inspection it was determined that there would not be adequate room to back out of the three car side-loading garage. The Building Inspector instructed the builder to reduce the elevation of the garage floor because there was a 5 foot difference between the grade at the floor level and the southerly property line. It was apparent that a 5 ft. difference in grade over approximately 25 ft. of driveway would cause access problems for the garage. The garage floor is currently proposed at the 959 elevation and the southerly property line is proposed at a 956 elevation. A 3’ grade change is an improvement over the 5 ’ change that was originally plamied due to inaccurage topo maps. In order to increase the size of the driveway, the applicants are asking for a conditional use permit to grade within 2' of the southerly property line to construct a retaining wall approximately 2.5 ’ to 3’ in height. Grading within 5 ’ of the property line requires a conditional use permit. If the applicants chose to build a retaining wall 5' from the property line and less than 42 ’ in height it would not require a conditional use permit for grading nor a side yard setback as the retaining wall would be considered a non-encroachment and grading would be considered normal and customary.. As proposed, the retaining wall 2' from the property line provides approximately 24 ’ of driveway between the garage doors and wall. If the retaining wall was constructed 5 ’ from the property line, the driveway would be 21 ’ in width from the garage doors to the retaining wall. Turning of vehicles will be difficult at either length as 30 ’ is recommended for driveways serving a side-loading garage. The City Engineer has reviewed the r’an and indicated that 10 ’ is usually reconunended along side yards for drainage. City subdivision gulations require a 5 ’ drainage and utility easement along each internal lot line. This provides for a 10* " »de drainage and utility easement between all lots. The recommended 5 ’ distance is in accordance with City policy. Grass is also recommended in the drainage swale rather than rock mulch. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.25, LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 19. Prohibitions and Subd. 21. Exceptions U2290 Elaine and Steve Silt's 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page-2 •i i « !• Subd. 19. Prohibition It is unlawful for any person to: a. remove, fill, or use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar material within the limits of the City; b.to fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land so as to elevate or alter the existing natural grade; c.or to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or to otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. All of the above referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed with only "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Subd. 21. Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern: the normal and customar y grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or b. the grading of a driveway serving such building, nor c.to any movement under 100 cubic yards which does not advereely impact the existing drainage. Such grading and earth moving shall be approved by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of the building permit, providing that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Any unusual earth filling, removal or grading proposed by a builder shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Planning Commission and the Council for action in accordance to this Chap.er. The Building Inspector shall adhere to the following guidelines in the determination of unusual land alterations: 1.All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet if any amount of the excess material removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on site. 2.Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 100 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footings protection. H2290 Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page~3 3. Grading or alterations that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. • Section 10.09 Conditional Uses, Subd. 6. Conditional Uses: Grar.ting of Permit Lot Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1/2 acre (21,780 sq. ft.) 100’30’10'75' and average lakeshore setback Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard .517 acres (22,420 sq. ft.) 55 ’55 ’ to new garage 10’ on each side of new house, 2 ’ proposed for wall 170’+ The subject property meets the lot area requirements. The property does not meet the lot width requirements. A conditional use permit is required because of the grading within 5' of the property line. A 55 ’ wide lot does not provide adequate width to meet the 10’ side yard requirements and a 30' driveway pad in front of the garage. #2290 Elaine and Steve Situs 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page~4 ithin S rage idth a 30' : 1 I «»g»WM Structural Coverage A variance was granted in February 1997 for 72 sq. ft. of structural coverage. HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Allowed Hardcover Hardcover with former residence Hardcover proposed with new construction Hardcover proposed with retaining wall 0’-75'6,117 sq. ft.None 13 sq.ft. (.21%) None None 75'-250*12,436 sq. ft.3,109 sq. ft. (25%) 3,562 sq. ft. (28.64%) 3,685 sq. ft. (29.6%) 3,685 sq. ft. (29.6%) 250’-500’3,867 sq. ft.1,160 sq. ft. (30%) 1,429 sq. ft. (36.95%) 1,208 sq. ft. (31.2%) 1,208 sq. ft. (31.2%) The applicant has redesigned the driveway so that previous variances for hardcover can be met with the proposed retaining wall. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; Land alteration or grading is difticult to consider as a "use". Nonetheless, the Planning Commission shall consider whether allowing the grade to be changed within 2' of the property line along the retaining wall for the driveway is consistent with the intent of both the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Code requires that grading changes be reviewed and U2290 Elaine and Steve Situs 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page~5 not have a negative impact on adjacent residential property. In order to approve the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission would have to find that the application meets the objectives of the zoning code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. ' t i In order to meet this condition the grading plan needs to demonstrate that it will be maintained in a manner that does not impact the adjacent property. The proposed retaining wall will collect water that from the driveway and channel it into the side yard uiiere a concrete spilllway previously was located. The applicants have indicated that the concrete spillway was old and in disrepair. Other issues relating to how the grade would be maintained involve snow removal, screening, vehicle emissions, and vehicle safety. Snow removal would need to be done in a manner that does not place snow on the adjacent property. The 2' strip and the south side yard is shown as rip/rap or rock mulch. The City Engineer has advised that the slope could be planted with sod to have less impact on the adjacent property. His recommendation to remain 5' off the property line has not changed. In order to s^prove the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must find that the location of the conditional use is not detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The conditional use permit would have to be in compliance with all other regulations, including previous resolutions regarding hardcover. In order to approve the application, the Planning Commisson must find that the application complies with all other zoning requirements. Considerations 1. If the conditional use permit is denied, the applicant can install a retaining wail S' from the property line and have a 21' driveway from the garage. This will result in the driveway being 9' shorter than what is recommended. If the applicant finds that a 21' driveway is not suitable, the applicant can change the orientation of the garage to have a street facing double door instead of a three car side U2290 Elaine and Steve Situs 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page- >nal 2. loading garage. This would provide better access but may increase the amount of hardcover depending on the width of the driveway. The grade of the garage floor is 3* higher than the south property line. Reducing the grade 3' so that no conditional use permit is needed would require substantial modifleation to the garage. ned fleet id in ;rially sof ding om Staff Recommendation The retaining wall proposal 2’ from the property line would provide a 24’ driveway where 30’ is usually needed and recommended. The City Engineer has recommended that the wall remain 5 from the property line and the side yard be landscaped with sod and planting to screen the driveway from the adjacent property. The proposed wall location only provides for a 2’ drainage swale at the base of the wall This is not in compliance with standard city policy for subdivisions for new construction which requires a 5' easement for drainage purposes along lot lines. The plan as submitted does not comply with the Planning Commission ’s previous directives to keep the wall 5 ’ from the property line which would eliminate the need for a conditional use permit. Attachments New plans follow staff report 1-5 A Application Applicant’s hardship statement B Plat map C Topo map of previous situation D Permit record E Adjacent Owner’s Acknowledgement Form F Zoning Code excerpt regarding non-encroachments G Hardcover calculations H 2/18/97 minutes for previous variances I Resolution 3851 J Minutes from September 1997 meeting K Minutes from October 1997 meeting L Letters from neighbors #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page~7 A. r !W' @>#ifif!S=!SSS («r> p(v^s<«»« *M/*va ffi'l2 II5 E i rr'.^iov*^ —► .- -."w -r-T- ii»-^r--.L*»:x*^ r-:-:in»’^.-c“ii;»T'- r-n^-v rw^r ^ . i-’S-'v '' IfJ f 1 1 • \ \ . LIt D SCVTH&^T I froposed Cetc V^ii Wall M a K. Kl ■■ [ ’ ’ ‘ - iShriftiia A'liV^ ti Z. \rt5i« pW«*«nrN V I H tPfThr^^^ €Hih'^ ^iScaW 'O^W^ T®I • i OJ I t?RV6A!»^- ... _s_s. h»;«>h7 With fitcfft. 0C^N» ^in— sISPll ► r 1 • • tf * • L ____ . < l__*£l jfi‘aw*r' &U2^ i » ' ^ • •r* • *.*’Hi* .'c'r 1 ■• • - . •• * •• • • • . .• • 1*. • **• ,* •.................. • * ** 1 ** n»’ .1 [— :r - •* ***• • • •• '• ,, • 1 ** */* , y • : 1 ^ - 1 •r— ^ s i <> < -j^igY'SJWfe' WAU- * »■•' ‘v ■% -i, >• C* l' U^WA^T* <0 r Application # f11'' Received -^JiJic cro \ 4^ Amount Fald CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 S ■ ($50.00 per each additional variance) ' © J/ i y I Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 a <"• d (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220l)0 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) 8 PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress ^7 2- <Ce^A Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /<? . Attach legal description to application if not include(f^ on iequir^ survey. Date Pro I (do) Acquired,.(month/year) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present usTof property: X' residential ___pother (specify) Zoning District: Z, </, APPLICANT ^ ' Phone (home) f Name ,5/ ^-cejr_______ Phone(woric) V 7 S 7 W* Address:^ *r^ ^ -■-> ^7r~g7«a- City: ______Zip: ^ y OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (woilc)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $, Describe request in detail: ^ 1 .> O___________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage ^ Setback:Front 2L Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions , iventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: .v. i uJP _______ _____ (attach additional sheets if necessary) r REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. All nf the follnwing information must be submitted bv the applkatiftn dtadilDtf ^^rHgr for Y**"** apniigatiftn to b* consiiIt»^d complete: ^ Completed Application Form / Certified Prooerty 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). y Certificate of Survey (sigr^ed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i x 11 for reproduction. ... Topographic surv’ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes m existing “7 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 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 3. 4./ 5. 6. 7. 8. y persons you wrish 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 jauir variance application w not complete if the above information h«S nOt btCfl intlWfltfli APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ^ u u v « The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonmg Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies tha e information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date 7 OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authonzes re^on . entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, a^nts. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's SixandXwiQ ^Date make arrangements to have an authonzed agent attend in your place and to advise e g & Zoning Offu i of this change prior to the meeting. \ 8 e5=v- ~^%3LGiU5r^^<=r- Tt5 vv^'^??MX_ yv •AAj::^Va=r- *2:CXjaV\ V-OT 0.0 C: -S^^jCAOCo- . ooc^e^ -T^ a:lu:juo e.vjrei^toc3i^ -Aioo rr uS'ito . u3^Ai_ 4\ScVtMT ‘TO BC ^1 AX" ^tJLSTt^<€D^T‘ S^OvvTT TO “TAc^C^ 'TCj •^-sreso \^A?eiD^5sVH p / D>e^<lSix’pT\c:>0 C^ UiJtvsu/^ CoOt^\-T\tDO^- &G.vii^XaSWE c:^ OAefe-CboJ UC5T uOVCSTH- . ■Xcifse^^ v3 otnr cS5^v5?^^eA.^\or =Jpo^M ^^jo^cT\c:p^ o\s_ i^vjv^^KjQj^ / ocrr t^'To ■~n4^ (ia^eAfccr :£t-ta.u_l_^ uj v-tv^^oir ^cuc-Cmog- A fe£XA\>Ov^O:^ m>vUC UJVWAVJ -nrit^ iT saixfeAc^ o^^\OAOc_ti \0 ejjgivy/^.ovj cjbww^^. lO/S ^ooo Jo'S 'I ^/d(^ ^t>Uo ADDRESS PERMIT RECORD .^33^ Cjr\ 9' 7<^ -/' / <j • L -/*?- ^~7 U ■ /O '5^ ^ • * b)aXi. _j£^^±!^L. y\f /y?o 1 J I r . ■'N . • ^ ^ .. .7?* Adjacent Property Owners* A^owledgement Form I (we) T)A u T- ^ S^OV [print name(s)] Cas^o [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located -------------------------- 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 Coimcil that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner 7 Date 5:S 1 I Property Owner Date I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located ----------------------------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 Coimcil that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. /4*rope^^wner ?/ -z(/?y Date / Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. located iked to le City ghbor's ocated ked to e City jhbor's d Use 3 days £ S 10.03 residence and garage structures. D. Tennis courts, pools and °^ when such accessory structures exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint » shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions: Front - 30' minimum and not within the required front yard nor between the front lot line and the principal structure on the property Side - 30' minimum and not within the required side yard area Rear - 30' minimum and not within the requiredSource: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 ^ Subd. 15. Non-Encroachments. The following shall not be ^ considered to be encroachments on yard requirements: A. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, r-iiasters. lintels, ornamental features, mechanical devices, lornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided more than 1-1/2 feet, off-street parking except as hereinafter regulated. Name plate signs for one family dwellings? liahts for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or . safetv and security purposes, provided the direct source of If not visibrrfrom the public kght-of-way property may be located to within five feet of the front lot line. C. Fences which do not exceed 3-1/2 feet in height, fences not over 6 feet in height along the stre^ lot frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, if fill required, the total combined height of both fence and fil , no? exceed 6 feet above the height of the terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or which do not Ixtend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than 2 feet from any lot line. D. In side or rear yards only, bays not to exceed a depth of 2 feet nor to contain an area of more than 20 square feet, fi?e escapes not to exceed a width of 3 feet, fences and walls not to height of 6 feet above original grade and, open_^i^t- gtvaof- ra rkino e:^ept for lakeshore lot s, no wall t,! . hut n?t in height above orxgii.al grade may be located closer to tne snoreiinV ^han the averag^ distance from the shoreline of existing residence °J a<Sjacent lots, such fences shall not be constructed within of the shoreline. source: Ordinance 9, 2nd Series. Adopted: 1-28-85 (4-1-84) ORONO CC 256-1 10.03 11 be clpal renaSf area# rd nor ure on area area Series not be sillsr vicesr extend nafter lings; rds for t light Sentla1 line. height# of lake ill is 1 shall e road# ictures# evel of i than 2 exceed a re feet# tils not :en off" '^over' 42 rigxnaT average lings on 75 feet Series § 10.03 Rear yard only; balconies# breezeways# detached outdoor picnic shelters and recreational equipment except as regulated hereinafter; no accessory structure shall be closer than 5 feet from a rear lot line nor shall a fence or vail constructed wibhin a rear yard exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade. F. Side yards only; no accessory structure shall be closer ^han 10 fee^ from any side lot line nor shall a fence or wal_l_cons^ucted within a cide’yard exceed a heioht of 6 original grade. - - --- - - - - - - - - Source: Ordinance 9# 2nd Series Adopted; 1-28-85 Subd. 16. Traffic Visibility. No fences# structures or planting more than three feet high in the "R" District on corner lots shall be permitted to obstruct traffic visibility within a triangular area defined as follows: "Beginning at the intersection wicurb lines of two intersecting streets# thence thirty feet along one curb line thence diagonally to a point thirty feet from the point of beginning on the other curb line# thence to the point of beginning. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd. 17. Essential Services. This Zoning Chapter shall require a permit for all structures including utility poles# and right-of-ways which are an integral part of a system for public transportation# as for transmitting power# water# heat# communica tions# gas or sewage by any public utility. The Council shall grant a conditional use permit only after a showing that the public safety# health and welfare will not be harmed by the essential SQITVXOGS • lone V 1^“^* Farming. All farms in existence on January 1# i’7? shall be permitted to continue operation subject to the following conditions: . . , new "stock farms" shall be created or existing stock farms enlarged more than twenty-five percent (251) over the total number of animals that existed on the farm as of January l# 1975 with animals over one year old except under the s conditional use permit. In considering any such permit# the maximum number and type of animals to be kept shall be determin®d by the Council. The site design and method of operation shall^ be reviewed and the Council shall find that the proposed or existing "stock farm" will not in its opinion be detrimental to the public safety and the general welfare. (4-1-84) ORONO CC 257 (4-1-84) .03 S 10.03 )ve 1, )4) b”K' Insre=tor"at"?hrtlm“o^ Tssu«%e ”of the® buSg peUt, providing that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adioining property has been submitted. Any unusual earth ?emotal rrorosed bv a builder shni be rejefred^the lotion \n-acc3idi^ with this The Bui loing Inspect^ thall adhere to the foilowiHrguideliHii in the determination of unusual land alterations: 3 i4!i I'r^pli^cJ o.u.f. 1. All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet if any amount of the excess material removed be ow depth is to be stockpiled on the site. 2. Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 100 cubic yards except for fill required to raise gra e or adequate frost footings protection. 3. Grading or alterations that would propose an_ changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 laermi \- Subd. 22. Rip-rap Defined. Rock placed at water level of lakeshore to prevent erosion of shoreline by water action. Subd. 23. Permit Required. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the normal and cus om y rip-rap of lakeshore property. It is unlawful for any rip-rap lakeshore property within the limits of the City permit issued by the City Engineer. Any unusual rip-rap shall be referred by the City Engineer to the Planning Commission and Council for action in accordance with this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 167 Effective Date: 6-25-74 Subd. 24. Application for Permit. An such permit shall be accompanied by a drawing showing the . of the proposed rip-rap and such other information as the City Engineer may require from time to time. a fee filed with the City Administrator and shall be accompanied ^ , in the amount prescribed by the current City fee schedule p y to the City.Source: Ordinance No. 196 Effective Date: 8-22-77 ORONO CC 258-1 (4-1-84) B.Garage C.Driveway D.Sidewalk HARDCOVER CALCULAliUiN VVUKK:>Miifc.i JETBACKZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ ^5-250|^ 25-500’500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___ Lenfth Wid* I • C lO MCK ^TfP$ 22. X X X 1 84^ S.F. Bo J B. Garage » 1 C. Driveway X X ^PlUvJAY D.-6Mew^ \:CPH^0 f \JA<KiOU^ X X * • 4. 1 E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By ?Iasiic Or Fabric X X X Pai2t &r G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A. 3SCZ + B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Len|ih Width X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk srfpj ZO X X E. Patio/Deck X X /rv<. « />jy d, WM. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ? €75 + B /2. 43C X 100 • • 14 LUz. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. JJ_S7_s.f. S.F. 133. 03 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 3S62,_______ S.F. I2.4j^ S.F. z g .6^ ' % Z 7az S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 70 0 S.F. S.F. 9 0 S.F. /oo_S.F. 3€o S.F. J2.S _S.F. S.F. ‘S.F. S.F. S.F. 3^SS • S.F. /2.4 3 6 - S.F. %>9. 43 A B A B I J r 1 hardcover CALCULATlOiN VVUI<^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’75-250 ’(^S-SQ^ /^-j -97 500-1000 ’ ' EXISTING HARDCQVFR IN ZONE A. House ______ - ■i Vi. Lengdi t |{ X X X B. Garage 30. C. Driveway f wooO^Hf^ 06^RA^r V • X X u i:i'. it • > •i 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 Mlf____ 1- B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House rCA^*C.f) Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway ^ AfT, CaJA tej X X D. Sidewalk X X ss S.F. Width S.F. " =S.F. _ a S.F. 22.4 -JO r*a ^^6 S.F. •^lO S.F. " a .55 S.F. gjj S.F. “ «S.F. «e « • • » !■ •%»«S.F. a 'S.F. • BS S.F. S8 S.F. SS S.F. a _S.F. •/429 S.F. m "S.F. -^86 7 X 100 - « 2^8 % \ • _S.F. Width a 1 S.F. a "S.F. «"s.F. m _S.F. •_S.F. “ a ” S.F. ■_S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other UfAU.S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE • A /20f ____ ♦ B / ZO? . S.F. S.F. X :oo -3/. Zjgi • Id••• #»•••» ^ •• e • • • A B A B MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18,1997 H (#1 - #2211 Zoning Amendment - Continued) Van Zomeren said when the policy comes back to the March meeting, there may be language guiding the location of antennas within the City. Council Member Goetten said the Council has many of the same concerns expressed and felt the need for more information. She indicated an applicant is not prohibited from making an application for an antenna, but it is the wish of the Council that they are not located all throughout the City. The schedule regarding the moratorium and amendment was discussed. The moratorium could be extended. Van Zomeren also indicated a land use moratorium under State law could run as long as 30 months, but that is too prohibitive for this issue. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to recommend approval of Ordinance No. , 2nd Series. Vote. Ayes 5, Nays 1, Hawn. McMillan noted the motion was allowing for the start of the process. ACTION ITEM (#5) #2206 ELAINE AND STEVT SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - VARUNCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:35-7:52 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present. Van Zomeren reported the application is a request for variances to hardcover, lakeshore setback, and structural coverage for a lakeshore residence in the LR-IC Zoning District requiring 1/2 acres. The structural coverage variance is a 0.28% increase over the 15% allowable. The lot width requirement is 100’. The property in question is 55'wide. The f.pplicant proposes to remove the existing structure and replace with a new structure. A new deck would be located 8' in front of the average lakeshore setback. The proposal would result in a 123 s.f increase of hardcover in the 75-250’ setback and a 221 s.f. reduction in the 250-500’ setback. The structure would be located beyond the average lakeshore setback line of the two adjoining properties. van Zomeren indicated the issues include the narrow lot, which is consistent with the neighboring properties, a reduction in hardcover, increase in structural coverage, and an attempt to prohibit any negative impact to a Hackberry tree located on the property. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#5 - #2206 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Steve Silus said they wished to maintain a one-story residence with basement in order to keep the height of the structure low and present an aesthetically pleasing structure. The^ also are attempting to save the hackberry tree. He noted the proposed deck does not extend any further forward towards the lake than the existing house. The proposed house would be farther back on the property. Sihis said the garage by the street will be removed and the driveway will become more centered. He informed Stoddard that the deck will be cantilevered and have a railing. Hawn expressed concern about whether the tree could be saved. She suggested a tree expert review the plan. It was noted that there is presently no basement under the structure. If the tree cannot be saved, Hawn would like to see the structure moved back further on the lot. Hawn informed the applicant of the series of requests being made in the area by owners of substandard lots. The ord'mances require that new construction meet the zoning requirements. Hawn is concerned with the proposed overage in structural coverage. Silus said their only other alternative is to build a two-story house, and they would prefer not to do so. Smith said she agreeds with Hawn but sees the proposal as an improvement to the property. She requested that no additional improvements be allowed in the future. Hawn said she was concerned with setting a precedent. Schroeder asked the applicant if the structure would be reduced to maintain the 15% allowable in structural coverage. Silus said it was not feasible. He indicated that they attempted to reduce the hardcover and reviewed the structure with an architect. McMillan noted that while there is some improvement in hardcover, there is additional hardcover in the 75-250' setback and an increase in structural coverage. She felt the proposal did not present a major improvement to the property but was more neutral in its changes from the existing structure. There were no public comments. McMillan asked if the proposal was reviewed with the neighbors. Silus said he discussed the plans with his neighbors. Van Zomeren said she was in receipt of acknowledgment letters from the neighbors. Schroeder asked if the 3 -car garage and driveway could be reduced. Silus felt the plan was proportionate. kl MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 10,1997 (#7 - #2202 County Road 15 Reconstruction - Continued) Jabbour said he did not see the need to require the mitigation in Orono as the sites in Excelsior and Independence would benefit Orono. In regards to the potential concerns with granting conditional approval prior to EAW completion. Radio informed Jabbour that there might be no benefit in distinguishing between public and private projects as a private resident would say there is no difference. It was recognized that the County will have 3-30 days, or between March 15 and April 15, to make their determination firom the comment repotting end of March 12. