Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-20-1996 Planning Packet
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 20,1996,7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - JoEIlen Hurr ATTENDANCE Applicants presenting proposals before the Commission are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced by the Chairman. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEAR1NGS\PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEW 1. 7:00 p.m. #2136 Greenfield Corporation, 180 North Shore Drive West - Preliminary Subdivision ACTION ITEMS Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 2.#2112 Richard Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Road - After the Fact Variance - Public Hearing 3.#2133 John and Karla Spooner, 1385 Orono Lane - Variances - Public Hearing 4.#2134 Robert Charles Albrecht, 1810 Shady wood Road - Variances - Public Hearing 5.#2135 Paul and Sue 1 ledlund, 1575 Long Lake Blvd. - Variances - Public Hearing 6.#2137 William and Susan Dunklcy, 2709 Walters Port Lane - Variances - Public Hearing Planning Commission Comments 7.Other issues for discussion Additional Items 8.Planning Commission approval of minutes of the April 15,1996 meeting 9.Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the June 10, 1996 meeting of the Council Adjournment I 1 i r Public A ttendance Meeting D ate □□□□ Council Planning Commission Park Commission Other ■j Please fill out the information requested below for our city records . I I NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER n ^ .S Iilpfl I LIn£l I7-iTl vVi 77^^h ^ ^ PiM i\ -Uedlufxc^ _____ii____ Wi i i 5. 6 7. 8. Z » ■*►"1 i . / , /.7 I 9. 12. 13. 14. im ill! Mii sSss S2«S !► Ill >a 0 c 1 ?? =f no M • 5* 3s S?I «•I o s e;s. n s 0) §. s-a :go\ BI OQ O 5-n 00 > u a. 3 11 = 3 <« OQ g n •*o o 3 •S•a o2 3. 3ss o B-n >•o□. VO Ov 3 OQ 3 3 pl' .*• y* a W gj §1 a-s & o ij § I It; v*i na. c/> F, O n o VO s. o *A 'TJ O r < S.gna & 31 n K tl: tJ Ui v-^ *33 C_ sQ. COco S 2. r* o o CfQ r-e- o ra <s.so •TJ C2 Ko tt to Ui 4^ 7J 0 Ka n1 8 cr o 3: o CO 3* CJ ?s. <s.s *3 Cor 3a S. 3 V3 tt: 1^ W Kr* o §■ S' CO UJ oo o 3 3 O nso •3 2 i 3 to 2?nI ? to 'J Ov Ol O g 0 o’ 5-1s. i »T1 I I I *3 Ccr a:n > q fiUa- S n y»« « g < E n o 3 Br» 3n •3 3- 0 1 en orn? 0 3 M crn O.2STa •3e 2 32 1n ^ CO• ns 8? •o PI p?i t/> tfc c &::in 5- O 5 o' 3 "" a, 5 a O - § i.o !3w o 0 » w O ? '.i: S r 1 •o3 3*. 3. I > PI - 2 S ?|S3 cr II «• 3 5| tr d 2 2-cr S ^ S-? 2. •• 2 ^•S ;i•a O s: o S B aB §i: S‘“ g “ I eII tr o *< 3 r\ "P3 H. 3-sS g. n 0sn Mr •3 (/> PI 1 3-m JT 3 K § to M O ■«r V rKSb fe •< o §5:8 g e qis5-G22 r o w n :« 5525 6 r*i g L To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Kf ' from: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 14, 1996 Subject:#2136 Greenfield Corporation, 180 North Shore Drive West - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB Total Area = 17.2 acres Application: Greenfield Corporation presented the six lot sketch plan for Planning Commission's consideration at their March 18, 1996 meeting. Planning Commission conceptually approved the general layout of the lots recognizing the site constraints on development such as location of wetlands, topography, developer's responsibility to provide access to property at east boundary and the desire to protect obvious building sites with views to the south and southeast. The Planning Commission did advise developer that lot width variances would be acceptable for lots adjacent to cul-de-sac. The developer was then advised to meet with staff to discuss feasibility of placement of road along east lot line to serve Outlot C of Bayvievv Farms 2nd Addition. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1.Section 10.28, Subd. 5 (B) - RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential zoning district. Review of lot standards: A. Area Required = 2 acres Lot 1 = 2.35 acres dry Lot 2 = 2.00 acres dry Lot 3 = 2.15 acres dry Lot 4 = 2.18 acres dry Lot 5 = 2.57 acres dry Lot 6 = 2.93 acres dry B.Lot Width (measured to the rear of the 50' front/street setback) Required = 200' Lot 1 = 60' Lot 2 = 240' Lot 3 = 90' Lot 4 = 150' Lot 5 = 200' Lot 6 = 340’ Lots 1, 3 and 4 will require lot width variances. All three lots are served from cul-de-sac. I . . . r Zoning File #2136 May 14, 1996 Page 2 2. Section 11.03, Definition 66 (C) - Class III subdivision. 3. Section 11.10, Subd. 10 (C) - Class 111 subdivision application. 4. Section 11.10, Subd. 21 - Special requirements for Class III subdivisions. Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B C D E F Property Owners List Plat Map Applicant's Addendum Planning Commission Minutes 3/18/96 Weckman Report 5/8/96 G - Gustafson Report 5/13/96 H-1-4 Hennepin County Repoit 5/13/96 I - Grading/Drainage Plan J - Approved Access Plan K - Dedication of Right-of-Way and Bike Trail Locations L - Shoreland Map M - National Wetland Inventory' Map N - Soils Map O - Wetlands Delineation Report P - Orono Designated Wetlands Map Q - Preliminary Plat General Review Comments The preliminary plan for six rural lots has evolved fiom guidelines set forth at the sketch plan review. At the direction of the Planning Commission, both staff and the City Engineer met with the developer and his consultants to determine the feasibility of placement of future access road to serve property to the east along the northeast boundary of the property. Staff confirmed that a road could be developed at a 10% grade and not pose any impact upon the residential lots to the west. Three of the six lots will be served by a short cul-de-sac road. Each of the lots served from the cul-de-sac will require lot width variances as noted above. The granting of variances for lots adjacent to a cul-de-sac is consistent with past City action. Access to Lots 2, 5 and 6 will be via North Shore Drive. Lots 1-5 have suitable areas for development of on-site sewage treatment systems. Lot 6 is the most restricted with the only suitable area for septic development to the west and north of the residence. There is a Orono designated wetland located within Lot 6 (review Exhibit P). A wetland delineation report (Exhibit O) has also located Type 1 and 2 wetlands within the property (Lots 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6). Refer to Exhibit L, the property is not located within a shoreland area. f 1 'W'’-------- Zoning File #2136 May 14, 1996 Page 3 Hennepin County DOT has asked for additional dedications of right-of-way for County Roads 19 and 84. The City shall approve the dedication of additional right-of-way for County Road 19 or North Shore Drive and deny the request for County Road 84 or Bayside Road. The County also notes that North Shore Drive is slated for a future bike trail. The City’s comprehensive bike trail plan has also designated a bike trail along North Shore Drive and Bavside Road. Lot Conflguration The lots are long and irregular-shaped. It may be difficult for the future owners of Lots 2, 3 and 4 to determine the location of their boundaries in their south yards. Lot 4's building pad is restricted by of a Type 1 wetland in the south yard, septic sites in the middle of the lot and a possible detention/sediment pond between septic and wetland. It is the City's policy to not exclude the area of the Type 1 wetland from the dry buildable area of a rural lot. The wetland area designated by the City is to be excluded from the dry buildable. The existing residence on Lot 6 meets the required setbacks of zoning district (50' front and rear, 30' sides). Lots 1, 3 and 4 require lot width variances. If approved, members must support recommendation with necessary findings and hardships. Grading/Drainage/MCWD Permit Review Exhibits G and I, Gustafson reports approval of the grading plan as proposed. He asks that the drainageway extending from the cul-de-sac to the sediment pond be shown as a drainage easement at a minimum width of 15'. In earlier discussions with the Engineer, we noted a possible need to provide a small sediment pond at the base of the drainage facilities to be installed along the west side of Outlot B within Lot 4. Although road will not be installed by this developer, the drainage resulting along the west side of the graded road may need to be detained and treated before entering wetlands to south. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District may require the sediment pond. Applicant may be able to obtain additional treatment area within property to the east since the eastern property owner will receive all benefit from the future road within Outlot B. Review Exhibit J, the approved access plan by Hennepin County. Lots 5 and 6 are to gain access via the shared drive at the mutual lot line. Review specifically Lot 6. There is a need to maintain a 20' setback from the drainfield and 26’ from the wetland. The City shall ask for a detailed site plan locating access drive to serve existing residence to ensure setbacks will be met. Zoning File #2136 May 14, 1996 Page 4 The City will ask for drainage easements over all drainageways and sediment/detention ponds writhin plat. The applicant must begin the permitting process with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Applicant must obtain MC\\T) permit before final plat approval can be granted by City. Wetlands The City will ask for a flowage and conservation easement to be taken over the designated wetland within Lot 6. Applicant shall develop private covenants to ensure protection of the Type 1/2 wetlands located within Lots 1, 3, 4 5 and 6 to be filed in the Chain of Title of each of the lots. The covenant shall include a site plan locating the protected area. The purpose of the covenant is to advise each owner of the need to first seek approval of the Corps of Engineers and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for any land alterations proposed within the protected area before coming to the City for approval and permits if necessary. The City will ask for drainage and utility easements along all lot lines, 5' adjacent to internal lot lines and 10* along all e.xtemal lot lines. Septic Please review Exhibit F, Weckman notes Lois 1-5 have suitable soils for both a primary and alternate on-site sewage treatment system. The results of the septic testing confirm that all 12 septic systems are to be designed as mound systems. The only suitable treatment sites within Lot 6 are located to the west and north of the residence. The alternate site is located on an 8% slope where the Code would limit slope to 6%. The primary test site will not meet the 75' setback from the existing well and will