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to continue the agenda item to a Special Council Meeting to be held on April 1, 1997 at 8:00 a.m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Settles asked Gaflfron to check for the information required by the Council. Kelley asked if an EAW would be required on CoRd 6 reconstruction project. The County representatives will verify and report to GafBron. Radio said the County is put on notice that the EAW approval would be required to obtain the permit. (#8) #2206 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 3851 Silus asked for clarification of #1 in the conclusions of the resolution. He questioned the timing of the hardcover removals. Sihis asked that the temporary storage facility and unattached garage be allowed to remain during construction. He said he would remove those structures when the project is completed. The Council agreed with the request. Jabbour informed Silus that he would not obtain the occupancy permit until the structures were removed. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3851. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#9) #2210 KENT E. AND SUSAN SWANSON, 3229B CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3852 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3852. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#10) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER, 3625 SDCTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES/CUP - RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL Neil Heupel represented the applicants. r CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OE THE CITY COUNCIL Kin 3 8 51 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C-6) AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C) FILE NO. 2206 WHEREAS, Elaine Silus and Steve Silus (hereinafter "the applicants") arc owners of the property located at 3235 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows; Lot 19, Spring Park, also all that part of vacated Lakeshore Avenue and of the tract of land lying between said vacated avenue and Lake Minnetonka which lies between the easterly extensions of the northerly and southerly lines of said Lot 19 (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22. Subdivision 2. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-6), and Section 10 03 Subdivision 14 (C), to permit removal of the existing residence and construction of a new residence. Per Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-6), the deck for the proposed residence shall be located 8' forward of the average lakeshore setback where no such encroachment is allowed. Per Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, hardcover within the 75-250' setback area is proposed at 3,685 s.f. (29.64%) where 3,562 s.f. (28.64%) is existing and where 3,109 s.f. (25%) is allowed. In the 250-500' setback area, hardcover is proposed at 1,208 s.f. (31.23/o) where 1,429 s.f. (36.95%) is existing and where 1,160 s.f. (30%) is allowed. Per SccUon 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C), structural coverage is proposed at 3,435 s.f. where 2,510 s.f. is existing and 3,363 s.f. (15%) is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2206. Page 1 of 5 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S ft R 1_____ 2. 3. 4. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one-half acre in area. The total lot area is 22,420 s.f. (.51 acres) in area. The Orono Planning Commission revie\\'ed this application on February 18, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A. The proposed residence conforms to side yard setbacks and height requirements. B C. D. E. The proposed residence seeks to preserve a mature hackberry tree located at the street side of the property. The proposed residence reduces overall hardcover (5,004 s.f. existing; 4,893 s.f. proposed). The proposed residence more closely conforms to the average lakeshore setback than the existing residence. The proposed design (one-story) will minimize the visual impact of structure on a lot that is substandard in lot width. F. The City has not received any negative comments from the adjacent property owners notified of this application. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other propierty in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a subs^tial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 r A CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 8 5 1 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C), and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-6), to permit removal of an existing structure and construction of a new residence to be located 8' in front of the average lakeshore setback line, hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback area of 576 s.f. or 4.64% and a 48 s.f. or 1.23% variance in the 250-500' setback area, and structural coverage variance of 72 s.f. or .32%. Approval was subject to the following conditions:. 1. 2. 3. 4. All hardcover improvements scheduled for removal shall be completed as shown on the approved survey and shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for new construction, except that the storage area in the existing garage may be used during construction. The existing garage/storage area shall be removed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (March 10, 1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 3 of 5 r i : ill GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 8 6 1 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of March, 1997. .'Dorothy M.vMlin, City Clerk Gabriel wbour. Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of March, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. CAROLE A. HASEMAN MMnrMUC-Notary Public COUNTY MrC4WNJN wfc>lNiAN»-><.WP Page 4 of 5 ‘ -I r GlTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ Q 5 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of ss. , \99n_, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared F.a ^ known to me to be the person(s) descril^ in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. CMHUAHMSyiMI wwiy wmc iWNBOtt NBWEm COUNTY My Conwil5Slon Eipires Jin. 31.7X)0 Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of , 199___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared __________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#10 - #2288 Jason Theis - Continued) Stoddard asked Theis his opinion of the Staff recommendation. Theis said he was satisfi^ with the recommendation. He is willing to scale back the driveway and working on correctmg the slope. Theis told Lindquist he would provide a grading plan. Bressler indicated that engineering of the plan has not occurred. Berg asked that this be done. Theis reported there is a 5’ drop from the top of the existing driveway to the garage. He did not feel that span was a problem with a 30’ area. McMillan indicated there is a runoff problem existing along the retaining wall on the west side. Theis said the problem exists by the stairs which need to be reconstructed. With the grade of the driveway and flooding possibilities. Lindquist recommended a 8% slope instead of 10%. prior to Council review. Staff is to review flooding requirements. Berg asked why the particular size as proposed. She was informed that there wm only 3^ s.f. ateve grade and no bathroom on the main level. The second bedroom is only 6’x9, and the applicant would like a larger master bedroom. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. f#ll) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 11;22-11;57 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 the c. feel »de. lope ched bject hving ided ibove leant (#11 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the application was reviewed earlier in 1997. Pictures of the property were distributed. The applicants received variances for average lakeshore setback for construction of a deck, hardcover, and structural coverage. There was concern for saving trees at that time. The 3-car garage is a side load with a driveway about 5' from the lot line. The plan was submitted to the Building Inspector, Lyle Oman, in June of 1997 with the addition of a boulder wall along the driveway that had not been previously reviewed. The proposal is to allow grading within 5' of the property line for a boulder wall for the house under construction. Staff is concerned with the hardcover calculations being incorrect and affected in the 75-250' setback and 250'-500' setback. Van Zomeren said Greg Gappa has recommended that boulders not be used as engineering is difficult. StaF reconunends denial of a boulder wall for replacement with an engineered wall to be located 5 ’ from the property line. A retaining wall would be allowed in the 10' required side yard if it does not exceed 6' in height. Hardcover variances may still be required. The City Engineer's approval is also required. Silus said he received the information packet on Saturday. He reported that he knew prior to construction that access would be difficult. The builder had approved on-site the building of the wall 2' off the lot line. The builder had told Silus that he did not need a variance. Silus said the grade of the garage was lowered per instructions from the building inspector and new footings were poured. Schroeder told Silus that the builder must know that a variance was required. He also indicated that the public was improperly notified, which would require tabling of the application to allow for proper notification. Van Zomeren indicated that the public notification list was from December, 1996, and she originally thought only a side yard variance was required. It was determined that a CUP would be required for grading and the legal notice did not specify this requirement. Silus said he originally submitted the application with Gaffron and had a conversation with Hawn regarding hardcover. He indicated he is not requesting approval of additional hardcover and had originally reduced it. He said he is attempting to extend out the garage portion only. Lindquist read a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Spilseth in opposition to the hardcover and proximity to their property line being requested in the application. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 that V for Dally dfor lawn lhad ity to (#11 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Silus said he was not requesting to run the wall down to the roadway but only about 75' down. It would end at the point where he could gain access. Silus said he did assume that the wall could be • closer than 5’. He indicated other neighbors have walls closer than 5’. Silus said he was unaware of the ordinance. He said he thought the boulder wall would present a natural look but would be satisfied with an interlocking wall system. Lindquist asked if the wall would be at 2-1/2' from the property line or on the lot line. Silus said the landscaper put the wall on the lot line but would be 5' off the lot line. He would like to move part of the wall to maintain a contour. Hawn questioned how plowing would occur. Silus indicated that he has not infringed on the neighboring property in the past. Hawn felt this could create a problem for the neighbor. Silus said he blows the snow up to where the existing garage is currently located. L-r.aqui-; noted the need for new notification and updated hardcover with changes for the wall and back-out area. He asked that the location be provided along with who would make the determination. Van Zomeren said she would like Greg Gappa to review the application. Schroeder suggested tabling the application, and Lindquist asked that direction be given. Silus said he would like the opportunity to work with Staff within the hardcover guidelines authorized in February, 1997. Dave Spilseth said the 60' wide lot is too narrow to provide for a side loading garage. He suggested a straight-in approach. Lindquist indicated the City Engineer would have to be consulted. Jay Richards, who lives two homes away to the north, said he did not receive notification. He reported that the problem with dividing the lots arose four years ago and the problems created should have been foreseen. He noted the wall is straight and has no arch to it. Silus indicated that the site plan was approved by Lyle Oman in June. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2290 to allow for proper public notification and hardcover calculations. The applicant is directed to speak with neighbors regarding the proposal. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#11- #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Direction for grading is unknown at this time and requires review by the City Engineer. Gt^pa indicated that the engineered wall should be no closer than 5' from the property line. Silus was informed that it is unknown how the changes would affect the approved site plan. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Lindquist reopened the public hearing to allow for comments from the neighbors. Susie Swanson, who lives four homes to the south, asked what ordinances apply to water runoff. She saw the problem as being the garage built on a new grade from the previously existing grade and is concerned with a change in drainage. She felt the side setback variance was a problem. Silus noted the difficulty in turning around on the property. Berg noted the builder has an obligation to correct the problems. Diane Carlson said she had requested side facing doors about 8 years ago and had to turn the garage. She felt the garage could be built without the type of entrance as proposed. She felt the property owners caused their own problems. Pat Spilseth indicated the change in grade has caused her to view the wall and cars. She noted the prescriptive easement. She voiced concern that as the next-door neighbor she was not informed of what was occurring. Schroeder noted it was not the job of the Planning Commission to inform the neighbors. He asked if there A^as a grading plan and elevations with respect to the driveway at the time of original application. Mayor Jabbour answered on behalf of the City. He asked that applicant provide hardcover calculations that not reflect the boulder walls. The wall was not part of the calculations. jappa unofT. leand ;arage. operty [edthe nedof asked riginal dcover MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#7) #2289 JON PENDLETON, 350 NORTH ARM LANE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 9:58-10:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant had to leave the meeting early due to a conflict scheduling a babysitter on a school night. There were no public comm*^:ts. Lindquist indicated a survey is r?;wired to verify calculations. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2289 due to the applicant s absence and lack of survey. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED 10:00-10:23 P.M. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren distributed information recently received regarding the application. She reported that the application is for a conditional use permit to allow grading within 5' of the south lot line. No variances are required. A retaining wall is proposed to be located 2* from the property line. Grading will increase the driven ay width to 3 ’ ^m the property line. If this is not approved, the retaining wall mi st be located 5' from the property line. Incorrect aerial photographs were used in determining the grading plans and resulted in the current situation. Van Zomeren said the three-car garage has a severe turning problem; typically, 30' is required. The plan proposes 24-25' instead of the original 21'. The purpose of the grading is to increase the distance for ingress/egress into the garage. Issues of concern regard drainage, snow removal, car emissions, and problems with cars driving over the proposed wall. Along with the conditional use permit required for grading, the Commission is asked to consider where the wall should be located and how it affects the flow of drainage. The Builder, Bruce Bren, was present. He indicated he was not creating a problem but was attempting to solve a problem. Bren said he was attempting to accomplish what was submitted in the plans to the City while retaining drainage on the Silus property. \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#8 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) During public comments, Pat Spilseth, the next-door neighbor, said she receives the runoff on her property. During a heavy rainstorm this summer, the water came within inches of her door. She indicated that the applicant has offered no accommodations to this problem which had never existed before the construction began. Lindquist asked Spilseth if she has seen the present proposal. Spilseth said she has not. Spilseth said the new grading has created difficulties by raising the level of the home. The old house was on the same elevation level as her home. She reported that the driveway was found inadequate for access immediately after construction began but the work was never stopped. Spilseth said the garage should be changed from a side-loading garage to a double car straight-in garage from Casco Pt. Rd., like other garages in the neighborhood. Van Zomeren reported that neither Gappa nor the City Engineer have reviewed the plans. Schroeder said it was critical to solve the problems. He asked why the plan was just submitted at the beginning of the meeting. Silus said he had been out of town and only received the plans himself. He has not reviewed them either. The plan includes an engineered wall instead of the previous boulder wall. Lindquist noted the applicant was aware of these problems a month ago yet waited until now to address them. Schroeder read letters into the record from Judith Boy Ian, 3195 Casco Point, and Susan Smith Swanson, 3229B Casco Circle, both in opposition to the plan. Van Zomeren noted Bruce Vang, City Inspector, was present to answer any questions. Lindquist said the information provided would have to be reviewed. He noted the plan would have to satisfy both the City Engineer and neighbors. He said the application would require tabling. Silus indicated that snow removal will not change. Schroeder suggested the applicant change the garage and access it from the street side. Silus said that would be costly. He feels the drainage problem will improve with the newly submitted plan. He noted the problem will exist until construction is completed. r i ! i : i i ; MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COEMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#8 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) McMillan said the change in grade was a surprise to many people. Silus disagreed. Bnice Vang said he informed the builder that the topography and garage w'ere different from the plans submitted at the time of the footing inspection, which occurred several months ago. He said the requirement to stay 5' from the property line with the retaining wall was discussed at that time. It was noted that grades were a problem then and the garage was lowered 16" to lessen the impact. Vang said he asked the builder and applicant to consider having the garage open to the street side. Vang said he had this conversation with Peter Bren on site as well. Vang said they insisted the situation could woric without creating any problem. Vang said he allowed the construction to continue with the understanding they would adhere to the retaining wall being located 5' from the property line. Spilseth asked if the 5' requirement from the property line pertained to all retaining walls. Lindquist said the ordinance calls for conditional use permits within 5' of the property line wdiere grading is involved. Spilseth said she did not understa .d how a variance could be granted when larger properties in the neighborhood have been denied variances. She said a neighboring property requested a similar access to their garage and was denied. She noted the builder said access could be changed. Bren said when application was made for the building permit, a plan showing a retaining wall 2' from the property line was submitted to the City and approved. Lindquist said the Planning Commission is reviewing the conditional use permit only. Any other matter would have to be taken up with Staff. Silus said he was attempting to save a tree and understood the design would be a tight fit. He said he was unaware of the need to stay 5' from the property line. Silus said he had preferred the boulder wall but changed it to an engineered wall as requested. He noted the wall is located near the property line in only the area near the garage itself. Spilseth questioned whether the tree that was attempted to be saved was still alive. Schroeder reported that the drainage problem must be addressed as well. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to table application #2290 for lack of adequate information. He encouraged the applicant to work with his neighbors. Vote: Ayes 6, NaysO. ^ \ Dave and Pat Spilseth 3233 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 612 471 7152 September 8, 1997 Ms. Janice Berg 2655 Lydiard Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Ms. Berg, This letter is regarding our opposition to Item #7 (#2290) of the September 15 planning commission agenda. We wish to oppose the variance request of Steve and Elaine Silas (3235 Casco Circle) to move an 80’ long , 4’ high retaining wall 5’ which would put it up to our property line. Our reasons for opposition are as follows: ** Moving the wall will add at least 175 square feet and possibly up to 400 square feet of hardcover. Elaine Silas has indicated to me that they are already at the edge of the hardcover limitation. She said excess hardcover is the reason that the shared fence a.xi the shared driveway that we have used for the last 17 years had to come out, which we allowed with no compensation offered or given to us. ** The Silas house Is quite large for the lot size, with the roof line well above the adjoining homes. With the now 4’ elevated driveway our house looks very crowded in. Moving the retaining wall even closer would accentuate that effect even more. ** Rain run off and the mud,sand and salt that comes with it would go on our property as it has during the construction. Snow removal would be difficult to do without pushing the snow off the retaining wall onto our property. ** Eventually the wall will need maintenance. This could necessitate bringing a fork lift or other equipment in on our lawn. *• If a vehicle or person falls off the wall Into our property, would we be liable? ** Orono has not normally allowed “90 degree turn in" garage in our area. A “straight drive in ” garage would be more consistent with the Orono and the neighborhood. ** We appreciate the Silas access problem; however, we feel that an experienced builder should have known the driveway was much too narrow before building it not after building it and then trying to place the burden on the neighbors. We commend you for volunteering your time for the benefit and betterment of Orono. Thank you for you * attention In this manner and we look forward to meeting you at the planning comrr.issicn meeting on Monday night. L Sincerely, r 3229-B Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 City of Orono Planning Commission October 21,1997 Dear Commissioners, Thank you for your notification of tonight’s consideration of the instruction at the Silus residence at 3235 Casco Circle. Like many other residents around Casco Circle - some nearer the construction, some farther away from it, we feel that it presents some thorny problems. That the garage entr>' was designed with its opening the wrong way for the width of the lot, and that the deliberately raised elevation of the land has an impact on both the water run-off and local esthetics are both known facts. This is why the construction is on your agenda this evening. As a lifelong resident of Casco Point, I Ipow that . treat neighbors with respect and affection. It makes ^int unique, ^d * j*®^!8** place to live and raise families. We therefore give the Silus the benefit of the doubt, and choose to blame the Bruce Bren Construction Company for haying: a.) created these problems through poor design, OR b.) hidden from the neighbors wientiora to rmsc the level of the lot above the level of the pre-existing home, OR c.) construrted the stmeture on a foundation which was not excavated and poured as per the plans, (OR a combinaUon of these possibilities.) There is also a question of culpability in the office of the Orono Building Inspector, as construction has neither halted nor slowed as these problems appeared and took permanent shape. The question now is what can be done to correct the problems and to protect the long-time next door residents in the impacted property at #3233, Dave and Pat Spijsem. As an enthusiastic sidewalk superintendent I can draw several solutions -fewer^no doubt, than could be created by a professional on the Bren design staff or the Orono Building Inspection Office. They require a spirit of consideration, a wiUingness to correct mistakes, teamwork, and. unfortunately, probably more than a little cash. What >s clear, however, is that the Spilseths and other nearby residents should not be made to pay for me misUkes ot their neighbors. Neither in damage to their lawns, gardens, driveway usability, views, nor expenses. We will all be very interested in your resolution of this situation. Thank you, Susan Smith Swanson r ^ucfii/i ^oylan ls)effcfiny UlCusiC Consufiani UoccJhl \ f .u- i f 1 73: ile: 7/MWruu^ - ilJdA^A7^i)7i^ ^3"3f/ ^ ^:hn A, /pA^^llMi^^ , Q7LOAJ^£f ^i^/^cTu^u ‘" a/'M^%tc ^ y04^^t,,i.LC^7^ fi^3uA AU£^y^tW~~ AC02JI^ 7 A/^ . \JY'/o'tHUJ f/U^wiA y Ay yL^U'?Au<n^u<^^ l)a yyuA^ O'ZicW^ 2yo4^'zu4~^ 129 OJfexan<{«, -471-S92S (fax) 46 * 970-927-9127 (fax) r TO:Chair Lindquist an d Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant DATE: SUBJECT: November 4,1997 #2305-Roger and Elizabeth Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B Lot Area:44,225 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) square feet (1.02 acres) Application: The applicants are proposing the remodeling and expansion of an existing residence to include an attached four stall garage. Variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0 to 75' lakeshore setback are required. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Subd. 1: Lakeshore Setback Regulations Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Requirements Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B); LR-IB Lot Requirements U2305 Roger and Elizabeth OUen 815 Partr»** ood Road Variances November 17, 1 997 Page I --U1 • - ANALYSIS ’ Lot Area and Yards 7 R-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1 acre 140 ft.35 ft. •10 ft.75 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 1.02 acres 225 ft. at 75' setback 357 ft. at OHWL 37 ft. (existing) 35 ft. (proposed) 46 ft. (existing) 20 ft. (proposed) 34 ft. The zoning lot does not meet the lakeshore setback requirement of 75*. A variance is required for remodeling and expanding an existing structure within the 75' lakeshore setback. The homeowner's association has setback requirements that are more restrictive than the zoning code. See attachment K from the architectural committee. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 44,225 s.f.2,520 s.f (existing) 3,410 s.f (proposed) 5.7% 7.7% Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. 1^2305 Rogir and Elisabeth Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variances Sovemberll, 1997 Page! Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75' 28,810 s.f.5,815 s.f. (20%) none 4,665 s.f (16%) 4,665 s.f (16%) 75’-250'15,419 s.f 2,995 s.f (19%) 3,854.75 s.f (25%) 3,600 s.f (23%) none A hardcover variance is required in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP See the attached application (attachment A) for the applicant's statement of hardship. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The existing residence and attached three car garage could continue to be used in their current state. The architect has indicated in attachment J that many features of the current residence are substandard. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The property is located on an isthmus, severely restricting the allowable building pad. 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover will not change the character of the area. 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable Ro^r and Elizabeth Olsen 815 Partenwaod Road Variances November 17, 1997 Page 5 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this £q>plication. 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 single family residence is permitted 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. Several other properties in the area are also located on the isthmus, limiting their allowable building puds. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The existing residence is located almost entirely within the O' to 75* lakeshore setback as the allowable building pad is severely restricted due to the configuration of the lot. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The granting of variances is necessary for expanding the existing 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. iJJOi Roger oitd Elizabeth Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variances November 17, 1997 Page 4 1 The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but are necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The expansion of the existing residence serves as a convenience to the applicant. Even if the existing residence was rebuilt at the current size, variances would still be necessary. Issuss m! ! . The existing residence is encroaching on the required lakeshore setback. The lot configuration, proximity to the street and lakeshore setback severely restrict the allowable building pad. Only a portions of the existing foundation will be retained. The remainder of the structure will be demolished and rebuilt. Attachment J is the architect's statement of what portions of the house are to remain and which will be replaced. The total amount of hardcover on the lot is proposed at 19%. Approximately .66 acre of the 1.02 acre lot is located in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. The lot has more than twice the minimum lot width requirement at the OHWL. The lot is approximately 116' deep. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the expansion of the existing residence with an attached garage subject to several amendments and condition. Staff recommends approval of a lakeshore setback variance of 41' to allow the residence to remain 34' from the designated ordinary high water level where 75' is required. Encroachment upon the lakeshore would not be further increased. Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance of 14.5% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where 20% is existing, 16% is proposed and none is allowed. The amount of existing hardcover excluding landscaping underlain by plastic is 14.5%. This figure could largely be met by eliminating several proposed decks and existing patio area on the lake side of the residence. By approving this percentage, there would be no net gain in the amount of hardcover on the property, not including plastic under landscaping. U2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen 815 PartenMOod Road Variances Sovember 17, 1997 Page 5 .. .-V Staff recommends that all landscape underlain by plastic in the 0’ to 75' lakeshore setback be removed prior to the commencement of new construction. The applicant has already agreed to this provision. Staff recommends no further hardcover variances be granted to this property in the future . Staff recommends approval of this application subject tc Ihe above amendments and conditions. Attachments A Application B Plat Map C Location Map D Topographic Mt^ E Permit Record F Survey-Proposed G Survey-Existing H Concept Plan Front View I Hardcover Worksheets J Architect ’s Letter K Homeowner’s Association Letter :k re. U 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' Aftcr-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # ^ 3 Date Received ^7 7Amount Paid JQJlO. PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address kc«0^ ^t —3 ^ ---- Property Identification Number (T.I.D.) 0& ~* \ —OQO*&--------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date ProppnyAcquired_____^^7 _________________________________(month/year) I (do) /^n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. PreseniiBSTH property: )C residential ___mother (specify)-----------------------------— Zoning District: VOt'2^.^_____L ^ --------------------------------------------- APPLICANT Name Re^et^ J, Phone (home) ^73"^ Phone (work) ^ //^ ^__ Address: ^_______ City: ---------------Zip: 4 OWNER fif different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $ 400^0^0----- * (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Lot Coverage Rear Average Ltdeeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual prope / conditions preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Lu^ 4r jggcKTf QgMor-ca. JL *tt5 HoHBg* Hfr ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) weeo A- / / / J :? / / / / / / / t *>t / d)5-M7'23-IV >•••£. / ---------- ' S^. ?v Arfp*y - ?AR?MJ30 f1?) Z ^ *^V/ i . ■-'/ .'V • / < $ i r----------------------i ----a:----ih/' ^ (e) Jj V \ ---------Tsrs!y^:\ > •* J? «ji V\ ,'o fvi ''gi I *»i '-iv ;\v« ^ ^2- \ V c T <!, i’5iw?r^Hr:; \^ |(6) ^ C\ l•54•5^•Vf I I I I I II I I: IS ]^rien««oocf I - r >iC't I PERMIT RECORD Pernit No.Date Type of Pernit ‘^OL ^SUGtt H v:?^/V'7^<Ar . j?m..\^mc /O* 73 /?£’5 ^-7Y PLACi» _J»73 __ 3-7Y UJELL ... .'mucj.... LA<£ Mr#^TOM<A MANENTCT ENTPY PLANTfsjG AUGMENT SCPEEN PLANTNG SEPVCE ENTCT A003ESS WAa EX6TNG TREES TO PSMAN 1 4 SM0VB.POIT ^-is' OLSEN ESIDENCE SITE PLAN 'T\ comnoffc or aovEt roiiEMLZONNEOFU0T2. BLXK2. W«TE»W(000eouMmL MMNfSOTA ^ * ^ ' •c hmdpmsvxs^p^ I«t 1, flock i, fOfkCMlrf rr?Jie=Sr"Jr=H£^^ 1«M of tko ftotc of ftlMIOOOki. corfm k Ofk« I If-tl-tf fcoloi I* • >0* • I Iron oorli^r mi|&nortii» iJinf ’nirv^vnco. flnnn* **: I4JMO Mk.i.o L.... 1 j if.A.k <• /*'Hi 5. Iff* j«* -i HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) i 75-250* 2S0-500’ lO-*bO v> • 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVnER IN ZONE A. House 4* Lenf .2*S2^s.f. Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. 6. Garage C. Driveway \f\ A..S.F. 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 PROPERl'Y AREA IN ZONE -5- 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 A -5- B _ _ X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^ % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _Q_S.F. S.F. O_S.F. S.F. I .Z.I6 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 4^(oC»^_S.F. S.F. % 'ZB,ft 0 ' -Ua----- I A B A B r HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’250-500*500-1000* A. House +X ■»>c=3n S.F.• Len|tli^Width » X m S.F.• • •X « •S.F. * • X s •S.F. B.Garage X S.F. C.Driveway X S.F. X ss S.F. D.Sidewalk • • X C3 S.F. X m S.F. E.Patio/Deck X o S.F. X S.F. F.Landscape X S.F. Underlain X a S.F. By Plastic X a S.F. G.Other X O S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ‘1,‘VS S.F. TOTAL PROPERIT AREA IN ZONE -S.F. A H- B ^ X 100 «' n PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House k a . S.F. Length Width • X a S.F. X a S.F. X a . S.F. B.Garage X a ^3)0 , S.F. C.Driveway +X S.F. X a ■ S.F. D.Sidewalk X \f\ Cj,S.F. X a , S.F. E.Patio/Deck X a l«Q_S.F. X a ■ S.F. F.Landscape X 53 r)S.F. Underlain X a " S.F. By Plastic X a " S.F. G.Other X 53 _________________S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -IC7, 4.\^ S.F. A ^ B X 100 -' La » X A B A B AI r.XANDl K >7 .r- 5 November, 1997 To the City Planners of Orono: In response to your inquiry about the extent of remodeling to take place at 815 Partenwood, I will describe to you the scope of the work.1)1 .SK,\ (.KOI I* After being on the market for over a year, the Olsen’s purchased the property in June with the intent of immediately remodeling the house. The house has a sagging roof that is in need of re-construction. The structure is of 2x4 wall construction & not up to current energy codes, is in need of window replacement, the porch foundation is in need of replacement,as well as needing much updating to pass any building inspection for current code compliance. Much of the current foundation will remain. Foundation will only be removed at areas where the house is being expanded. The porch foundation will be re-built. The lower level is walkout and has a sub-standard wall which can either have 2x6 studs piggybacked to the existing studs or we would rebuild the wall. Rebuilding the wall is a much preferred method of remodeling and what we hope to do. The same options of construction can be applied to the main floor walls that will remain. The main floor is currently cantilevered at lakeside further than current codes allow for cant's, so we will need to cut it back and re-build it without cantilevers. Given that the whole main level lakeside wall needs to be re-built to eliminate the cantilever, it has been suggested by contractors to rebuild the floor- for several reasons- to improve constr. & eliminate rebuilding of sub-standard areas, to raise the height of the lower level to current ceiling heights, and allow for clear spans. This concept has now been incorporated into our plans. The ceiling plate heights will be raised and a totally new roof truss system installed. The exact size and shape of the existing and proposed house are shown overlaid on the site plan submitted for variance. If you have any questions please feel free to contact the Olsens or myself. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING DESIGN 4111 EAST LAKE STREET Sincerely, Kathryn AlA<ander WAVZ.AT.A. MN 5?? >l (612)-173-8777 FAX (612)473-8:22 Partenwood Architectural Committee November 5,1997 •TEceiveo m 1 2 ,99; Mr. And Mrs. Roger Olsen CITY OF opn 815 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 RE: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS Dear Roger: Thank you for promptly submitting your amended site plan and letter dated October 25, 1997. Your amendment addressed two areas of modification and one area of general conclusion. Based on your revised submission, the Partenwood Architectural Committee has concluded as follows: 1. Front Yard Setback. Your new plan has moved additional elements of the building up to the 35 foot set-back point. Since we have approved the previous plan at 35 feet, we continue to Approve the revised scheme at 35 feet. 2. Side Yard Setback. The movement of the building identified in Item 1 above was due primarily to conform to the required 20 foot side ycifd setback. The revised scheme noting the 20 foot side yard setback is therefore hereby Approved. 3. Stipulation of Exterior Color Intentions. The concept of earth tone colors is in conformance with the Declaration. Additionally, it is in harmonious conformance with the established fe'*l""'g of Partenwood. Therefore, the color scheme is However, please submit samples of your final selections before beginning your remodeling. This letter constitutes Final Approval of plans dated September 26,1997 as amended by revisions dated October 25,1997. You have worked very cooperatively with your neighbors and this committee. As a result of your willingness to work with us and your very appealing proposed remodeling of the existing residence at 815 Partenwood, we wish to give your efforts our support and encouragement. Very truly yours, K. J Comprehensive Plan Designation:Urban Residential (1/2 acre) Zoning District:LR-lC-1 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 a acre) Lot Area:9.9 total acres 2.2 acres wet 7.7 acres dry Proposed Density:3.03 units per acre Application:Brook Park Realty proposes the construction of 30 townhomes on a 9.93 acre site. A preliminary plat and planned residential development review are required. Staff reviewed this plan with the applicant on Friday, November 7th. The applicant's consultants provided a revised plan on Wednesday, November ■12th. The city's landscape architect has not yet completed his review of the revised plan. Staff has also not received any comments from the Mound Fire Chief. r Pertmeni Ordmances: • Section 10.26, LR-lC-1, One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistricts, Subd. 3 "...a credit allowing a 50% increase in dwelling units density." • Section 10.32, PRD, Planned Residential Development • Section 11.10, Subdivision Application Procedure, Approval Process, and Re luirements ANALYSIS LR-lC-1 ZLoning Requirements Lot Area Lot Width Front Rear Side Side/Street 1/2 acre* 50% density increase is 3 per acre 100'30 ’30'10 ’15 ’ The proposed planned residential development is claiming the 50% increase in dwelling units, from 20 units to 30 units, based on the following conditions: a. b. c. d. e. public sanitary sewer is available; all dwelling units are attached but not more than four units to any one structure; maximum height does not exceed 30'; the lot is located beyond 100 feet of Lake Minnetonka and less than 35% of the land is proposed to be developed in impervious surface. A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces are provided for each dwelling unit and are attached to the unit. Building size, location, vehicle ingress/egress must be approved by City Council. The proposed development includes 30 townhomes. Residents will purchase the dwelling unit and # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 11/17/97 page—2 r I the land underneath the unit, the lots are eiher 20' by 6T or 30' by 6T, depending on whether they are end or interior units. Outlot A and B will be created to hold the open space m common ownership. A homeowner’s association will be created. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT The purpose of the planned residential development (PRD) is to enhance the appear^ce of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood desi^ to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the w elfare m general of city residents. The proposed development provides a type and style of housing that is generally not available in Orono. By clustering the townhomes in three rows, the proposal preserves wetlands. Trees on site outside of the construction area will be retained. PRD Standards Open Space The dedication, ownership, use and maintenance of open spaces created by the application shall be subject to conditions deemed necessary by the Council to assure the preservation of such open spaces for their intended purpose?. The dev.'oper shr" provide developer ’s agreements that ^^ss ownership, use and maintenance of ope fieec lliis shall include covenants regarding prohibiting open space use for vehicle storage oi accessory structures. The developer has proviaed a landscaping plan for the open space area which has been sent to the City’s Landscape Architect consultant. The consultant has indicated that he is concerned about the landscape plan as submitted. He indicated that a landscape plan should be created after it is determined on site which trees wall remain. The developer should also address how residents will be able to use their yards, specifically, gardens, patios, outdoor storage, etc. Dedication of Open Space The dedication and ownership of such open spaces shall be through a homeowner’s assocation. The developer shall provide copies of all agreements regarding the homeowner’s association. Site Plan The proposed site plan, including location, spacing and basic design of the proposed buildings, strwt and parking plans, water and sewer plans, open space for park and recreational purposes shall be # 2308 Brook Park Realty 356H Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 11/17/97 page—3 r reviewed by the Planning Commission and iq)proved by the City Council, The developer has submitted a preliminary survey, utility and street plan, and tree removal/preservation survey. The City Engineer has reviewed the revised plans and his comments are attached as an exhibit. Trees and Wetlands Healthy trees outside of the construction area and the delineated wetlands shall be preserved. The developer shall provide legal agreements regarding protection of the wetlands, including conservation, drainage and flowage easements. Neighborhood Compatibility The Planning Commission shall consider if the proposed development is architecturally compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. Staff is concerned about the units not having a door or entrance on the side where guests will be parking. The proposed massing and materials are appropriate for the site. The height of the development shall be less than 30' measured in accordance with the height definition in the Zoning Code. Landscaping A sufficient number of trees and landscr^jing shall be used to enhance the compatibility of the project area. Plant materials selected should include seasonal plantings such as evergreen shrubs and trees for winter livability. Visual or noise intrusion from vehicles and pedestrians should be minimized by the use of landscaping and screening. Public spaces, common areas, and private spaces should be clearly identified by the use of sidewalks and landscaping. The City’s consultant is reviewing the landscaping plan. Access Vehicular access to the site shall be provided via an extension of Livingston Avenue. Pedes: ian access will be provided between units. The "front" of the units is opposite the garage side and will be accessible by sidewalks. Residents will typically access the units through the garage. The Planning Commission should consider whether there should be a trail or path from the end of the 22' private driveway to Shoreline Drive to provide a pedestrian path to the bus route and commercial uses. # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim Plat 11/17/97 page—4 The developer shall provide agreements and a letter of credit regarding installation of sidewalks, roads, and driveway. Easements Utility and drainage easements currently exist along Shoreline Drive. Hennepin County has requested T of right-of-way. E)rainage, utility, and conservation and flowagc easements are r^uired as proposed on the preliminary plat. Staff recommends that the City should grant the additional T right-of-way to Hennepin County along Shoreline Drive so that Hennepin County has the same easement as the telephone company. Trash Removal/Storage Refuse and recycling containers will be contained in the individual units. Lighting Lighting shall be hooded and directed downward away from residential windows. Prior to approval of the PRD, the applicant should provide a lighting plan to be reviewed by the city s consultant. Outdoor Equipment Outdoor mechanical equipment shall be screened and located away from windows. Snow Storage The developer shall provide a snow removal plwi in addition or as part of the homeowners association. PLAT REQUIREMENTS Every plat shall conform to existing zoning regulations and subdivision regulations at the time of the final plat. The development as proposed will not require any zoning variances and meets the density requirements for the LR-lC-1 district using the 50% density increase. The Pla^g Commission may recommend that all public improvements be installed and dedicated prior to signing the final plat. If the Planning Commission does not recommend that the improvements be made before the final plat, a letter of credit shall be posted in the amount determined by the City Engineer at 150% of the proposed improvements. Following preliminary plat approval, the developer may apply for a land alteration permit from the City to commence construction at the U 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 11/17/97 page —5 r grades and elevations required by the approved plans. Park Dedication Fees The Park Commission reviewed the proposed plan on October 6,1997, and recommended accepting an 8% fee. The park dedication fee would be 8% of 238,300 or $19,064. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff reconunends further discussion of the application based on the revised plan submitted. However, staff recommends tabling the application until January 20,1997, to allow staff to work with the developer, the consultants and the Mound Fire Chief. Attachments Letter from Tom Kellogg, Consulting Engineer Letter from MCWD NOTE: Blueprints were delivered with your packet on Wednesday # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 11/17/97 page —6 r BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^612 6361311 11/1A/97 10:53 0 :02/02 NO:162 Bonestroo Rosene Ancksrlik & Associates •• " ...... • n -------- --------- ^ ‘ ........................ '! •'- •f'-.i. ,i ............ ^ ......... ...... * M ............ , »4 A n A ........... I*,.,,..,, .—ur.;:, r. ;,r; • Engineers & Architects November 13, 1 997 • <f CAi.l « .,,ij j. ( mn . Ms. Cli/iibeth Van Zometcii Cily Planner/Zoning A»lniiniiUuior City of Orono Po« Office Boa 66 Crystal Bay. Minnc«)C;i 55323 Lake Minnetonka W<H>d<« File No. l.19-2.3f'H Dear Liz. lu ^ ^ ^ ‘*"‘*"* "ccepublc from an engineering standpoint Details w" Hexpctiuilon is that Livmgi.un Avenue will be cxlcndoTwesi^^ nr . V ’extending the sani.ary and water main stubs to the west property line v**!."**^* iitea map should include the boundary for flowk to the northerly wetland and CB 35 to"r “ K.! ri*f: a» „r .r=si.rfrsr krik« e. t I . 7 \yr—inc aiiinunuic lime oi conccnlTttli^d for some of the Culculaiion* »com$ high for thi» »ite. We would recommend revmng the storm sewer and poking valtulaiions lot ik ulojted conditions using a maximum time ol ctmceniraiion of 1 5 minutes Pipe grades «.d / or pipe Siee. I^iwcvn CB52 and STMH 31 i.»y need to bc revised. A paved Swale or some type of wrimi contro measure should he piovided at the downstream end of the H-iiwh HDPE pipe. Details of th^nd outlet cont^i .trwure and bnUlcd ;.cir should bc provided for review. The timber we^r may be a future nSuJ^i^e ?n ??**?.' *^.1? T'" •e'*Vorary cul-de-sac on Livingston Avenue exceej.s the maximum of CitvTia'ndi^rfhorizontal alignment proposed lor Livingiton Avenue does not meet the AII^JL ^ ^ ^ mpb design. The radii should be increased to 275 feet or reduced speed warning signs installed constfSm\hi‘w«?'i "1 M “*'*^“‘* recommend ihai Liv,ng«o5 Avenue beconsir^icd to the wesk .iy loi line as part of this project. The proposed driveway to serve the 11 units on Blocks ^ 'h‘.‘ City design standards for private sueeu relative to right-of-way width, minimum rwi?^.tobl^'LTril "r", h"‘ n ““ "" “ Emergency vehicle access to those units on Blocks 3 and secdons sh^nM ll o P>«ms with the appropriate emergency officials. Typical street ^c^ZetL, h «*“* ““ ‘Jr've. A geoicchnicol analysis and R-valucrecummenJaimii should lie suhmiiied to verify the proposed pavement design. Please contact me at 6(U 4X(*3 it you have any questions regarding this niaiter Vours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENl ANDERLIK. & ASSOCIATES. INC /<yr»i Tom Kellogg 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 • 612-636*4600 • Fair- r Gray FrMhwater Center Hwys. IS & 19. Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior. MN 55331-9578 Phone; (612) 471-0590 Fax:(612)471-0682 Enwl: adminOmlnnehahacreek.org Web Site: www.minnehahacreek.org loard ol Managers: John E. Thomas President C. Woodrow Love Vice President Pamela G. Blixt Treasurer Monica Gross Secretary Thomas W. LaBounty Thomas Maple. Jr. Malcolm Reid Oistrlct Office: Diane P. Lynch DiMrict Administrator jffl. PiiiMo*rK)«Mpi»«coniaiMg Mionehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life October 7.19 ‘)7 RECEIVED OCT 9 - 1997 Mr. Ken l\>\vcll Wc.stvvo<Hl I’roCcssional Services. Inc 14180 West Iliginvay 5 Uden Prairie. MN 55344 WESTW(X)D PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Ur:: Minnetonka Woods Property. City ol'Orono. MN Dear Mr. Powell: This is to eonllrm our on-site discu-ssion at the above mentioned property on October 7. 1997. After inspecting the wetland delineation you staked on that property I Tind that it is consistent with WCA guidelines and meets the approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Di.strict. It is my understanding that a |XM inil application for this site will be submitted for our review in the near future. f4 Please call me at 471-0590 with any questions. Sincerely. L/im llafner District lechnician r TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant DA it::October 30, 1997 SUBJECT:#2311-Loren Fritz 3845 North Shore Drive Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:27,489 net square feet (.63 acre) excluding North Shore Drive 35,343 total square feet (.81 acres) including North Shore Drive Application; The applicant is proposing a total of 914 s.f. of additions to the existing residence. The existing residence is located 7 from the rear lot line. The proposed addition will be located within the required rear setback, but will not fiirther encroach into the required yard than the existing residence. _____________________________ Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): LR-IC Lot Requirements Wi// LortnFrUz 3845 North Shore Drive Variance November !7, !997 Pagf I r ANALYSIS T ot Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard .5 acre 100 ft.30 ft.10 ft.30 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Rear Yard .63 acre 238 ft.59.2 ft.50.3 ft.7 ft. The subject property does not meet the rear setback requirement. The proposed addition will be 16.r from the rear lot line. Structural Coverage Net Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 27,489 s.f.2,758 s.f.-existing 3,645 s.f.-proposed 10% 13.6% Structural coverage is not an issue with this application as the allowable 15% would not be exceeded. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 500’-1,000'27,489 s.f.2,606 9,621.2 s.f (35%) 8,492 s.f (30.9%) none Hardcover is not an issue with this application. B23U Lortn Fritz 3845 North Short Drive Variance November 17, 1997 Page! r STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant's statement of hardship is attached (Attachment A). The applicant should be asked for their testimony regarding the need to locate the addition outside of the allowable building pad.. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property could be put to a reasonable use in its current state. The ^plicant wishes to move items for day to day living, such as a full bathroom and washer and dryer to the proposed addition to facilitate one level living which would be difficult to accomplish without the granting of the variance. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The existing residence does not meet the rear yard setback requirement. The residence was constructed prior to current zoning district yard setback requirements. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. The variance for rear 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. \ 5. 6. 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. $2iH Lortn Fritz SB4i Sorth Short Drtvt Variance November /7, 1997 Page 3 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. A single family residence is permitted in this zoning district The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The existing residence was constructed prior to current zoning requirements. The downhill slope of the lot away from the west side of the existing residence makes constructing the proposed addition within the requued setbacks difficult. The lot has more width than depth, which creates a narrow building pad. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The front yard has an 8' slope from the street to the front of the house. The west side has a 10' change in grade. The west side also has several trees that screen the yard from the road. Due to the high volume of traffic on North Arm Drive, it is desirable for the house to be located as far from the road as possible. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial propert>- right of the applicant. The property owner is attempting to adapt the existing residence to enhance life-cycle housing by adding accessible space. 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. 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 topography of the lot, as well as the configuration of the house on the lot would inhibit the construction of the requested addition within the allowable building pad. I2J// Loren Fritz 3845 Sorth Shore Drive Variance November 17, 1997 Page 4 t '1 ; Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The proposed addition would not further encroach on the rear lot line Ixyond what is existing. The existing deck, residence and proposed additions are 5', 7 and 16.1 from the rear lot line, respectively. The topography slopes downhill 1 O' away from the west side of the existing residence where die proposed additior. would be located if it was to meet the required rear setback. The adjacent properly to the south is heavily wooded and will not experience a negative impact A rear yard variance was granted in 1975 allowing a rear addition located 9 from the rear lot line where 26’ was existing at the time. According to the most recent survey (Attachment F), the residence is actually located 7’ from the rear lot line. Attaclunent J is thA ritv rniincil minutes aoorovinK the orevious variance citing the lot being wider thanthe City Council minutes approving the previous variance deep and that the rear lot line of the subject property abuts what is considered to be the side lot line for the property to the south. The existing deck is located 7' from the rear lot line was issued a building permit in 1981 without the granting of variances. It is likely this was considered a non-encroachment at the time according to the Senior Planning Coordinator. Wood retaining walls with landscaping are located on the neighboring property to the south. It is unclear whether or not there is an agreement with the adjacent property owner to allow the wall to encroach. The high volume of traffic (5,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day) is a deterrent to locating the addition closer to the road due to the noise of passing vehicles. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a rear setback variance of 13.9' to ^low the proposed addition to be located 16.1 ’ from the rear lot line where 7 is existing and 30' is allowed. Staff recommends the existing shed located on the rear lot line be either relocated to a portion of the lot meeting yard setback requirements or be removed. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the above condition. Lortn Frit: 3845 Sorth Short Drlvt yarkmet November 17, 1997 Page 5 91 r I I ff Attachments A B C D E F G H I J Application PlatM^ Location Map Topogn4>hic Map Permit Record Survey Hardcover Worksheet Rear View of Residence With Proposed Additions Front View of Residence With Proposed Additions Minutes From 1975 City Council Meeting Approving the Rear Setback Variance %25H Lortn Fritz 3845 Sorth Share Drive Variance November 17, 1997 Page 6 Application # <^3/ f_____ Date Rcceired c Amount Paid //)/jz./^7 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-confonning structures $220 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) #2;o PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ ^ Site Address /P9/) ^ Property Identification Number (PJ.D.)_______________________________________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Pn^rty Acquired _______________ I (do) Itio-n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. .(month/year) Present use of property: ix^^ldential Zoning District: L other (specify). APPLICANT Name Address: AS/kiru o Phone tiiome') J/“P/ Phone fwork ^ ^3/- 97^ Citv:( Zip: O'WNER (if different than applicant) Name ____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: ^ ^ /a '7fa7^d^ - —-------------------------------^ ' ------------ --------•'(attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side ^^ear Average Lakeshore. _ Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPf ION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property condition^ preventing e with Zoning Code requirements: /) /fyuve^A . . V / J . A /\ • / l^kuu. /itriaiJ. ^ 'tAxAoA- ^ r <05 26 (30)8 271 40b (28) \(29)V 9 ^ (16) .est- — ^ S5 (17) . '*“ 165, 25 ( 18) • , -.V^ >25\y'\ -.wrj I7f I a •^' ^ \l(v 165.5 • \<-n 14 t55.6 TToY 35 A/ortU I I ■ %u.»-—li / ^ \v, Y V ( ! XV / ra Mt.« •M • tja.« .%-~A 1 r \ \ ••f.f •M.t •M.J. \ •^.i Pponteiy tJJ-« •14.I) ts«.r 112 • '/ y ■ fM ,f}4 I %l4l* ///M*.| /I \%^-y %**-9 \ ‘ A y \« \ \ 'Vfl vvjk 9 \ V \ \ \ \ r mm Perait Mo. ^*;i PERMIT RECORD Date //&«=» *---^ ' ■----^M0----- nsn 3su0 ir-lti _^aV ____ ^(0t! ^•375^ /6-S-aS Q4^a /O 'Q ' ^7 Type of Pernlt HeaJbuf* __Sdiije^isu /\!eiU- OtdL^hc uroj^ (-^?r\'^lA/ry!s/n >*t. 4 M9i €~%('-.vJ-' :*<r*. i fiifr’". k-TMf MORTH LfC OF GOV’T lOf Z SEC 17. T. t17. IU3 10 9 •• (« H 0! b. N (^ I t N I K 0 0 r i» — 35 0 - 9-r TUE 11S21 R - 0 ORONO HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 9 / 30/1997 ADVANCE SURVEYING A ENGINEERING CO. JOB NO. 971152 INSIDE A OUT REMODELERS CALL JIM PARKER. 474 7964 WITH QUESTIONS SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE)0-75* 75-25<r 250-500* HARDCOVER IN ZONE Width Area Area Area Area I*' • 1 2 29.9 )l 16.2! 15.8 0. Sidewalk TOSS'^ 5 ti A i:i 19 T. Landsc« ■34? 120^ 266IS.F 143 S.F G. Other ed let. Wall] 26 Sh^122 ) 84 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN Z6NE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE PERCENTAGE OF EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE 102IS.F 7555 27489 TT7% .5. |s'.s:s::4 ••• proposed IN ZONE _____Length Width 7141 S.F i T5f51T -5C S.F."•sriir TOTAL PROPOSED AND EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE o"™i;?^OPOSED HARDCONCR ZONE 61^ \ S45215TT c I 274551S. F. D [ 30.9^ J C/D SUMMARY HOUSE________1 1627 1 M 11 1 1008 D riv &A/AY 2742 PATIO 433 SIDEWALK 430 LANDSCAPING 1231 retaining WALL 13 SHED 123 PROPOSED ADDITION 886 TOTAL 8492I Note; Some landecaping may not have plastic or ftitvlc under It and perhaps should not be Indudad. but we have IrKluded all landscaping on this worksheet I hereby certify that this report wras prepared by me Of under my direct supervision and that I am a Professional Engineer aQ^urveyor under the ,aws of the State of Mil ^ J^es RP^ PE. A P.S. N o. 9235 >' i^fanvivi • TTi > I f «- -f t I '.1 r»-*• • P PJ ^^UTK^- <f. ti ^ 11 tr.j M CM S s II FLOOf? cr> <E 3 Ul SCALE: y&' = r Ul CE Ul9 0> I irtf Mmi ff I lIHlfMMffMIMI mu I INSIDE «■ OUTX REMODELORS X ^*i|iiimiiiiiimiiuniiitniiiimiiniiujiniminMMtMiin>iiMm»i<nMMinmmnnMMimilniiMUHtuiiiiiiimiiinnniiiiiiimimiMiMH»***** L0REN4 MAfaENEFRITZ 3»45 NORTHSHORE DR. ORONO.MN.553e4 SOUTH H-EVATIQN 91a »*• 0 a 4/ O;fOL\ I ‘..,- •>* t / ’ *# v.' <Ms 1^ €;• «o » 01ac O N0TR ICHAKK5CPTICVVigp0W6TYLE rOI? IHE GUE6T PEWOO^/ ON THIS riAN PECAUSE THE POUPLE HUNG WWPOW THA11 HAP STECFEPPEFOre RPNOT QUALFYF Of? F-Gk^ESSCOPES. CONSEQUENTLY. ICHANGEP THE PATHROOMWWPOW TO MATCH. SCALE: 1/fl ” = r uioc LU9 COz jr"..............“““•......................................................................—*•—nr......nnnTtTTniiiirmintmntiii..^^ TNSIDE&OUXX REMODELORS X L OREM & MARL ENEFRITZ 3&45 NORTHSHORE DR. OR ONO. MM.5536 4 FXONtELEVAIlQNS -•*-- OSONO mciL TtWO HELD K 25, 1975 »ag« 3 Every TMMiutble mttorz shall bs yat forth tc )ceep traffic to a aintnaa aoiu.tor^ f traffic counts# allowiny traffic to the c.«ur^ for ths day aetivi^ canter only with a rsvisa after six tsonths. Motion# Ayes (3) - Nays (0). COBDITIOWM. OSS PSBMX7 3745 Shoreline Drive (Continued) Butler aoved# Paurus secondeo# that ths requsst for a rear yard setback variance for Loren Frits# 3845 North Shore Drive# be approved because of the peeulisr situation of this lot (the width being of larger diaension than depth) and the rear lot line of this property being the adjoining south property's side lot line* Motion# Ayes (3) < Mays (0)• VARIANCE 3845 North Shore Drive Butler aoved# Paurus seconded# that ths requsst for a conditional use permit of Don Amsson# 2660 Casco Point Road# for rip rap be approved# subject CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT 2660 Casco Point Road to: 1. Rip rap along 13C* of shoreline not to extend mere than 2* from shoreline. 2. Removal of old rock a;:d pla»'»e six inch granular filter blanket at base of rip rap to minimize washing of fine material. Follow With '*ocks over .'filter material. 3. Approval of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Motion# Ayes (3) - Nays (0).I I IButler moved# Paurus seconded# that ths request for a conditional use permit for rip rap for Ron Tracy# 2914 Casco Point Road# be approved subject to: CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT 2914 Casco Point Road f , 1. Rip rap along 265* of shoreline not to extend more than 3* from shoreline. 2. Rock fill not to exceed 3* above shoreline , elevation with four to one ratio horizontal to vertical. 3. Rock diameter to average 10*. 4. Placement of adequate granular filter bed. 5. Approval of City Engineer. i _ I..Vi Motion# Ayes (3) - Nays (0). Henry Huhich# Building a Zoning Administrator# reported to tho City Council that the request of Richard Gothmenn for a variance for Mae's Pizza# 1440 Shoreiine Drive# was tabled by the Planning Comroissiem until the applicant suixaits more detailed sits plans and proposed sewage plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. VARIANCE 1440 Shoreline Drive (Continued,) r TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Dressier, Plarming Assistant November 4,1997 SUBJECT:#23 13-Tom and K/ui Steinke 910 Dakota Avenue Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 Acres) Lot Aren:29,185.2 square feet (.67 acres) Appliention: The applicants are proposing the addition of a second story to the existing residence that encroaches into Ae required side setback. A variance is required to add structure in the required setback. The addition will not further encroach into the required side yard setback.__________ Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.23, Subd. 6(A): lR-1 A Height Requirements Section 10.23, Subd. 6(A): LR-IA Lot Requirements Tom and Kari Sttinke 910 Dakota Avi’iUi Variance November 17, 1997 Page I ANALYSIS T ot Area and Yards LR-IA District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 2 acres 200 ft.50 ft.30 ft.50 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Rear Yard .67 acre 276 ft.53 ft.12.4 ft.143 ft. The subject property does not meet the lot area or side yard setback requirements. Structural Coverage Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. Hardcover While the subject property is located within 1000* of a protected body of water, hardcover is not an issue. Furthermore, the amount of hardcover will not be increased. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicants should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Tom and Karl Stelnki 910 Dakota Avenue Variance Sovember 17, 1997 Page! rriteria for Determining T Indue Hardship 1. 2. 6. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property could continue to be put to a reasonable use in its current state. The proposed second story addition requires a variance due to its location above a section of the house located in the required side yard setback. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The existing residence was constructed prior to current zoning district requirements. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, The variance for side 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. 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 single family residence is permitted in this zoning district. U25U Ton rnd Kart Steinkt 910 Dakota Avenue yarumce November 17. 1997 Page 3 r fl 7. 8. 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 existing residence, as well as several adjacent homes were constructed prior to the current zoning district requirements and therefore do not meet required yard setbacks. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most residences outside of the immediate neighborhood have been constructed after current zoning requirements and are therefore conforming. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. A second story that would not increase encroachment on the side yard cannot be constructed without the granting of a side setback variance. 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 residence cannot increase in height without a side yard setback variance. Issues 1. The existing residence is partially located within the required side yard setback. §2313 Tom and Kan Steinke 910 Dakota Avenue Kariance November !7. 1997 Page A r 2.Granting the side yard setback variance would not result in further encroachment upon the south side lot line. 3. A height variance is not required. The proposed second story addition would increase the height of the existinglesidence to 24' where 30' is allowed. 4. The zoning lot consists of .67 acre where 2 acres is the minimum lot size requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends approval of a side yard setback variance of 17.6' to allow the existing side yard setback of 12.4' to remain where 30' is required. • Staff recommends approval of the ^plication as submitted. Attachments A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Proposed Elevations of Residence #^i/i Tom and Kari Steinke 910 Dakota Avtnue yarlanct Sovember 17, 1997 Page 5 r Application # 9^(3 Date Receired Z.'4 \^c\l Amount Paid 390— CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) h i #231 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address \ 0 (Aa Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) y-l (0 cu•*«%o Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired C)f\~. 3>_________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify) Zoning District:______________ APPLICANT Name oV/hri ^ n\r j:> Address: ^/O Phone (home ) 4 -7 % - 3.^ i 3 _____ Phone(w,-ork ) 4-T^ - City: (Pri'i A O______Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction Cost $ 1 Cr / O Od? ^ Describe request in detail; /'ji AA Try (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front __Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions prcvendng compliance with Zoning Code requirements: iO M A h^rl ■ __> 4 /' /y lei . I ^ ___ ri |r ■^r T> /Vl / J * ” rTTn (attach additional sheets if necessary) : I r —- * •» M S5^^;r25r-R7i34?. 4 j66.K ^_T1>’‘0 35 o - .......... I 19' Ip 33 33 494. 60 7 37.5. 5T 324.0^ "JMii 'S ims FT Cff LOT I (3Z) 32:--------------.. LAt^H AM'M FT .jf lot 2 (33) 321- *0- S2IN2'46*E •'Sse* ,7. ,2., s \ / \ \ O) LAKE "^5. .-. V; i_Z7.? «(5)5 -<5 5> 2 * % 4» IS I'5 CI2;C2 :;v V %25.1 00c NO / 450719# / -3m 200.53 4 '7*75 (I) (5) R.L.S. m. nr^ . • • . • 4 • • • ^ V •EST 235.53 pt p I —MW '-i>* r " ftj«■» JVr L_C* ‘v* SCE MAP 76 r\ r r PERMIT RECORD ^to lAMth L Pernit No. 2Mmd „ fo79m. Ho, 9 Date 6 -/y-g ^ ^'e-7U C - ^ y'-<P7 Type of Pernlt ^jLt XJLi-A Aittn HOUSE LOCATION SURVEY FOR TOM STEINKE OF LOT 8. JOHNSTON'S REARRANGEMENT OF ALBEE' S LONG LAKE ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAt nrSCtaPTIQN OF PWPU<y^ • Lot 8. Johnston's Reorrongemont of Al>«e's Long Lake Addition o : denotes iron marker This SL^vfy intends to show the location of on existing house in relation to the South of the above described property. It does not purport to show ony other improvements or encroochments. #2o13 i (cm\ & (.lidNHiw;, l\c • • i 1 hereby certify that thb survey was prepared by me or under my direct super- vision, and that 1 am a duly registered Ovil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the Slate of hfinnesola. SCAU /"zjo' NUfl 5 Cnvibefi; Minnesuta License Numberl2755 JOS SO 9 7 - 4rs F r V t; St- 5*1 t?! I>«r C. tc r (f •• f. ft*.< -r ». •;»>•><■ » V *^. v**« 2 gK»fefe^>S5M*<e««h^ L a ij.»B—I [ ^kL^tfgEMUft.- ^ —. * - WW - c ^ ■-. • 'jSST '. '■■' -L,- - - J. - * **r If;{ ! |i! i Uf ------------------- ^ .C-; 4 3 1? •;■a—1 1 '4 u M;? 1 i: i> ^H 11? ^U]i _ •H [ jJL ---------r 4ik» Jl /<1 1! >U ^i»ntap ttrM-ISr: ,T3:; .K-U^ll N \•? - -. \!. fl t1 i'^ '■'ll ■1^ i,v 1 » ' t 1 /‘nfrr- /i'iJi X ■frr Tf % JJ5 ii .t---------" - - 0-- g| J.{]’. • '.-i *‘J .Hf N.*'! is liii I i ® B I I iw- _...ja 5' V ■ I s' ' 1:'! i■aldlllLl U \ \ :■! •• i- m •/ *-’. . •. .*•, f E .jj'.r50 r TO;Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:November 10, 1997 SUBJECT;#2314 Hoyt Development, as assignee of purchase agreement for 2505/2507 Kelly Avenue Conditional Use Permit for I >uplex Credit and Zoning Amendment to revise the distance requireme^" for duplex credit —Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR-IB,One-FamiW Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Size:43,975 sq. ft. (1.01 acres) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Designation: Urban Service Area, Urban Residential, 1 acre Application:The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Code regarding lots eligible for the duplex credit. Currently, lots that are located within 200' of a commercial or industrial district may apply for a conditional use permit for a duplex credit. The subject lot is farther than 200' from a commercial or industrial district. Subsequent to a zoning amendment to increase the distance requirement, the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for duplex credit. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.24, LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District Section 10.20, Subd. 3, (1), Duplex Credit "One duplex may be located on a single lot as a conditional use upon application therefore provided that public sanitary sewer service is available, and the lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial district, and the duplex is constructed within 200' of the commercial or industrial district. A duplex is defined as a two-family unit residential building." r LR’IB Zoning Standards Lot Area 1 acre Lot Width 140' Street Yard 35 ’ Side Yard 30 ’ Lakeshore 75’ or average lakeshore setback Subject Property Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeshore 1.01 acres 146’ at lakeshore setback 4’ existing 30' and 40 ’ existing 250+ existing The subject property meets the mininium lot area requirements and lot v/idth for the LR-IB district. The existing structure does not meet the street yard setback. The proposed duplex would meet all setback requirements. Hardcover Setback Area Lot Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Allowed Hardcover 0 ’-75’9,905 sq. ft.None None None 75’-250'25,210 sq. ft.None 3,516 sq. ft. (13.9%) 6,302. sq. ft. (25%) 250'-500 ’8,860 sq. ft.2,034 sq. ft. (22.96%) 1,385 sq. ft (15.63%) 2,658 sq. ft. (30%) The proposed duplex would be located behind the 75’ lakeshore setback as required. The amount of hardcover in the 75’-250 ’ setback would increase from none to 13.9% where 25% is allowed. In the 250 ’-500 ’ setback, hardcover would be reduced from 22.96% to 15.63%. This application does not require any hardcover variances. Building Information The existing structure was built in 1920. The current owner is Peter Chow. The most recent valuation indicates that Hennepin County values the land at $98,000 and the building at $82,500, for an assessed value of $180,500. The property last sold in September 1982 for $155,000. Net taxes for 1997 were approximately $4,700. The adjacent duplexes were constructed in 1977 and their values range from $158,800 to $181,000. r Land Uses in the LR-IB The LR-IB zoning district allows single family houses on 1 acre zoning lots. The conditional uses M in“*lB district refer to uses also allowed in the Rl-A disrtct. The condttmntd allowed include duplexes if the zoning lot is adjacent to conunercial or the duole\ is constructed within 200' of the conunerciai and industrial distncts. adjacent has been interpreted to mean abutting either a commercial or industnal district. The subjert lot is not adjacent to a commercial or industrial district and the proposed duplex would be constructed farther than 200 feet from a commercial district. Distance Requirements for Duplex Credit The 200' distance requirement is based on the land use theoiy that commercial or industrial districts should be buffered from single family residential by medium to high density residential as an apartment building. This theme is apparent throughout the Twm Cities and townhomes are built around commercial development with smgle family homes ^hind th “^"^Tdential uses. An example of this is the new development at Hopkins Ciossroads and Hwy. 394 in Minnetonka. Buffering Single Family Uses from Commercial or Industrial While a buffering scheme between commercial or industrial and single family residences is common, it is unusual to use a distance requirement to achieve it. Typically, a community will use a development pattern that has a zoning classification that allows higher density is mapped adjacent to commercial or industrial. The 200' requirement has the eftect of being a "moving target" overlay zoning district. That is, every time a commercial or industnal rezonmg occurs the eligibility area for the duplex credit moves. Therefore, a property owner in » smg e family’residential district could become eligible or their neighbor's property based on the actions of others without notice. Most property ownei^ although their property is zoned single-family, it could become a duplex if it is located withm 200 of commercial or industrial zoned areas. A map showing the current areas that are eligible is included in the exhibits. Staff would prefer that areas where higher density should o<-cur specifieally duplexes md townhouses. be mapped rather than be floating zones tied to commercial or industnal zoning. In Navarre area, both the LR-IB and LR-IC areas are currently eligible lor dup'^xes. This means that a 1 acre lot in the LR-IB district and a 1/2 acre lot in the LR-IC district could have duplex^ In the area along Hwy. 12 that is zoned industrial and commercial, 2 acre zoning lots in the RR-IB zoning district would also be eligible for the duplex credit. The Hwy. 12 ^ea may be an wto the Citv may want to encourage densities higher than 2 unib per acre. The dup ex ere effect of being a textual rezoning by changing the allowed density, without a map amendment. r HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In May 1976, the Orono City Council considered a rezoning and subdivision of 2500 Kelly Avenue for Daniel Lindsay. Conceptual approval for a conditional use permit for three duplexes was recommended on condition the third duplex unit not be constructed until the existing duplex is removed from the site and a maximum of two boats per dw elling unit for four boats per duplex be permitted dockage on the channel. The Planning Commission showed concern about the possible conflict in the ordinance as to provisions for duplex credits within the 1000' lakeshore setback requirement for multiple family residences. The conceptual approval of the concept plan for the planned residential development (PRD) and preliminary plat was approved subject to the Planning Commission recommendations on May 24, 1976. On October 3, 1977, the Planning Commission considered application #310 to consider issuing a conditional use permit for two new duplexes at 2505 Kelly Avenue. Dock rights for all three duplexes were also requested—one for the existing duplex and one each for the two proposed duplexes, for a total of slip usage for six households. The Planning Commission £q>proved the PRD and the duplex credit for the construction of tw o new structures within 200 feet of the commercial zone. However, they did not grant approval of any dock rights at that time. On October 11, 1977, the City Council considered the conditional use permit for planned residential development and the duplex credit. The proposal included a request for a joint use dock with four slips for the new units. No dock existed for the existing duplex. The City Council approved the conditional use permit for the duplexes. No consideration was given to the dock issue at that time due to a moratorium. In March 1978, the City Council approved a joint use dock permit and license for Kelly Avenue Holding Company for construction and use of six slips at 2505 Kelly Avenue. Issuance of the permit and license did not vest any permanent rights for multiple dock or moorage on this property. Minutes from previous Planning Commission and City Council meetings indicate that there was concern about riparian rights. Staff recommended a private outlot over the existing dock area to lessen the impact on the wetland and dismiss the need for a variance to the Flood Plain Wetlands Management Ordinance. In August 1979, the City Council approved Resolution #1058 to plat Navarre Cove. The resolution included creation of an area designated as Outlot A to be used as a joint use dock area for all three (3) lots, which outlot is to be owned and maintained by a homeowner's association comprised of the owners of all lots in this plat. Use of the dock area was subject to annual licensing and limited to six boats, one per dwelling unit. Creation of private easements for walkway purposes to provide access to Outlot A and for driveway purposes to access Kelly Avenue in favor of Lot 1 over Lots 2 and 3 and in favor of Lot 2 over Lot 3 were also established. Public notice was also give in Resolution #1058 that the existing duplex on Lot 3 (the subject property) is a legal non-conforming use of land. ' H analysis of the proposed text amendment The subject lot is zoned for 1 acre single family residential. The existing structure is^egal non- conforming use that severely encroaches into the required street yard. The presence of Outlet A at the lakeshore possibly testricts the ability to develop the property for single family residennrd, ^ duplex cannot be removed and a new duplex constructed without a change to the zoning distnct and/or revision of the duplex credit. At the time the application was submitted, staff prepared a notice regarding amending Ae duplex credit to be avaUable to lots within 400 feet of the B-3 District. The effect of this amendment is to eliminate the duplex credit for sewered areas next to commercial or industrial districts wheje » duplex would be constructed within 200 feet. The areas that this would effect are shown in Exhibit The existing duplexes, the subject site, and four other single family residential lots would be-ome eligible for the duplex credit. All areas within 200' of commercial and industrial district, excluding the B3 district would no longer be eligible for the duplex credit. The language to e^lude the duplex credit to lots within 400 ’ of the B3 district is provided in the exhibits. The proposed text amendment conflicts with the comprehensive plan land use map which indicates that this area should be developed at 1 acre density. ISSUES 1. 2. The subject lot is zoned for single family residential development at a density of I acre. The subject lot is 1.01 acres. The existing structure is a legal, non-conforming use. The building encroaches 29' into the required front yard setback. r 3. Outlet A exists to provide joint docks for six dwelling units as follows; Owner Taxpayer Address A H & D Evans Austin and Diane Evans Resident 2497 Kelly Avenue RV & MS Dahl Sylvia A Bertagnoli Resident 2499 Kelly Avenue Todd Jones Todd Jones 2501 Kelly Avenue Todd Jones Todd Jones 2503 Kelly Avenue Peter Chow Mary Management 2505 Kelly Avenue Peter Chow Mary Management 2509 Kelly Avenue 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. This joint dock arrangement, however, y<ds at no time regarded as a permanent situation by the City of Orono. The presence of outlet A restricts the ability to develop the subject lot for single family use. Past Planning Commission and City Council minutes seem to indicate that the subject lot was to be developed as a duplex after the existing structure is removed. The subject lot is not eligible for the duplex credit because it is not adjacent to either a commercial or industrial district. The proposed location is also farther than 200' from a commercial or industrial district. The proposed text amendment would eliminate the duplex everywhere in the City of Orono with the exception of the zoning lots along Kelly Avenue that are within 400' of the B3 district. A conditional use permit cannot be granted for a new duplex until the zoning issues are resolved. OPTIONS 02314 Hoyt Devtlopment 2505/2507 Kelly Avenue PC-Sovember 17, 1997 page-6 1.Deny the text amendment and conditional use permit which would prevent the construction of a new duplex and restrict new development to a single family residence. 2.Approve the text amendment which would limit the area where the duplex credit would be available. Single family lots which are currently not eligible would become eligible for the duplex credit. Also, grant the conditional use permit for the new duplex. 3.Consider rezoning the existing duplexes and the subject lot to a density that allows one dwelling unit on 1/2 acre. A comprehensive plan amendment would be required to change from 1 acre to 1/2 acre. No conditional use permit would be required, as the duplex would then be considered a permitted use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed text amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, staff does not recommend adoption of the text amendment. However, staff recognizes the opportunity that this proposal presents to remove a legal, nonconforming use that is located in a requii^ fix)nt yard. Staff also recognizes that past City officials recognized that the existing duplex would be removed at some point in the future. However, the zoning district was not changed to allow the density to change from single family residential on 1 acre lots to two-family residential. The Planning Commission should determine if the proposal merits amending the comprehensive plan land use map and rezoning the subject lot and adjacent properties. Exhibits A B C D E F G H 1 J L M Application Platmap Topo Mapt Shoreland/Wetland Map Land Use Plan Applicant's letter Proposed plat Hardcover calculations Permit record Resolutions f^892 re: joint dock license Resolutions #1058 re: Navarre Cove Proposed text amendment Colored maps 4 Hoyt Deveiopment 2505/2507 Kelly Avenue PC-Sovember 17, 1997 page--: J r Application # ^ 3/^ Date Received /r< Amount Paid ^30 CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATIONJL t\ -I PROPERTY LOCATION “ v , Site Address 2.SC5 4 2.S^C1 K fLCYiTjli/^A/^-'J Type of Application to be Hied Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) / •• 1 k*- SL 5»APPLICANT . . Phone (home)_____________ Name ___________ Phone (work) Address 75^0 Ncf^Tt^ City d^OAJQ _______Zip___________ OWNER (i^ifferent th^ applicant) Name ^ Address Phone (home) _____ Phone (work) ^ ^ ^ City Ali/rAr- zip >SWT Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also ow-n the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments Y $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) _____$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 - se( 3^. JX) Other - see Fee Schedule A 1 \ \ PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District _______ Present Use of Property______Residential dOO^ Other (specify) r 10>'2<»^97 11 = 25 RE IIRX EXCELSIOR 612S51«J943 F«ar : f*a«^««cr'ic SYSTEM pmOmE NO. t NO.072 002 Oct 24 199T 12:10RM R2 S12SS14Y4;. ^cvT rC-•ELC^^E’*” fUtOtIfKED submittals I. yC Completed Application Fcrm Describe reqv:«»t in. deuul. P02 i>:T 24 *77 10:13 ■B y T y•v,*»V 2. p. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ^1 N CertlAed Property OvK-Tieri List of owners within ?50’, labcla end plet (you meet obtain this list, libels and map from Hennepin County Depattmeat of Finence, A-603, Government Censer, 3ea.327i) Cestificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) • refer to hauidout Ibr survey infonnstion. Attach legal d«criptior. to application if no; included on required survey, topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve chaosea in elevation (grades). ^ist of the legal namea (include marital status) of a>* persons with an interest m the property. This would include iuune<s) of epplicant(s) if not coirent owneifa). Construction plan. If applicable (see staff for requiraments). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ■ - YOU AM MEQUntED TO SUPPLY JO COPIES OP rOR REPRODUCTION (11" X IT" OR SMAX.LER) FOR ALL DOCUMENT SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all doctimsnta, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Plcasc fcmemboi tliat your application is not complete if the above infomuiUon has not been included. Cettlfloation by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:__________ ______PaW*.. ^ ■. — —. i --------- AFFLIC a NT ’S signature ^ ^ ^ 1 The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Adminietrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee p^mem) and/or unusual cxpaitscs incurred in review of this application, and certinas that the information supplied is true and^^o^ecpto the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date X9'9JL OWNER'S SlGhtUmJL-.- ^ ._,a The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authonaeo raasonabla entry onto the property by City staff, consolrants. agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes ef investigation end verificaiion of this request. Owner's signature ------- Applicant must hava all tubminaU into iha ofTicas 25 <Iays bafof* As Planninf Commiuim Mss^g. PUnnlaa CommUsion Maetins* s*e haid on tha third Monday of each month Appllcantt etuat be praseat at all sebaduted review meetings of the Planning Commiss ‘»en and Council If aa srplicaai Is uneeie to scheduled meeting, please mi>y* e«Tatigemer.te to heva an authorized sgetu sneud le your plM# and edvisa tne Duitding A Zoning QiTica nf mis change prior to the meeting. D iAt I'^’^Sr rcAX«'• »V. . , » ‘Pi>;'.“r;’>'' »f |S«^ -i-r-- J r E C/ MEDINA ___’i—______ ..............................^ 1^ r\^ i**y ..V-- K«v ■■■MSI \_ • • .. ^ ’*■ —•***■• V>: T**.- *• -— '^'isssasss.0 land use plan URBAr; RESIDENTIAL 1 ACRE URBAN RESIDENTIAL 1/2 ACRE rural RESIDENTIAL 5 ACRES f ^ rj}^r ^-h >% ^ -li#- . .#SSsiS\ Is^km^iA •<^-. f...'p ^ . . , .W.“, ^ p~[ rural residential B COMMERCIAL g institutional ^ industrial ^ PARKS 2 ACRES 4 ■ I 1 1 [ 1-- 41' • S* . r/' w., /& A * • ^ \ f-f \ / \ ’V4 / froirr ‘.c:o 2C?f ' t K4W • 'soeuecrr Slit City of C I ^r2t PeEJD€:V^M^ r n Hovt Develooment C O M P A N Y 13400 15th AVENUE NORTH.SUITE F PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55441 Phone 612-551-4944 Fax 612-551-4943 1-800-551-HOYT F October 30,1997 Ms. Elizabeth Van Zomeren City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway P. O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 -J / 199/ RE; Site Plan Review 2505 and 2507 Kelly Avenue Dear Ms. Van Zomeren: As the assignee of the purchase agreement between John Bessesen and the fee owner, Peter Chow, I am requesting the following approval. As you know the subject property presently is used as a duplex. The existing structure, it is my understanding, was originally a fire hall and has long since been converted to a duplex. The building is very close to Kelly Avenue and represents a blight condition. Also, the proximity to the roadway causes undue traffic hazards due to turning maneuvers in and out of the driveways. It also represents a visual obstiaxtion and diminution to the neighborhood as it's appearance is not keeping with the adjacent homes. The zoning code for the subject lot is single family and the code allows for a duplex to be constructed within that zoning district. It is my understanding that there is a restriction that the lot be located within 200 feet of commercial and this lot does not meet that perimeter. However, I do not see the logic or the nexus of this distance as it relates to the use for duplex. Further, the property is currently used as a duplex. It also suffers a significant hardship that is unique to this property in the existence of an outlot that is for the benefit of the two adjacent duplexes located at Navarre Cove. Originally, the developer anticipated the construction of three twin homes on three lots. It appears as though the outlot located on our property intended to serve the association and all three docks for the three lots are located on our property. We believe a more fitting solution would be locate each of the property's docks on their lake frontage and will explore this possibility with the neighbors Due the existence of this easement this property is not suitable for a single family residence. MINNEAPOUS • TAMPA DEVELOPMENT • CONSTRUCTION • MANAGEMENT • INVESTMENT Ms. Van Zomeren Page 2 October 30,1997 Our primary goai in the development is to construct a more suitable residence that is set back properly from Kelly Avenue so as not to visually impair the neighborhood. Additionally, the resulting project will greatly enhance the tax base of the area as the current property is valued at well below $200,000. The adjacent uses are identical to the north, and we b< .eve that this use was also anticipated on this lot. The uses to the south are single family. 1 own the home at 2S23 Kelly Avenue as my principal residence. My motivation is to enhance the neighborhood and to, possibly in conjunction with this project, work with my adjacent neighbors to potentially realign our driveways to avoid a hazardous condition that resulted in the near demolition of my neighbors garage last winter by a moving van. It is my belief that a safer, more attractive and environmentally sensitive manner of access can be designed for the six homes on this section of Kelly Avenue. It is anticipated that construction of the homes would commence in the spring and be completed by fall of 1998. I appreciate your consideration and invite any questions or comments. Very truly yours. Bradley A. Hoyt BAHkc r f CERTFICATE OF SURVEY FOR HOYT DEVELOPMENT OF LOT 3. BLOCK 1, NAVARRE COVE he Mpm county , MMCSOTA Gr W' /| II T I F, T % w • to w • \ \ \ -'"'a"" ' ' \ \ \ V', tw U : L 1^. rV. • ' V'' (1^ t / / ! / y \ 8'i/ / // X ' 'ij S> ! ': ^ / ' 111 't , f ' y > t TH_i- «•//■'/' ' f > / '/ y-------- I I Uft 1. HMmE cmt to‘jBgj'An.gfai ;)jissiiss’f»l nipvt to tfmv ony totar toprpww—to tr > i r Bo X7 A/-/c-// / HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET w SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)75-250’250-500’500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____________ Length Width X X X B* Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E, Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X • • • G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^o * B ffas X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE House Length Width X X X D. Garage C. Driveway y^hanqe D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE H- B X 100 - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 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 Vo C' S.F. A S.F. B % S.F. A S.F. B I » 0'/*^ // ^ • HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET • /' SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’250-500*500-1000* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X •\ G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE O_____ B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X Length Width X X D. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk J/O X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X F, Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X eszfo o - 7^^ 220 G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B 2^2/0 Z6Z20 X 100 - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. •-1 S.F. S F. ' S.F. S.F. _ S.F. S.F. S.F.4 m I S.F. A S.F. 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. A S.F. B % VBSA' J r I .i • . ^ w** *■ A ^ w * . HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _________ X 75-250'250-50Q>500-1000* 2034. Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ZO?4- •*• B 1£3^ 6&&d? X 100 32.^C» PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Length Width D. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X S.F. S.F. S.F .r. « j| S.F. J S.F. I ■# S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ■f ♦ •1 i J w/ S.F. . S.F. ; • ;v =/ S.P. S.F.^i-?. 3 S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE JS&B + B 8&i»0 f33^ X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % 97 r Perait Wo. Uf>«i Va^Io 3usD. HaHJfl nSEl PERMIT RECORD Date SdldtLe. ^ -T7 -8 0 36^ T Type of Permit; /h.oaiu»^iiX. O/iA iSeet^Jutm nAe d p7,\r RESOLUTION NO. 892 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A JOINT USE DOCK PERMIT AND LICENSE FOR KELLY AVENUE HOLDING COMPANY WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning and lakeshore regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have considered the application of Kelly Avenue Holding Company for Joint Use Dock construction and use of six (6) slips on their property known as 2505 Kelly Avenue; Tract A, RLS 1428; and WHEREAS, Tract A, RLS 1428 is occupied by 3 duplex structures containing 6 residential units as authorized by Conditional Use Permits issued October 11, 1977; and WHEREAS, Tract A, RLS 1428 contains approximately 400 lineal feet ■»f Lake Minnetonka shoreline; and WHEREAS, the Orono Zoning Code Section 34.440 authorizes private docks subject to the requirement of the Orono Municipal Code Chapter 74, Joint Use of Lake Facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves a Joint Use Dock Permit and 1978 license for Kelly Avenue Holding Company subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Maximum of 6 boats to be moored at this property. Maximum of 3 dock structures, each structure a maximum size of 5' 6” X 25' 0", as shown and located on Exhibit A attached. Installation and use of more than one dock structure on this property will be subject to a Joint Use Dock License which must be renewed annually and which renewal may be subject to revised conditions according to then current dock regulations. Issuance of this permit and license is subject to the approval of all other agencies having jurisdiction, including the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the MN Dept, of Natural Resources. Issuance of this permit and license does not vest any permanent rights for multiple dock or moorage on this property. 6, Kelly Avenue Holding Company shall review and approve of this Resolution, which approval shall be indicated by the endorsement of an authorized representative hereon, and shall cause an original copy of this Resolution to be filed as a permanent covenant in the chain of title of the property, such ,filing to occur within 30 days of the approval of the Resolution by the City Council. Dated this ATTEST: AGREED: KeMy Avenue Holding Compan day of March 19^. William B. Van Nest, Mayor ienson, Clerk/Administrator RESOLUTION NO. 1058 K A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF NAVARRE COVE * WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a inunicipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within Lhe City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision plat by Kelly Avenue Duplexes Company, a limited partnership, the subdivider; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Dedication of Drainage Easements and Drainage and Utility Easements on the plat. 2. 3‘. A. 5. Dedication to the City of a Flowage and Conservation Easement (Exhibit A) providing for limitations on the use of "wetlands" as shown on the plat and as described therein. Creation of an area design"' ad on the plat as Outlot A to be used as a joint use d^ck area for all three (3) lots, which outlot is to be o^?“ted and maintained by a homeowners association comprised of the owners of all lots in this plat. Use of dock area is subject to annual licensing according to ordinance and is limited to six (6) boats, one per dwelling unit. Creation of an area designated on the plat as Outlot B which area is a lagoon and open water connected^to , the main body of Lake Minnetonka, which outlot is to be deeded to the City of Orono a public body. Creation of private easements for walkway purposes to afford access to Outlot A and for driveway purposes to afford access to Kelly Avenue, all in favor of Lot 1 over Lots 2 and 3 and in favor of Lot 2 over Lot J. r .Ti-V a-U^V^-kr- Resolution No. 1058 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council - of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Navarre Cove, Hennepin County, Minnesota: subject to the following conditions: 1. The aforesaid plat shall be filed with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office on or befo^re February 14, 1980 together with a certified original copy of this Resolution and executed copies of the Flowage and Conservation Easement, Exhibit A, as noted above, and a quit claim deed to the City of Orono for Outlot B attached as Exhibit B. 2. Public Notice that the existing duplex on Lot 3 is a legal non-conforming use of land pursuant to the current Zoning Code of the City of Orono. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 14 day of August 1979. William B. Van Nest, Mayor ATTEST: Walter R. Be^>s6n, C^erk/Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO The undersign®<i duly qualified and acting City Clerk/Administrator of the City of Orono hereby certifies that attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution passed by the City Council the City of Orono on August 14_ _ _ _ _ _. 19_» approving the plat^ on file in the office of the City Clerk/Administrator, City of Orono. Walter R.JSenson, Clerk/Admlnlstrator Dated this da^y of August (Seal) FLOKAGE AND C0NSEKVAT.70N EASEMENT AND WAIVER OF DAM^GES A/%, 1058JTHIS INDENTURE# made and entered into this_. — / # by and betyi .♦Yl-I" ■! f »^,1, -HI ■ I ■! - - -1 f T ^ ’ r_ _ heirs# assigns# successors (hereinafter collectively"referred to as the Grantor (sH and the City of Orono# its suc- ce ors and assigns# a municipal corporation under the laws of the tate of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the Grantee) WTTKESSETH# Grantor (s)# for and in consideration of the sum o. Dollar ($1.0C) and other valuable consideration# hereby covenant# grant# gift# quit claim and convey to Grantee the right to restrict and Grantor(s) agree to limit and pre clude the use# improvement and development# under the condi tions and covenants herein contained# the following described Land in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota: cfKjJK ‘ i/<_- fi as follows: n !• Grantor(s) hereby covenant and agree^aj ; A* No structures shall be constructed# erected# or placed upon# above# or beneath the Land including without limit ation# fences# fireplaces# steps# docks# piers# hard-cover or roads of any nature whatsoever# or any other structure or improve* nent inconsistent with the natural state of the Land. B. No trees# shrubs or other vegetation shall be destroyed# cut or removed from the Land except as authorized by written consent of Grantee. C. No earth# loam# peat# gravel# soil or any other natural material ox substance shall be moved or removed from the Land and there shall be no dredging or excavation of any nature whatsoever or any change of the topography of the Land without the written consent of Grantee. tis fcr^iX DC t'iciLca^ UI StOlCU Up'jn LiM: l^uHUno waste# trash or 9arbage shall be placed# dvmped or stored upon the Land.E. No use shall be made of the Land except uses# if any# which will not change or alter the natural condition of the Land# and no use which %»ould tend to change the drainage# flood control# water conservation# erosion control# soil conservation# fish and wildlife habitat characteristics shall be made of the Land or the water situated thereon.r. Grantee may enter upon the Land for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of the covenants contained herein and to cause to be removed from the Land without any liability any structures# uses# materials# substances# or unnatural matter inconsistent with the covenants contained herein and the natural state of the Land.2. Grantor(s) hereby grant# gift# quit claim and convey to Grantee# a perpetual flowage easement and right and privilege to trespass with water over and upon any or all of the Land. 3. Grantor(s) herein do hereby remiss# release# acquit and forever discharge# forever# the Grantee and any and all of its officers and employees of and from any and all claims# demands or causes of action of any kind or nature whatsoever which may arise or accrue by virtue of any flowage or trespass with water within terms of these agreements. In addition to any other remedy the Grantee may have# the covenants and restrictions contained herein may be enforced by injunction* Grantor(s) do not intend that the public should have any interest in the above land by virtue of this indenture or other wise# except as hereinabove set forth. The Grantor(s) herein certify that the land herein described are free and clear of all encumbrances except: All the provisions hereof shall run with the land and shall extend to and bind the heirs# successors, representatives# grantees or assigns of the respective parties^heretq. i/J ijJ 7" ^ STATE or MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this /(/^day of 0*^^_ _ _ _» 1977 # before me# a Notary Public within and for saidn:ounty and State# personally appeared ^_ _ _ _ _ __ known to me to be tne person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument# and acknowledged that they executed said instrument as their-.own free act and deed. JULIE T. RENNER NQfAfT »U«UC-MINMM0TA ^ MCMMCrtM COWWTT JUW >. Stat^^UC^d Tax bue HerecTn: Notary'Public Exempt This instrument was drafted by: POPHAN# HAIK# SCHNOBRICH# KAUFMAN fc DOTY# Ltd. 4344 IDS Center# Minneapolis# Minnesota 55402 (612) 335-9331 r M ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE BY DELETING THE DUPLEX CREDIT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN 200 FEET AND ADDING A DUPLEX CREDIT FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS LOCATED WITHIN 400 FEET OF THE A B3,SHOPPING CENTER BUSINESS DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Muncipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3, (I), Duplex Credit., is hereby amended to read as follows: One duplex ma y be located as a conditional use upon a pplieati en therefore provided tha t mwimiy ^wer ae rviee ia a vailable, and the lot is ad ia eent to a commercial or industrial district, and the duplex ts eenstnieted within 200’ of the eemmereial Of industrial district. A duplex is defined a s a twe-famil y unit residential building. ONE DUPLEX IS ALLOWED AS A CONDITIONAL USE ON A PLATTED LOT OF RECORD SERVED BY PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER SERVICE IF SAID LOT IS LOCATED WITHIN 400 FT. (FOUR HUNDRED FEET) OF A B3 SHOPPING CENTER ZONING DISTRICT. 1 \ \ . A*4 •t»*65*»f ■NG- = Va-'-*PLAl' M) \ in EUC(.6ue KEC3-. K'er S SLlJ/r/S/C4 Of LOT t, SfiUC fJ9I 2f0 O/TJSIOtT • CC)MHeR.Ct^L •ZOMING t AnTWXNT To CC>VAMCi32i/I N€/^ _____IN ‘ V Ik ZOUlK-Vf S' N LOTS ' m-i- r Nt:.\ 20MlMC^- Hi IMDuSTpifi, ?ONIMQ- ■=? ad 3n :5H t in COinttxiAM. OP IMDU51^N- ' 2on' vld^ \NCuf>it!in- <^(2. ^CDMHeRlAC- - »oo' MEDINA IJ r T.HF f>3 DUFttV-0S)09!0-SS I : \ • 0-*r .'. l.L. cPeDt'" »* *• *riX?FS-us» , J ^ Jj:?: .ix> Isipg S tSIlH ® \ • * N20 / j$-/rr.v/7 src»?ii 5c«t*< oisifticr BOiACAnr SCMOCl OISTRICf eOtKOARt «sft{r«:i<^n n»*;T<»if: «v>isTAi?f COtMT, yiK#cS0JA 9UR£AU OF PuaiC SERvCE C£PARTw€Nr OF *'RCP€RTf ’At To: From: Date: Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator / November 12, 1997 Subject: Proposed Zoning Code Amendment - Land Alterations List of Exhibits A - Draft Ordinance B - Existing Code Sections; C - Legal Notice -10.03 Subd. 19 -10.03 Subd. 21 -10.56 Subd. 16(JX4) Summary of Proposed Code Revisions The primary intent of this ordinance is to increase the current maximum 100 cubic yard limit on staff-issued land alteration permits to 500 cubic yards. This change will be of benefit to residents who wish to fill, excavate or regrade their properties in amounts over 100 cubic yards for various purposes, but who would under the current ordinance need a Conditional Use Permit. Under the new ordinance, permits could be issued by staff for up to 500 c.y. of earth movement for those projects which are determined on a case-by-case basis to have no negative impacts. Any project involving more than 500 c.y. would still require a CUP, and staff would have the authority to refer to Council anv land alteration project where negative impacts are anticipated, regardless of the amount of fill involved. As a gauge of the impact of 500 cubic yards of fill, this is the equivalent of fifty 10-yard dump truck loads. 500 cubic yards would create a berm 3' high with 3:1 sideslopes, 500’ in length. Or, 500 cubic yards would cover a 1-acre lot about 4 inches deep. Section 10.03 Subd. 19 is proposed to be reorganized for clarity but exhibits no substantive changes in intent. This Section indicates that all grading requires a CUP. Section 10.03 Subd. 21 is the "Exceptions" to the provisions of Subd. 19. The current Subd. 21 limits to 100 c.y. the amount of land alteration allowed via staff permit. The proposed revision: - reorganizes the wording of Subd. 21; - changes the 100 c.y. limit to 500 c.y.; - adds a sentence requiring a land alteration permit for work that is not being performed in conjunction with a building permit; and - adds an 'intent' statement regarding the use of fill for protection of frost footings. Land Alterations Zoning Code Amendment November 12,1997 Page 2 Section 10.56 Subd. 16(JX4) regarding land alteration permits in the shoreland Overlay District, is simply revised to reflect the change from 100 c.y. to 500 c.y. Staff Recomaiendation Staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance because it will give residents more flexibility in conducting land alterations without the typical 2-month delay caused by the CUP process; because it gives staff the authority to refer questionable projects to the Council for review; and as a side benefit, may slightly reduce the number of CUP's needing processing. r AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 19 AND 21, AND SECTION 10.56 SUBDIVISION 16 (J) TO REVISE AND CLARIFY REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS ON LAND ALTERATION AND LAND ALTERATION PERMITS The City Council of the City of Orono ordains: ■' Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, is hereby deleted and a new Subdivision 19 substituted in its place as follows: ♦ Subdivision 19. Land Alteration; Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to perform or have performed the following land alteration activities without a conditional use permit issued by the Council: A. Remove, fill, use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel dirt or similar earth material within the limits of the City. B. Fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land to elevate or alter the existing natural grade. C. Build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property. All of the alxjve-referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be perfonned only wtth clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits isTubject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordmances of other governmental bodies. ^“"‘"8 Co<ie Section 10.03, Subdivision 21, is hereby deleted and a new Subdivision 21 substituted in its place as follows: CmKHI v-.- ?'• Land Alteration; Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the following land alteration activities: Normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the driveway serving such building. i^y earth movement under 500 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. 1. 2. Such grading and earth movement shall be subject to approval by the Building 1nspector at Page 1 of3 the time of issuance of a building permit, provided that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Where such earth movement is not being performed in conjunction with a building permit, a separate land alteration permit shall be required. Any unusual land alterations including earth filling, removal or grading proposed by a builder shall be subject to a Conditional Use Permit as provided for in this Chapter. The follo ’ving land alterations shall be considered as 'unusual land alterations': A. All excavations for foundotions in excess of 12 feet average depth if any amount of the excess mateiia! icmoved below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on the site. B. Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 500 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footing protection; the intent being that structures shall not be artificially raised above the pre-existing sunounding topography. C. Grading or alterations that that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. The Building Inspector shall have the authority to refer any requests for land alteration permits to the City Council for review and approval in instances where said land alteration appears to potentially create negative impacts. Section 3. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(J)(4) is hereby deleted and a new Subdivision 16(J)(4) substituted in its place as follows: J. Topographic Alterations / Grading and Filling. 4. Except for those projects requiring permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways, a land alteration permit wall be required as follows: a. For movement of 1-500 cubic yards of materia! anywhere within the Shoreland Overlay District, a staff-issued land alteration permit shall be required. b. For movement of more than 500 cubic yards of material within the Shoreland Overlay District, conditional use permit approval by the City Council is required in addition to the required land alteration permit. Page 2 of 3 dThe § 10.03 B. The establishment of any new building for the housing of animals or fowl shall be located 150 feet from the nearest lot line. Source: Ordinance 26» 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 C. Products produced on the farm may be sold at retail. One temporary roadside stand may be established for conducting such business. One temporary business sign not oyer eight square feet in area nay be located in the front yard firing the period when products are for sale, off-street parking m..st be provided for. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 _ _ _ _ _ __Subd. 19. Prohibition. It i^janlawfjiJ^foiL_any_4^t^-h-to. natural gradeif or -tobuildr-altW, or repair any seawall, retaining ^fw'aTir or To otherwise change the grade or .shore ofj^ak^^ grading shall be performed with only Section 10.02. Granting of such permits « regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental »x)dies. Source: Ordinance 47, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-88 Subd. 20. Permit. An application for such permit shall be accompanied by a drawing made by a registered surveyor oj competent person showing the location of the proposed excava storage and shall state the amount of material which is removed, excavated or stored, filled or graded, and sue ® information as the Council may require from time to time. Applications shall be filed with the City Administrator and shall be accompanied by a deposit to be determined by the City, which will be used to offset the cost of processing the application, any unused portion will be refunded to the applicant. ORONO CC 258 (4-1-84) •Ml • H «l A r«»«ii*i r«vn« •n«i rtnsi •JMl»Til Win •1=1 r«H«] tnsi § 10.56 2. Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 feet of the shoreline and on steep slopes within the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6 inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of any size is allowed to provide view to the ^3,ter from the principal dwelling site and to ^^'comodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lock boxes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other racilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. U •Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. 1. Grading and filling and excavations necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways under validly issued construction permits for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate grading and-filling permit. However, all grading and filling activity approved permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways shall adhere to the grading and filling standards of this section. 2. Grading, filling and excavating is prohibited within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Subdivision 7 of this section. 3. Public and private roads, driveways, parking areas, and public or private watercraft access ramps shall not be constructed within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Subdivision 7 of this section. If no alternatives exist, such improvements shall be subject to the standard zoning variance review procedure, and such review shall take into account the following considerations: a. Such improvements shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. b. All roads and parking areas shall be designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the requirements of all agencies with jurisdiction. 4. Except for those projects requiring permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways, a land alteration permit will be required as follows: ORONO CC 376-14 (2-24-92) gned ieve 1 be blic with ring tenis r d as 4-92.) L variances and subdivision approvals: a. Grading or filling in any Type 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 wetland nust be evaluated to determine how extensively the proposed activity would affect the following functional qualities of the wetland: (1) and retention; (2) prevent or reduce flood damage; Sediment and pollutant trapping Storage of surface run-off to Fish and wildlife habitat; Recreational use; Shoreline or bank stabilization; Noteworthinessf including spe cial qualities such as historic significance» critical habitat for endangered plants and animals, or others. This evaluation must also include a determination of whether the wetland alteration being proposed requires permits, reviews, or approvals by other local State or Federal agencies including but not limited to watershed districts, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. b. A Iterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest eunount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible; c. Mulches or similar materials must be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover must be established as soon as possible; d. Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature must be used; ORONO CC 376-15 (2-24-92) 10.56 :ds of staff cubic trict, red in I and iction mits, 2, 3, e how owing ition; spe lt for ude a posed te or ricts, tates and bare st be and a ible; n and must 4-92) § 10.56 e. Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards office technical guides of the local soil and wa e districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service; Pxll or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope; g. Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewe'd continued slope stability and must not create finisned slopes o£ 30% or greater; h. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones; i Any alterations below the Ordinary High Water Level of public waters must first be authorised by the Co^ssioner of the Department of Natural Resources under Minnesota Statutesr Seciton 105.42; j. Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby property; k. Placement of natural rock rip rap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement ® filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical, the landward extent of the rip^T^s within 10 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level, and the height of the rip rap above the Ordinary High Water Level do . . 3 feet A rip rap permit shall be obtained per the requirements of Section 10.03, Subdivisions 22, 23 and 24 of this zoning code. 6. Connections to Public Waters. Excavations wh*»re the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as bSirslips^ clnals,^ lagoons, and narbors, are prohibited above the OrdLary High Water Levll. Such excavations below the elevation or the Ordinary High Water Level are subject to approval fJ® Department of Natural Resources and other agencies with concurrent jurisdiction• K. Storm Water Management. The following gexieral and specific standards shall apply in addition to those standards fSund^in Sections 10.55 and 11.41 of the Orono Municipal Code: 1. When possible, existing natural drainageways, wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces must be ^sed to conv^f, store, filter and retain storm water run-off before discharge to public waters. \ ORONO CC 376-16 (2-24-92) .56 not not nly ises cmr Of oflONo 27S0 IM#y Pftrtnray, P.O. Boi 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phoria (§12)473-735? Fai 473- 0510 NOTICE ^ Tha Planning Commifsion wtfl hold a public haarira in Oia Coundt Chambars at 2700 Kaltay wtiway on Monday. Novambar 17.1997 on iha matiar of propotad ravisions to Orono Zoning Coda Saciion 10.03. Subd. 19 and 21. and Sacdon 10.56. Subd. 16(J) raiadng t> raguiramants and limitations on land aharadon and land altafsoon parmits. Tha maadng bagins at 7:00 p.m. All parsons wishir j lo ba haard will appaar at this lima. Vdriiian oommants ara sofidtad. A copy of Iha propotad ravisions is avaitabla in City offioas tor raviaw. City of Orono By. Planriirig Cornmission Michaal P. Gaffron. Samor Planning Coordinator (PubMshadi in- Tho Laiiar and. -Pipnaar -.2:''/ .7 Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A. ) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B. ) The printed Proposed Rpvisinns Orono Zoning Code_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for 1 successive weeks: It was first published Saturday tho_1 riaynf November io 97 and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday. tha day of uthorized Agent Subscribed and sworn to me on this eral ards 92) 1 __day of November ^ 97 By: -----------nmatyflubiicKRISTI HOLM NOMMV ruauc ■ IMNNtSOTA ■ Mgpfr.y MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JANUARY 31. 2000 Rate InfofmaMoo (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $12.20 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter $12.20. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.00 per inch Each additional successive week: $5.05. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 20,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, and Lili McMillan. William Stoddard was absent. The following represented the City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planning Intern Brad Bressler, City Engineer Tom Kellogg and Recorder Sherry Frost. Council Member Flint and Mayor Jabbour were present. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS (#1) TREE PRESERVATION Lindquist reviewed the issues listed for consideration asking for further comments and opinions in order for Staff to draft a preliminary ordinance. Under issue U\ as noted in memorandum dated 9/19/97, Hawn said she agreed with the purpose statement but questioned the need for the ordinance itself. Lindquist said the question of need would be added to the list of issues for discussion. Conunissioners all agreed with purpose statement. Under issue #2, McMillan was informed that the Shoreland Ordinance used the criteria of 6” trees for replacement. Lindquist thought the tree preservation ordinance should be consistent with the Shoreland Ordinance. Other Commissioners agreed. This would be regardless of the type of tree. Under issue #3, McMillan asked if this referred to residential properties only. Lindquist said it would include developments as well. All were in agiccmei.': with this item as stated. Under item #4, Lindquist questioned how this could be accomplishc McMillan noted that some residents may not care to have this many trees. It was noted the lakeshore ordinance calls for 1:1 replacement ratio. Gaffron suggested looking at 2"-3 ” trees for replacement. Hawn indicated that lakeshore properties tend to be more open noting people purchasing a tieed lot may want to have a lawn. Lindquist noted the 0-75' zone is restricted in what may occur. Hawn asked about properties outside of this zone. McMillan said there were many options noting some properties have fev/ trees. Hawn said she preferred to look at what the City wants as a community, citing examples of buffering and bluff protection. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#1 - Tree Preservation - Continued) McMillan said she would like to see an ordinance similar to those regarding wetlands. She cited the example of the pond on her property requiring a conservation easement. McMillan felt it would be difficult to compare properties. Hawn said she felt this issue should be applied to subdivisions. She noted the tree inventory would be expensive for those only dividing a property into two lots. She <Md not want to see clear cutting occur but questioned how it could be enforced. Lindquist noted that the Cities of Maple Grove and Minnetonka include this restriction in their ordinance. Gaffron referred to page 3 of 11 under subdivision 3 where a time frame is included for replacement not limiting it to how many are taken out but done in a staged plaiuung. McMillan noted a subdivision requiring buffering citing a 50’ casement on the Melamed development. Gaffron said there is a park easement on the east side of that development which is not included in all subdivisions. He indicated there is a 50’ setback for structures if the septic sites and driveways don't eliminate the trees but results in a natural buffer. Item #4 was given Planning Commission support. Items #5 and 6 received approval. On item #7, Lindquist asked what difference it makes regarding type of one size tree. McMillan said some trees were more desirable. Gaffron indicated the current ordinance includes a list of shade tree species that is somewhat limited but would probably be acceptable. Hawn asked who would make the decision on what is acceptable. Gaffron said a landscape consultant is often used and would be called in these cases for his or her opinion. Hawn said she would prefer to see a list be available at the City offices in order for property owners and staff to have the ability to change the types of trees used. She noted how elm and oak trees have become known for becoming diseased. Berg agreed. Hawn said the ordinance could incorporate the list through referencing it. Planning Commissioners all agreed. Several other issues were noted in the memorandum following the numbered list and reviewed by the Commission. Lindquist questioned what "taking" meant. Hawn noted in commercial ventures, such as fir trees used for Christmas, would not enable that owner to realize a gain from the trees. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#1 - Tree Preservation - Continued) The Commission and Staff have not reviewed the Maple Grove ordinance and felt time should be allowed for this to occur. Regarding the concept of using an overlay, Schroeder said this w ould enable the City to take notice of areas of importance, such as a remnant of the Big Woods. Lindquist and Berg agreed. Planning Commission agreed that the ordinance is not meant to curb develop but to obtain a better development that is in character with the city. Gaf&on said the goal of tree preservation should be included in the subdivision ordinance if related. Van Zomeren noted it is not included in the commercial section and would have to be noted there as well. Gaffron said it would be included in the residential zones as well. Lindquist reported that everyone is interested in protecting woodlands whether it be by an overlay or otherwise. Schroeder indicated that an overlay of woodlands could be contrary to the 2-acre zoning with septic noting it might drive the development towards clustering. McMillan said a forester would be needed if an overlay was done. The detailed study would incur a large expense. She noted the problem with restricting the use. Hawn questioned whether woodlands does not refer to 10 acres or more and if development is compatible with this. Gaffron said, in the sense of granting density credit or clustering in order to save woodlands, the goal is to preserve the woodlands or trees within the development. Schroeder felt the probable best way to protect woodlands would be through limiting the number of trees that could be cut. Lindquist said there would then be a problem with determining how many trees could be cut. McMillan said she was concerned with the manhours and staff work to oversee such requirements. She reiterated the need for a forester if this was to occur and questioned whether the City would want to take this step. Gaffron said a consultant can be used and the cost passed on to the developer. McMillan asked what w ould be done for residential properties. Berg said a benchmark standard may be necessary for a certain number of lots. Gaffron said the intent is not to review all trees, noting this just cannot be done. Berg said the purp>ose would be to limit the developer. Once the property is sold to a homeowner, that homeowner would have the right to do as they would like with their own property. Gaffron noted it would create a balance through the wants of the resident and that of the neighborhood. Berg noted people are wanting to remove trees in order to create back yards. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20. 1997 (#1 - Tree Preser\ ation - ContincvU) Lindquist asked if any member of the audience would like to comment on tree preservation. No public comments were made. Park Commissioner McDermott did ask to comment. He said the review done by the Park Commission was mainly based on looking at adjacent communities and paring it down to fit in with the philosophy of Orono. He noted the City of Minnetonka is reviewing protection of slopes. McDermott said the Park Commission looked at stands of trees or masses in the issue of woodlands. Regarding the type of plant material that should be used, they looked at what trees and plants were native to the area. McDermott agreed with the Planning Commission that an addendum to the ordinance should be used instead of incorporating a list within the ordinance as change;, ^.o occur. Regarding the size of trees to maintain, he noted there are substandard trees, and evergreens result in the need for a separate parameter due to the differences in the tree types. He said the Park Commission felt it was important to protect some trees in the City noting if a house was positioned anywhere on a property instead of repositioning the house to protect the area. McMillan reiterated that the Planning Commission must discuss what manhours are available to oversee the tree preservation ordinance and what costs would be associated with it. Gaffron reported that the Council would like to see a tree ordinance adopted. He noted staff has been unable to review the topic to the degree it requires, and in his opinion, the City should involve a consultant in its review. Lindquist suggested a work session be held with Planning Commission, members of Park Commission, and consultant. Berg noted information provided from other cities can be utilized in the review. McMillan suggested the topic be discussed with Council at the upcoming scheduled work session. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the minutes from the Planning Commission Work Session of September 12, 1997. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Smith had not yet arrived at the meeting.) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#2) #2308 BROOK PARK REALTY, 3560 SHORELINE DRIVE, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CLASS HI PRELI.MINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:02-7:46 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. J r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#2 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Bill Gleason represented Brook Park Realty. Gleason said the plan has been revised to reflect a lesser density than originally proposed. The density is based on 4 per buildable acre or 30 units. Van Zomeren reported that the comments made by the landscape architect, Mr. Case, was received today and were briefly reviewed with him over the phone. Van Zomeren said the proposal is for the construction of 30 townhomes on a 9.93 acre site requiring a preliminary plat and planned residential development review. Outlots A and B will be held in a development agreement for maintenance and restrictions will be placed on vehicle storage. Review is required. Tom Kellogg was present to answer questions. The alignment of Livingston is proposed to extend to the west through the site if the developer is able to acquire the property to the west for future coordinated development. The cul-de-sac would be eliminated at that time and connection made to the street. Van Zomeren said an issue arises regarding no more than 10 residences be allowed access from a cul-de-sac. She asked Commission to consider whether 18 units should be allowed use of the temporary cul-dc-sac. The plan will be reviewed by the Mound Fire Department. Van Zomeren also noted that the curve radius of 250' is less than what is required by the standards. The 12 units in the south .m portion are to be accessed from a driveway, which does not have the right-of-way or paved width for the size allowed. The landscape architect has recommended less paving be allowed for tree preservation. Van Zomeren asked the Commission to consider this option. Van Zomeren noted that a drainage control would be required before the wetland. A 10:1 benchmark would be used for slopes. A loop has been recommended on the 6" water main. 3' is required do\\Tistream for the sanitary sewer. The County has asked for T along Shoreline Drive in the same easement as the phone company. Van Zomeren said landscaping plans have been submitted. There is a question whether a trail or path should be established to Shoreline Drive and asked if it should include a sidewalk. Trash receptacles must be maintained in garages. Lighting is to be hooded. Mechanical equipment is to be screened and not intrusive When improvements are made, it may require a letter of credit. Van Zomeren informed the Commission that the Park Dedication fee is $19,064. Questions were directed to Kellogg. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#2 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Hawn asked about moving the water main. Kellogg said the proper alignment would be to extend the main to the west and south down to CoRd 15 in order io improve the flows. Based on the sketch pleui review for future expansion plans, it would make sense, according to Kellogg. Hawn asked if this was possible to do. Kellogg said it could be extended with the future proposal. The water main is stubbed out. Hawn informed Kellogg that the developer does not currently own the property. Kellogg said he had been under the impression that they did but noted the improvement could occur when that purchase is made. Van Zomeren concurred that the water main could be extended in the future. Hawn said that request could be required when that property is purchased but would not affect this current plan. Van Zomeren asked the Commission to consider the pavement width and the number of units on the cul-de-sac, noting 12 units would be served by the driveway without a cul- de-sac. The cul-de-sac does not meet all of the standards. Van Zomeren read through the letter of comments from the landscape architect. The architect noted the well formed trees and the desirability to preserve them. He suggested a tree survey be conducted for assessment and evaluation to include a layout. Case suggested adjustments be made to the 28' road width, a reduction in the front yard setback, shift of the pond, grading, and fencing during construction. Van Zomeren reviewed items 1-3 of the landscaping plan noting the trail, removal of trash, and the need for a restrictive covenant that is compatible with the staff report. Van Zomeren said she concurred with the contents in the letter recognizing the conflict with the road width and pavement versus the preservation of trees. Bill Gleason said he just received the report and has not had the time to review the contents. He noted a certain amount of trees will be lost with the construction. He has experienced an approximate 50% salvage and utilizes a replacement program. Gleason does not believe a 1:1 replacement ratio is realistic. Gleason said the plan calls for the road to run into the development and ends there until such time it can be expanded into the future proposed development to the west. Gleason said he showed that development to allow the City to /iew possibilities for the future. The land has not been purchased as of this date. The cul-de-sac will be constructed, meanwhile, with no other means of egress. County Road 15 cannot be reached until such time the road is expanded. A driveway will be utilized to service unit.«. While it does not meet the standard requirements, it is not meant to go anywhere else but to these units. Gleason said he is willing to reduce the size of the road to preserve trees. As to a shift of the water retention pond, Gleason said he does not see any viable alternate location. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#2 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Hawn asked for Gleason's response to a path to CoRd 15. Gle^on said he supported a trail system but questioned whether it should be constructed with a bituminous surface. He noted iliere may be another location on the future western development. Gleason noted an existing driveway encroachment that will be rectified by an easement to allow the neighbor access. McMillan said she thought there was an existing path on the property. Gleason said there may be by the wetland but he has personally never walked it. Lindquist inquired how the police department and emergency vehicles can access the 12 units served by a driveway. Van Zomeren said Moorse had voiced concern with this issue if a temporary cul-de-sac was not established for a turnaround. Gleason said he was willing to make that accommodation. Van Zomeren explained for Schroeder how the temporary cul-de-sac would be laid out. She noted it would be smaller in diameter than a typical cul-de-sac but large enough for vehicles to turnaround. The slope of the land was questioned as it regards the garages facing to the south. Gleason explained the topography of the land and why the garages were located as planned. It is typical to a walk-out type scenario. Hawn suggested the use of a circle instead of a cul-de-sac in order to preserve trees in that location. Gleason said it could be considered. He thought it was possible but may present an odd appearance when the road is continued. During public comments, Andrew McDermott, 2702 Walters Port, said he is sad to see the last wooded area in Navarre being developed. He said he agrees with the recommendations made by the landscape architect. McDermott noted the significant trees located on the property, its pleasant views, and would like to see the area around the wetlands preserved. Berg questioned the path being bituminous. Van Zomeren said that suggestion was made by the landscape architect. Berg said it may present a cost concern. Gleason said he h^ not had the time to evaluate it. Van Zomeren said she had thought the path would best be located by the end of the driveway to the shoreline on the east. The landscape architect had thought elsewhere. Gleason said there was an extra piece of land located on the eastern portion of the wetland where a trail could be located but it might interfere writh buffering. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20.1997 (#2 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Berg asked if the trail maintenance would be conducted by the homeowners association. Gleason said it would. Gleason reported he preferred to use a wood chip base instead of blacktop. Hawn suggested a limestone base. Van Zomeren said she would like the location of the trees noted. Berg asked if a letter of credit would be required. Van Zomeren said it would and would include the road improvement, driveway, sidewalk, and landscaping. Lindquist asked the applicant if he has reviewed the staff recommendations. Gleason said he had but questioned the outcome of the park dedication. Van Zomeren said the Park Commission had recommended a fee in lieu of land. Gleason questioned whether the sewer connection cost was based on the number of units. Van Zomeren said the information came out of the sketch plan review. Gleason said he supported the recommendations made by staff. Lindquist repo;1ed that review is required of the landscape architect's recommendations and the review by the Mound Fire Department regarding the private road. Van Zomeren asked the Planning Commission to direct the applicant to review the landscape architect's comments and produce a tree inventory. She asked that a meeting be scheduled with staff, applicant, and engineer before another review by Planning Commission. Berg asked that a final landscape plan be submitted by the applicant as well. Gleason indicated it was in his plan to save the majority of trees, and he was willing to submit the tree inventory. Van Zomeren noted the 13 recommendations would be included with a change to #12 regarding the loop of the water main not be included until the additional land is acquired. McMillan asked about guest parking. Parking will be allowed in the two parking spaces by the building and in each driveway. Gleason said parking is usually not allowed along private driveways; though, sometimes allowed on one side of a narrow roadway. McMillan asked that this be addressed. She also asked that the size of the sidewalk be reduced and designed in a more natural grid. Gleason agreed. He said his only concern was with the lack of a guideline regarding trees. Lindquist noted this related to the uniqueness of Orono. Gleason said he would contact the landscape architect. Schroeder was informed that the townhome units would sell for $132,000. Planning Commission will again review the application at the November 17 meeting. 8 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#2 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to direct Staff to proceed with a meeting between Staff, City Engineer, Brook Park Realty, and Landsctq)e Architect. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #2306 DENNIS PLATTETER, 809 BROWN ROAD NORTH, RENEWAL OF CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:46-7:54 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the applicant is requesting a renewal of a Class III Subdivision to allow the existing zoning lot to be divided into two parcels creating a front lot and back lot. Approval was received earlier and expired. The property meets the zoning for the RR-IB standard for width, front yard, and setback from Environmental Lakeshore. Van Zomeren said she received a phone call regarding the yard light, a manure compost pit, and the existence of a pole bam. These issues, however, are not related to subdivision regulations. Van Zomeren said staff recommends approval of the application. Dennis Platteter no»ed the existing problem with the 80' wide roadway for creation of three lots resulting in the two lot configuration. He said he attempted to meet all zoning requirements. Platteter said he asked the yard light be eliminated last year. The compost pit is made up of yard clippings only and used in landscaping. It does not include manure. Platteter said he has hired three different contractors for the removal of the pole bam. He was informed by his current contractor it would be removed the first part of November. Platteter »hought it would have been removed before final plat but that was not the case. Lindquist asked Platteter for a reasonable time limit for removal of the pole bam and for him to recontact NSP regarding the yard light. Platteter agreed. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2306 with the understanding that the pole bam would be removed by January 1, 1998 and a call be placed to NSP regarding the yard light. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 ACTION ITEMS (#4) #2294 LG A INVESTMENTS, JIM WATERS, 1181 WILDHURST TRAIL - CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - REVISED PLAN - 7:54-9:07 P.M. The Applicant was present along with Ken Adolph of Schoell & Madson Engineering Gaffron reported that this is the continuation of a public hearing from the last meeting. A sketch plan review was conducted in April of this year. A 7-lot plan was reviewed at the last Planning Commission meeting. Recommendations were made at that time, and a newly revised plan has been submitted. Gaffron reviewed the action recommended at the last Planning Commission meeting as noted in the staff memorandum dated 10/17/97. Staff had recommended the City protect the ravine by having it dedicated as a park. The change in pond location resulted in the elimination of one lot for a revised 6-lot plan. It has been determined that the existing corridor of Garden Lane will be used and not vacated. There will now be one lot on the west side of the road instead of two. A cul-de-sac will be located on the eastern portion of the property for 3-4 lots. A temporary cul-de-sac to the north of the ravine and in the park property has been revised and will be platted as a permanent cul-de-sac southeast of the drainageway. Gaffron said some of the issues brought forward by the City Engineer have been addressed; others need review. The 1 acre lot requirement excluding drainage easements will be provided on all lots. A wetland delineation report shows three wetlands, 2 of which are in a narrow corridor at the base of the large ravine, and the other being a smaller wetland in lot 5. Gaffron reported the Park Commission has recommended a cash contribution instead of dedicating park land. Gaffron indicated that staffs recommendation for park dedication differs with that of the Park Commission. Gaffron reviewed the comments from the City's landscape architect, the primary issue being the stormwater basin originally proposed for the upper reaches of the ravine. The current proposal for ponding in the area of Lot 1, Block 1, on the north end of the Sollner property, was viewed as being a better location than at the head of the ravine. The applicant had addressed the concerns noted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#4 - #2294 LGA Investments - Continued) Gaffron reviewed the City Engineer's comments as noted in 1-4 on page 3 of 9 of the zoning report and Exhibit F. Staff has recommended using directional boring to bring sewer up the hill from Wildhurst Trail during construction. The streets are being proposed as public roads. Gaffron indicated the typical street section indicates a 28 paved roadway. Of specific concern regarding grading, Gaffron said no grading will occur outside specific boundaries but grading will occur for the residences when they are built, and he would like to review how this v.ill be accomplished without affecting the ravines. He indicated the entire drainage of the road segment from Tonkaview north and to the east will be graded to drain northward. The storm sewer plan will result in a slower rate of flow to the southerly ravine by redirecting it to the north. Gaffron reported he has received a number of letters from the public; some of which have suggested an EAW. He said he has reviewed the regulations and concluded that the north and south projects are independent of each other resulting in an EAW not being mandated. Gaffron said neither project is in an exempt category, hence both could be subject to an EAW if ordered by the Council at its discretion. If a group of at least 25 individuals petitions for an EAW, it is still at the Council’s discretion whether to order one. Gaffron said the City Council would have to determine whether the information submitted by individuals supports requiring an EAW. Gaffron reported a wetland delineation has been performed. There are three basins, 2 and 3 run along the center line of the northern ravine and range 5-20' in width. Drainage easements will be required. A smaller basin is found in Lot #5 and will be filled tocreate a house pad. The basin appears to have a minimum benefit to the Watershed, and the developer has requested its elimination. These wetlands are not on the City protected list but on the list but require Watershed District review under the Wetland Conservation Act. Gaffron reviewed the revised proposal summaiy as reported in items 1-10 on page 5 and 6 of the zoning file report. Regarding Park Dedication, as reported in item #6, Gaffron reported the Park Commission recommended cash in lieu of park land dedication. He indicated that the Commission was given the impression that the center line of the drainageway was in this proposed park dedication land and was wider than it actually is. Gaffron showed the location of the proposed park land for dedication and its relationship to Lot 1. He is concerned that without the dedication, the area to the northwest will become part of Lot 1 and potentially result in trees being eliminated and becoming a storage area for the residents. The City would not have the land to incorporate a trail if they so desired in the ravine area. Staff recommends the City take dedication of land as noted. Gafl'ron distributed a handout showing the parameters of park dedication. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#4 - #2294 LGA Investments - Continued) McMillan was informed by Gaffron that the lot would be reduced from 1.24 acres to 1.15 acres still meeting the requirements. The park fee in lieu of land dedication had been estimated in the range of $15,000-$20,000. Gaffron reviewed the park dedication options. During review of item #8, Gaffron said the City Engineer is requiring calculations of How rates for before and after construction. In his review of the sanitary sewer, Gaffron ^d the purpose is not to have an open cut resulting in a closure of the roadway. He indicated there will be a need for a permanent 10' wide easement. Gaffron noted the stormwater benefits being provided as part of this development stating they had not previously been required of past developments in this area. He reviewed the 6 stormwater management techniques noted. Gaffron noted that the pre-existing drain^e problems cannot be solved by this developer. The developer can only be asked to provide techniques and standards that result in no further negative impact from what currently exists. Along with the provision of watershed runoff calculations. Staff recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions 1-10 as noted in the staff memo. Gaffron indicated that the grading pan for the project delineates the boundaries of the grading and how they will affect the trees. It has not been calculated how much of the property will be disturbed, but Gaffron estimated the figure to be between 30-50 ^. He felt all of the trees will be removed in the area being graded. Gaffron noted the code calls for trees to be planted every 40' along the road frontage. There are existing wooded areas to the west and north. The eastern area had formally been fields and orchards. Jim Waters said he has worked with staff to be responsive to the concerns voiced. He feels the final plan meets all the requirements laid out by the City and will result in a high quality development that minimizes impacts and possibly reversing some of the drainage problems by controlling where it goes. Waters said he accepts the recommendations made by staff. He wanted to discuss several items and asked for the Engineer's report. Waters asked the Planning Commission for their endorsement of the proposed plan. The meeting was opened to public comments. 12 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#4 - #2294 LGA Investments - Continued) Tim Casey, Attorney for the Saga Hill Preservation Society, said he was in basic agreement with the contents of the report but has not had the time to thoroughly review it as he just received it on October 17. He would like more information provided on the stormwater calculations. Casey said it is understood that the property will likely be developed. However, he noted the sensitive soils found on the property, the challenging sites, and limitations of the property. He felt the erosion control method of using directional boring was a good idea but questioned what impacts would result. He asked for further information regarding directional boring. He agreed with the report that extensive clearing of trees should not occur noting it would be in conflict with the Shoreland Ordinance. Casey said calculations are needed for the south and north ravines due to the issue of drainage. He noted the topic of stormwater ponding is being discussed by the MPCA and asked that the approval await further review of this topic as the pond and its location may not be the best solution for the site. He noted the greater volume of drainage down the northern ravine and questioned what impact the project will have on the ravine. He asked that further information be provided. He said the lower flow for the southern ravine must be confirmed and reviewed. He noted the City can make the determination on the length and width of the drainage easement and asked that the City review whether the requested easement width is sufficient. Casey said the property is in a maple-basswood ecological area and may possibly be a burial area. He noted there were sensitive wetlands. He felt the City should request the EAW. In noting the difficulty in developing the area, Casey said there may be a potential for significant environmental effects. If so, the City, according to Casey, has the duty to order the EAW, He said the Planning Commission should identify all information required. He asked the Planning Commission table the application. Gary Welch, 1214 Wildhurst Trail, said he lives south of the area being considered for development. He voiced concerns with the report. He indicated he did not have one specific area of concern but taking all the issues together, was concerned that the property could not be restored to its current condition after development. He noted the soils could not be restored to their original state after grading, tree planting, and sewer installation has occurred. Welch presented the Commission with an informal petition asking the City to initiate an EAW. He reported that the 46 people who signed the informal petition would formally file for an EAW if necessary. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#4 - #2294 LGA Investments - Continued) Patty Affeldt, 4765 Tonkavievv Lane, said she has seen berms and irregularities to the property that warrant concern, as they may suggest historic sites, and asked the Commission to further review the property. McMillan asked if the grading would be more e.xtensive due to the control of the drainage to the north. Ken Adolph said slightly more grading would occur than usual in the area of the roadway due to the flows in that area. Gaffron informed McMillan that no CUP was required. She was also informed that no other variances were required except for the question of the curve radius. As a side point, McMillan informed the members of the audience that she too received the information packet on October 17. Schroeder noted the relationship with the erosion and drainage problems with the development already existing in the area. He stated this development has not caused the problem and may help the situation. Gaf&on reported that the neighborhood was developed lot by lot, not as a subdivision, and constructed before stormwater controls were developed or required for subdivisions. He said the last residence built was required to install a small pond basin which is an usual request for an individual lot. The property owner agreed there was a need for the pond and accepted it. Gaffron noted areas where such ponding will occur to help solve the individual drainage problems. The comprehensive plan shows a conceptual stormwater plan for ponding in the upper and lower areas. Hawn was informed that the application will be reviewed by Council November 10 but additional information is required before that review. Hawn asked when stormwater calculations could be provided for public review. Adolph said the information needs to be included in the permit application to the Watershed which is submitted typically after preliminary approval is received from the Planning Commission. Adolph confirmed that the calculations would be provided prior to the Council meeting. Schroeder suggested the Saga Hill Society contact the State regarding possible historic sites suggested by irregularities in the property. Schroeder said an EAW would not look for such irregularities. Hawn suggested an expert review the property. Hawn said the process of such review can be lengthy. Affeldt said .she felt there were other issues of concern. Berg suggested that Affeldt have an expert investigate the possibility of Indian burial mounds without the EAW process. 1 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#4 - #2294 LGA Investments - Continued) mT showing an archaeological site has been ff responded thatIf Casey believed that potenUal was there, it would take an expert to make that *“8gested the group looking into it. Casey said he would prefer it be deten^^through an EAW rather than spending the ftmds of his clients, Schroedw^d L^e^iw"c m" “’’“'T Waters noted tjnro^^ r ^ eould not make that deteimination. Waters showed aerial photos of the weir&sev^i' H°‘“* sensitive sites can be found in com fields as Tn ’’■S'’''' al'vations and by lakeshore ! read a letter from Robert L. Brown, 4755 Tonkaview foZ; 2 tlalitreation asking for further review. He said he n..«? ^ k '"u re shown in an area not deemed wetland and He ^r«t not been discuss^ in the report. He recommends an evaluation. wesuTdl “"T "T 'resion after reviewing soils on thewest side of Garden Lane. Rostad noted that Brown is an expert in this field. Ken Adolph, in responding to this letter regarding wetland delineation, said the report was conducted by staft of Schoell Madson and not he, personally. He said their investigation found the small wetland on Lot 5, and he would ex^ct any other wetland wou d have been delineated if found. Waters noted that Schoell Madson is a highly Sgt Boncstwo. the City engineering fim,. concurred witf, their McMillm noted there were obvious problems with drainage in the area and the developer like to see the application passed on to Council. McMillan also agreed with Staffs iTCOimendation regarding park dedication of park land. She noted the points are well Sed '"‘“‘res inre the park land. SheMke^that the northern lot property be dedicated for park land. All Commissioners McMillan moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2294 per Staff d^“^ ““ " ™ review of would have to be requested by Council. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#4 - #2294 LGA Investments - Continued) Hawn asked to amend the motion to include the planting of boulevard trees and stormwater sewer calculations be provided to Saga Hill Preservation Society as soon as possible. She suggested a representative from the Historical Society be contacted by the Saga Hill Society, and if anything were found, the developer would handle further review. Affeldt said she spoke with Scott Anthelson of the Minnesota Historical Society, who informed her that there were mounds within one mile of this property. Berg said she would have to see written confirmation. Hawn asked that a representative physically view the property. Waters asked that some proof be shown of mounds before the next step is taken. Schroeder indicated that such an investigation cannot be part of the motion. Adolph was asked when the stormwater calculations could be submitted to staff. Adolph said they were required for Watershed review by November 6. Waters said they would be submitted to staff by November 3. The motion was amended to include recommendations 1-10, 11) review of wetland delineation with City Engineer review; 12) an EAW would be at the Council discretion; 13) the developer would be required to plant boulevard trees; and 14) sewer and diainage calculations would be submitted by November 3. Schroeder said it would be incumbent upon Saga Hill Society to be proactive regarding any irregularities that may be historically significant by having an expert view the site. The City suggested Saga Hill Society make the initial contact but were not requiring it. Lindquist reiterated that the responsibility lies with the Saga Hill Society, not the City or developer. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (A short recess occurred.) (#5) #2310 DICK BURY, CLASSIC CAR SALES, 3850 SHORELINE DRIVE - REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION/FINDING OF SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR USE 9:13-9:31 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 OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#5 - #2310 Dick Bury - Continued) Van Zomcren reported that the applicant was asking for clarification of use in the B-5 Zoning District. The applicant is proposing a showroom and office for classic cars at the noted location which mee^s the lot area and width requirements. Bressler performed an analysis of the B-5 Zoning District. Staff recommended a discussion be held for clarification. If such use is found similar to that of an antique store. Staff would support the application with conditions that prevent the future use of the property for a used car lot. Richard Bury reported he has conducted similar operations in two other locations with no problems. He presented photographs of cars typical of what would be sold. He indicated some newer models would also be for sale. The vast majority of the cars would be located inside. Bury has another facility for storage of cars in order to rotate stock. Bury said he is interested in purchasing the Bay Furniture building for such use and feels the area residents would be interested in this type of vehicles. He anticipated open hours to be from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and possibly some Saturday hours. (Smith arrived at this time.) Bury said he would display some cars outside during good weather conditions. No repairs or restorations would occur at this location except for a possible changing of a battery or the like. There would be a museum area and sales area. Bury did not feel there would be any parking problems since customers appear randomly. The building would have to be modified with doors to accommodate the cars and change the loading dock to a ramp. Lindquist asked if the property would be used as a used car lot. Bury said he employs two people and most of the business would be by mail or phone. He indicated he needed the outside exposure to promote the business. Lindquist asked if it would present a problem if Bury could not run the property like a used car lot. Bury said he would need to have 5-6 cars outside, but it would not be a typical used car lot with the majority of business conducted inside. Hawn noted the parking lot accommodates nine cars. Bury said he would not overload the parking area. There were no public comments. minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#5 - #2310 Dick Bury - Continued) McMillan said she would be in favor of the ordinance being more flexible to allow such use. She questioned if the building was tom down if it would set a precedence. Bury said the building was only ten years old. Van Zomeren said the City Attorney would need to further review the zoning in order to draft a resolution to allow classic car sales, which would be a conditional use with findings determined by the City Attorney. Schroeder indicated he felt the use of providing an area for open viewing of the cars would in effect be an open car lot. Schroeder asked Van Zomeren if this was inconsistent with zoning. Van Zomeren said it was with outdoor storage and salcb being problematic. She noted there was another business with outside placement of merchandise that is not in compliance with code. Lindquist said he would support the showroom and classic car sales but saw the need for placing cars outside being a problem. Lindquist and Schroeder both agreed the use does not fit in with the zoning. McMillan suggested the display of cars be outside during business hours and moved back in afterwards. Bury said he could not be limited in that manner. Berg said the use was not consistent with the characteristics of Orono. Van Zomeren referenced Bressler's report reviewing the purpose of the zoning, the permitted uses, and conditional uses. The types of permitted uses would not utilize a building such as the Bay Furniture Building. Van Zomeren said it would be difficult to find an appropriate use for the building. Van Zomeren said that the existing uses function more like service uses rather than the retail uses that are permitted in the B-5 District. Berg noted there was limited parking as well. Berg felt this and the building size was a problem. Bury said the State required approval of the City for licensing in this location. He informed Schroeder he could not operate without open lot sales. Schroeder informed Bury that the problem was that no zoning existed for such use. If Bury did not require cars be located outside, there would not be a problem. The location of cars outside deems the use as a used car lot. Bury informed McMillan that he would require 10 cars located outside with the other two spaces for parking of customers. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#5 - #2310 Dick Bury - Continued) Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to deny Application #2310 based on non-conformance with code due to outside sales. Vote: Ayes6, NaysO. Schroeder informed Bury that the application could be taken to the Council for their review. (#6) #2283 GARY AND BONNIE BIRNBAUM, 2695 KELLY AVENUE - RENEWAL VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED 9:32-9:58 P.M. The Applicant was present. Bressler informed the Commission that the variance renewal application was tabled at their last meeting in order for a new survey to be submitted. He reported there were two lots of record with Lot 1 deemed a separate building lot. Variances are required for hardcover, lot area, and lot width. Bressler reported that the issue of concern is that the lot is no longer contiguous. The two lots together are one acre in the one acre zoning district. The two lots together meet the 100' width. Lot I by itself does not meet lot area or lot width requirement. The lot is .38 acres. The new lot calculation is .50 acres. Bressler noted that the Planning Commission in 1987 denied the application but the Council approved it. Staff recommends denial of the application at this time and directs the lots be legally combined. Gary Bimbaum said the recommended change was made after the survey was submitted and based on error. He indicated that the first 13 findings in the 1987 resolution have not changed. Regarding the erosion that has taken place, finding 3 notes the lot is undeveloped but was assessed for sewer and water. Finding 4 notes the lots are independent parcels and taxed separately. Finding 5 reports the individual access for Lot 1. Finding 6 references the character of the neighborhood. He noted the majority of lots in the area were .2 to .4 acres. Bimbaum said the erosion of the point is irrelevant to the building lot affecting only 1/100 acre. Bimbaum said there are no drainage problems. He read the finding #13 of the 1987 resolution, noting the peculiarities of this property and their keeping with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Bimbaum said nothing has changed from this resolution based on the erosion that has occurred. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#6 - #2283 Gary and Bonnie Bimbaum - Continued) Bimbaum responded to a statement regarding his economic purposes for the proposal. He indicated that the variances were in place when he purchased the property and alone do not constitute a hardship. He indicated that he no longer needs the large house on the one lot and is considering selling it and building on the other lot a smaller house in which to reside. Bimbaum said the lot could be built upon with an adequate footprint. He feels there are no substantial differences from the original application and is requesting approval. Bressler informed Bimbaum that a hardcover variance would be required to build within the footprint. Bimbaum noted that the original resolution allowed 30% hardcover and that amount has been reduced at the current level of 28.6%. During public comments, Jim Berg, 2655 Lydiard, said he supported denial of the application. Janice Berg said she opposed the application in 1987. Bimbaum questioned whether there was a conflict of interest on her part. Berg said there was not. Van Zomeren said a conflict of interest would only exist if there was a monetary interest. Lindquist said he was unaware of any monetary interest by any member of the board. He noted that the Planning Commission is only an advisory body making recommendations to Council that are not binding. Van Zomeren informed Smith that she was unaware of the reasoning for Council approval in 1987 when the Plarming Commission denied the application. Hawn questioned whether the sewer assessment could be refunded by the Council. Hawn said she did not support the application but understood the applicant has paid assessments and has a hardship. Berg said the applicant in 1987 had been told the lot was not buildable. Mrs. Bimbaum said the perception is an unbuildable lot is incorrect noting the lot is in keeping with the other lots in the Carmen Cove area. McMillan noted the lot would be allowed 1500 s.f. of structure. Van Zomeren said hardcover has to be considered as well. Van Zomeren said the problem arises in that the variance was originally approved on October 26,1987 and has since expired. It is further complicated since the land is not contiguous. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#6 - #2283 Gary and Bonnie Bimbaum - Continued) Bimbaum said the connection of the lots was not a consideration at the time of the original variance application so would not be relevant to whether the lot was buildable. He indicated there is .52 acres at this time. The difference from the eroded portion of property is only 1/lOOth of an acre that is no longer included in the calculations, from .39 acres to .38 acres. McMillan questioned whether the elapsed variance would set some type of precedence. Bimbaum again noted no changes have occurred. He said he would like to build a smaller home on the property. Bressler said a hardcover variance would be required depending on the size of the driveway. Mrs. Bimbaum noted that the access road is adjacent to the lot. Bimbaum said he intended to either sell all of the property or sell separately and keep one separate lot. Commission questioned the ability to approve a variance for a lot without any plans. Van Zomeren said it was to restore a prior variance. McMillan noted if the property is sold in the future, the new owner would have to make application and go through the same process. Commission discussed the ability to renew the variance without plans and whether it could be denied vdien the lot has been deemed buildable in the past and assessed for sewer. The Bimbaum’s said they had been unaware of the need to renew the variance each year. Lindquist said the intent of the application if for the City to deem the lot as buildable. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2283 noting a buildable lot exists. It was noted that no other variances would be granted in the future other than lot area and lot width. Schroeder informed the applicants that it would be in the best interest of the City for the lots to be combined. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Berg. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#7) #2289 JON PENDLETON, 350 NORTH ARM LANE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 9:58-10:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant had to leave the meeting early due to a conflict scheduling a babysitter on a school night. There were no public comments. Lindquist indicated a survey is required to verify calculations. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2289 due to the applicant's absence and lack of survey. Vote: Ayes6, NaysO. (#8) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED 10:00-10:23 PJVI. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren distributed information recently received regarding the application. She reported that the application is for a conditional use permit to allow grading within S' of the south lot line. No variances are required. A retaining wall is proposed to be located 2' from the property line. Grading will increase the dnveway width to 3' from the property line. If this is not approved, the retaining wall must be located 5’ from the property line. Incorrect aerial photographs were used in determining the grading plans and resulted in the current situation. Van Zomeren said the three-car garage has a severe turning problem; typically, 30' is required. The plan proposes 2^-25' instead of the original 21'. The purpose of the grading is to increase the distance for ingress/egress into the garage. Issues of concern regard drainage, snow removal, car emissions, and problems with cars driving over the proposed wall. Along with the conditional use permit required for grading, the Commission is asked to consider where the wall should be located and how it affects the flow of drainage. The Builder, Bruce Bren, was present. He indicated he was not creating a problem but was attempting to solve a problem. Bren said he was attempting to accomplish what was submitted in the plans to the City while retaining drainage on the Silus property. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#8 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Situs - Continued) During public comments, Pat Spilseth, the next-door neighbor, said she receives the runoff on her property. During a heavy rainstorm this summer, the water came within inches of her door. She indicated that the applicant has offered no accommodations to this problem which had never existed before the construction began. Lindquist asked Spilseth if she has seen the present proposal. Spilseth said she has not. Spilseth said the new grading has created difficulties by raising the level of the home. The old house was on the same elevation level as her home. She reported that the driveway was found Liadequate for access immediately affer construction began but the work was never stopped. Spilseth said the garage should be changed from a side-loading garage to a double car straight-in garage from Casco Pt. Rd., like other garages in the neighborhood. Van Zomeren reported that neither Gappa nor the City Engineer have reviewed the plans. Schroeder said it was critical to solve the problems. He asked why the plan was just submitted at the beginning of the meeting. Silus said he had been out of town and only received the plans himself. He has not reviewed them eith.;r. The plan includes an engineered wall instead of the previous boulder wall. Lindquist noted the applicant was aware of these problems a month ago yet waited until now to address them. Schroeder read letters into the record from Judith Boylan, 3195 Casco Point, and Susan Smith Swanson, 3229B Casco Circle, both in opposition to the plan. Van Zomeren noted Bruce Vang, City Inspector, was present to answer any questions. Lindquist said the information provided would have to be reviewed. He noted the plan would have to satisfy both the City Engineer and neighbors. He said the application would require tabling. Silus indicated that snow removal will not change. Schroeder suggested the applicant change the garage and access it from the street side. Silus said that would be costly. He feels the drainage problem will improve with the newly submitted plan. He noted the problem will exist until construction is completed. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#8 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) McMillan said the change in grade was a surprise to many people. Silus disagreed. Bruce Vang said he informed the builder that the topography and garage were different from the plans submitted at the time of the footing inspection, which occurred several months ago. He said the requirement to stay 5' from the property’ line with the retaining wall was discussed at that time. It was noted that grades were a problem then and the garage w’as lowered 16" to lessen the impact. Vang said he asked the builder and applicant to consider having the garage open to the street side. Vang said he had this conversation with Peter Bren on site as well. Vang said they insisted the situation could work without creating any problem. Vang said he allowed the construction to continue with the understanding they would adhere to the retaining wall being located 5' from the property line. Spilseth asked if the 5' requirement from the property line pertained to all retaining walls. Lindquist said the ordinance calls for conditional use permits within 5' of the property line where grading is involved. Spilseth said she did not understand how a variance could be granted when larger properties in the neighborhood have beer, denied variances. She said a neighboring property requested a similar access to their garage and was denied. She noted the builder said access could be changed. Bren said when application was made for the building permit, a plan show ing a retaining wall 2' from the property line was submitted to the City and approved. Lindquist said the Planning Commission is reviewing the conditional use permit only. Any other matter would have to be taken up with Staff. Silus said he was att''mpting to save a tree and understood the design would be a tight fit. He said he was unaware of the need to stay 5’ from the property line. Silus said he had preferred the boulder wall but changed it to an engineered wall as requested. He noted the wall is located near the property line in only the area near the garage itself. Spilseth questioned whether the tree that was attempted to be saved was still alive. Schroeder reported that the drainage problem must be addressed as well. Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to table application #2290 for lack of adequate information. He encouraged the applicant to work with his neighbors. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0, r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#9) #2300 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD - renewal variances - PUBLIC HEARING 10:24-10:26 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was not present. application is a variance renewal with no changes. It was noted that the boat house would not be restored. Lindquist moved, HawTi seconded, to approve Application #2300. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#10) #2301 GERALD MCCOURTNEY, 1055 WEST FERNDALE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:27-10:32 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the request was for variances for landscaping within the right-of- way of Femdale Road, expansion of driveway apron in the right-of-way, and construction of a gate access within 75' of the lakeshore and in the right-of-way. The lot has been exp^ed recently by adding part of the Skarp property. The existing house on the lot nad been removed. The proposal is to plant a row of arborvitae within the right-of-way ^ong the proiwrty for privacy and security reasons. The 66' right-of-way is wider than the 50 nght-of-way typically required today. The road had been a County road at one rime. There is a considerable distance between the paved road and the property boundary. Historical usage includes a fence encroachment which is consistent with other properties m the area. The plantings will be 15' from the paved road. The gateway to the property for access would be placed at the 75' lake setback line. It is metal in design. The driveway apron would expand the existing driveway to match what exists on the opposite side. The house on the property was remodeled several years ago. ^ that time the City denied a loop driveway but allowed a wider driveway for parking The code allows 20' width but it exists at 40'. The change allows a sweep in a c^s approach to the garage. The site plan is in process with the removal of the house, grading, and replacement of plants. A landscaping plan has been approved by staff. Staff recommends approval of the application. As a note of information, Gaflron reported that a neighboring property received permission for a 3-1/2' fence located 15' from the paved road. The neighbor has decided to plant an arborvitae hedge instead to be consistent with this property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#10 - #2301 Gerald McCourtney - Continued) Gaffron indicated the hardship for the application is the wide right-of-way, the problem with backing up vehicles, and problems with trespassing. The expansion of the hardcover is outside of the property boundaries so a net decrease ill actually occur in the hardcover for the property. Gaffron provided a view of whatwi has occurred on the property and what is proposed. Lindquist asked if the properties were one ta.x parcel. Gaffron said the combination is pending court action. Council had given conceptual approval to the Brooks application noted above.I: McCourtney said it was his intention to combine the lots. Gaflron said the combination should be a condition of approval. Gaffron referenced a letter from the applicant regarding the hardcover removals. Staff recommends approval of the hedge 15’ from the paved roadway, the metal gate subject to no paving or graveling of the approach to the gate, and expansion of the driveway with tradeoff of hardcover as already accomplished. McCourtney had no additional comments. Conley Brooks, Jr., reported living next door to the McCourtney property. He said he acquired the other half of the Skarp property. He supports the proposal. He indicated his recently approved plan and change from fencing to arborvitae as well for consistency in looks for the neighborhood. He feels the proposal is in keeping with the characteristics of the neighborhood. Smith was informed that the access to the gate would be sodded and used by yard workers to get their equipment off of the roadway. Smith questioned whether the sodding should be stipulated. Gaffron said the condition notes no hard surface allowed. McMillan asked why the gate is located in the right-of-way. Gaffron said it was close to the 75' line. McCourtney said to move the gate out of the right-of-way would appear to place it in the center of the property. He indicated he placed it as far back as possible. Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2301 per Staff recommendations with the condition that the two properties be combined and the gate area sodded. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#11) #2303 ANGELA WOODHOUSE, 2625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - RENEWAL VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:33-10:42 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler reported that the application was for a renewal of an expired variance for a new entryway, steps, and pavement, and bay window. Variances required are lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover in the 0-75' setback. The residence is mainly located within the 0-75' setback. The new hardcover would be placed over existing hardcover. Trees and vegetation will screen the additions. There is no average lakeshore setback impact. Bressler indicated that the hardcover shows an increase due to the boathouse still existing, which was required to be removed in the original resolution. Bressler said Staff recommends approval per recommendations. Woodhouse had no additional comments. There were no public comments. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2303 for variance renewal. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#12) #2304 DEBORAH SHOLL, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 10:43-10:45 P.M. The Affidav’it of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler reported that the application is for construction of an attached garage and living space addition on the rear of the existing residence requiring a front setback variance. The house is located within the required setback. A 5' variance is required to allow the construction as proposed. The applicant had no further comments. Schroeder asked if any big trees would be removed. Sholl said only smaller fruit trees would be eliminated which have been nearly blown down. She said the ‘arge trees would remain. Sholl said she may have to take one or two trees down to thin out the number of trees to enable proper growth. There would be small retaining walls for drainage purposes. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#12 - #2304 Deborah Shell - Co«tin»Jcd) Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2304. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#13) #2305 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:45-11:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Dressier reported that the application is for remodeling and expansion of an existing residence to include an attached 4-stall garage and loop driveway requiring a lakeshore setback, and hardcover variances in the 0-75’ and 75-250' lakeshore setbacks. A revised survey was presented. Bressler indicated that due to the lot configuration, the building pad on the lot is restricted. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to conditions noted which include elimination of the loop portion of the driveway, plastic under landscaping, and with the notation that no further hardcover would be allowed in the future. Bressler reported that the applicant has agreed to remove the plastic under the landscaping. Olsen said the plans have changed due to the homeowners' association covenants requiring a 20' side setback. The plan currently calls for a 10' side setback. He would like to move the design down 10' to satisfy this requirement. Hawn said in order for this to occur, a new plan would have to be submitted. Bressler noted that hardcover calculations would change. Berg questioned what existing foundation and walls would be used. The existing foundation and walls to be used were noted. The house is a walk-out style. Lindquist said he would agree in principle to this change but would require reviewing the plan. Olsen said there was a time limit problem for beginning construction this year. Hawn asked about the elimination of the loop and location of the well. Olsen said he has reduced hardcover 1185 s.f. in the 0-75’ setback with the elimination of driveway and retaining walls. The applicant’s designer asked if approval could be based on percentages and changes meeting the percentages required. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#13 - #2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen - Continued) Schroeder indicated he would have to review the plan. Berg said she would like to see what the impacts are. Schroeder suggested guidance be given to the applicant. Lindquist asked that the hardcover calculations be improved. Berg noted that the Planning Commission must review the application that will be seen by the Council. Olsen said the shift would change the front setback from 35' to 32' and asked if that was a big consideration. He was informed that Lindquist that it was a consideration. Schroeder questioned the need for 4 garage stalls. Lindquist informed the applicant that the City does not like to see any structure within the 75' lakeshore setback. Mrs. Olsen suggested the plan eliminate the 10' within the setback that is in question by the covenants. Olsen said he could eliminate 10' from the plan but would lose storage space. Lindquist suggested the architectural design be considered as well. Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #2305. Dr. Bill Cottleman, a next-door neighbor, was present representing the homeowners' association. He submitted a letter form the architectural committee regarding their restrictive covenants. He noted their restrictions are more stringent than those of the City. He said the homeowners' association would approve the home being more centered on the lot. A copy of the letter was submitted to staff. He said the association prefers to see as much distance between the homes as possible. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#14) #2307 ELLEN PETERSON, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 3355 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 11:05-11:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Photos were shown of the property. Bressler reported that the applicant is proposing construction of a 282 s.f. carport with a deck above it attached to the front of the existing residence. The 12' wide carport would extend 22' out over the existing driveway with a walkway. This proposal will require variances for side setback, lakeshore setback, and 0-75' and 75-250' setback hardcover. 6# MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20.1997 (#14 - #2307 Ellen Peterson - Continued) Issues for consideration include the location of the residence in the lakeshore yard. Dressier noted the proposed location is the only area where such structure can be built and would require a side setback variance of 6.2’. Staff recommended approval of the proposal with removal of plastic under existing landscape. The 255 s.f. of plastic would offset the carport addition. Peterson said she would be happy to remove the plastic. She had not been aware of its existence. McMillan moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2307 per Staff recommendations with plastic removal as noted. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#15) #2308 PAUL 1 ARSON, 3865 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 11:10-11:23 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Dressier reported that the applicant is proposing the construction of a 1,962.2 s.f house and driveway on a lot of record requiring variances for lot area, lot width, and 75-250’ hardcover. He noted the lot widens to 146' at the front setback. The County has approved a curb cut on Shoreline Drive. A 10' sewer easement and drainage plan will be required. Staff recommended approval of the lot area and lot width variance but denial of the hardcover variance. Dressier felt the excess hardcover could be eliminated by eliminating the third garage stall, decreasing the size of the deck, or reducing the turnaround area. Larson indicated the surveyor did the site plan for 25% hardcover but the turnaround, created for safety, increased the amount. Larson said he decreased the house width from 4^' to 40’ and eliminated an upper-level deck. Because of these decreases, Larson felt there would be a need for the third car stall for storage. Larson thought the turnaround could be reduced in size but was concerned with driving directly out onto Shoreline Drive. He preferred not to reduce the garage or deck and noted the house was only 18' wide at the garage end. Larson reported the hardship for the application is the pie shaped lot with the least width on the lakeshore. He asked for approval of 2'' 5% hardcover in the 75-250’ setback. Larson noted that the neighboring property was granted a hardcover variance. Lindquist responded that the neighboring lot was not in question at this time. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#15 - #2308 Paul Larson - Continued) There were no public comments. Smith informed Larson that with new construction, the 25% hardcover allowance should be met. She noted that the applicant was aware of the lot size prior to purchase. Larson suggested eliminating the turnaround and removing 1’ off the deck. Bressler said it was not advised to reduce the turnaround size. Larson said he was concerned with theft of items left out on the property. Larson reported the proposed house is less than 1100 s.f. and the lot is of record. He says he needs space for storage. Smith said the Commission recognizes the difficulties with the small lot by allowing lot width and lot area variances. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2309 for lot area and lot width variances. The proposal is to meet the 25% hardcover allowance without elimination of the turnaround. Van Zomeren suggested Gappa review the turnaround. Gaffron suggested the house be pulled back on the lot to reduce the amount of driveway and meet the hardcover requirement. Larson was concerned with the neighboring house being located in front of the residence and having to look out and see the side of the neighboring house. Berg noted the lot was substandard and concessions will be required. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#16) #2299 MIKE HILBELINK, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 120 GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE - SKETCH REVIEW FOR TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION Bressler reported that the applicant is proposing a 3-lot subdivision of a 7.97 acre parcel. Two lots will be about 2 acres and the other will be 3.97 acres. Septic testing is being conducted but Bressler does not anticipate a problem. Drainage is satisfactory. The topography of the lots was reviewed. No information is available on Park Dedication. Access will be provided on Golden View Drive. Planning Commissioners voiced support of the plan as proposed. MINTJTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#17) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 22,1997 AND OCTOBER 13,1997 No comments were made. (#18) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION A joint work session with Council is scheduled for October 27 at 8:00 a.m. (#19) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 15,1997 MEETING Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 15,1997. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#20) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 27 AND NOVEMBER 10, 1997 October 27 - McMillan November 10 - Hawn ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to adjourn at 11:28 p.m. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Dale Lindquist, Chair Person 32