be located 60'. Weckman has opted to grant an administrative variance rather than asking applicant to relocate well. Staff has no problem with granting a slope variance for the alternate system as all 11 other mound sites meet the 6% slope standard. Note both primary and alternate systems will meet the 75' setback from the designated wetland which Weckman has confirmed in his recent site inspection. Access/Privatc Road/Maintenance Covenants Review Exhibits G, H-1-2 and J, the two new curb cuts at North Shore Drive have been approved by the County as shown on the approved access plan. As in the review of an earlier subdivision, the County once again asks for 17' of additional right-of-way for North Shore Drive and 7' for Bayside Road or County Road 84. The City agreed to the granting of 17' along the North Shore Drive but denied the request for 7' along Bayside Road. In the current review, the County now asks for a 10’ bike trail easement in addition to the 17' of additional right-of-way. Review Exhibit K, the County was asked to consider the impact upon the septic sites of Lots 5 and 6 with the granting of additional right-of-way. The County asks for only T of additional right-of-way and 6' for bike trail easement. Zoning File #2136 May 14, 19% Page 5 The City's own comprehensive trail plan proposes a bike trail along North Shore Drive and Bayside Road. The City will ask for a trail easement to be located within the 10’ drainage and utility easement to be dedicated adjacent to the County roads. Weckman advises that as topography slopes to the east and south, the bike frail will not have wi impact on the proposed septic sites. The City will not ask for the 7 of additional right-of-way for County road adjacent to Lots 5 and 6. The 10’ drainage, utility and trail easement should provide adequate area for upgraded road and installation of trail. The applicant shall be responsible for the filling and grading of the future road bed within Outlot B. The City staff feels this will alleviate any future shock for homeowners served by Outlot A when road is installed with development of Outlot C, Bayview Farms 2nd Addition. Both Outlots A and B will have separate road names. Greenfield Corporation will be responsible for creating covenants for the upkeep and maintenance of the private road within the northern portion of Outlots A and B. Applicant may wish to redesign Outlot A to extend to the east boundary of the property to simplify maintenance covenants and eliminate any obligation of owners of Lots 1, 3 and 4 in maintenance of Outlot B. Applicant’s private covenants must address the maintenance of all private drainage facilities within the subdivision. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. Will you recommend lot width variances for Lots 1, 3 and 4? How shall developer or future owner define lot lines within southern yards of Lots 2, 3 and 4 and how will they provide permanent protection of septic sites? 3.What of Lot 4? At least half of the lot is occupied with septic. Type 1 wetland and a possible sediment pond for drainage facility along w’est side of Outlot B. 4.Other issues. Yoiif recommendation of approval should nclude the following conditions: 1, Prior to the preliminary subdivision being scheduled before the Council for approval, applicant to provide a site plan locating access drive to serve existing residence on Lot 6. 2.Applicant to grant a bike trail/drainage and utility easement 10’ wide adjacent to Bayside Road (County Road 84) and North Shore Drive (County Road 19). ¥ K V ii ii r Zoning File #2136 May 14, 1996 Page 6 3. Applicant to dedicate 17' of additional right-of-way for North Shore Drive^ong the west boundaries of Lots 1 and 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Applicant to execute private covenants dealing with the upkeep and maintenance of private road and drainage facilities within plat ... possible realignment of Outlot A at northeast comer of property. All septic sites within subdivision are to be fenced off prior to any land alterations. Applicant to grant flowage and conservation easement over designated wetland within Lot 6. Applicant to designate drainage easement over drainageway that extends westward from cul-de-sac of Outlot A to sediment pond in northwest comer of Lot 1 at a minimum width of 15'. Drainage easements are to be taken over all sediment ponds and drainageways within plat. MCWD to determine if sediment pond is necessary to treat and detain mnoff from drainageway along west side of Outlot B. If required, applicant may wish to work with property owner at east to obtain additional area for future treatment. Applicant to complete grading of ftiture roadbed within Outlot B and to restore natural groundcover once City Engineer has approved the grading of the roadbed. Applicant is advised that the City cannot grant final plat approval until a permit from the MCWD has been approved for all grading and drainage improvements on the property. Applicant to provide road name choices for Outlots A and B. Tlie City Council shall consider name choices and make final recommendation. This process should be completed before final plat approval. ■] Applicatioii # ^ l S Date Received ¥-7^'^ C CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICA™^ T".’ ‘ ■ Amount Paid */& ^ c-C ,■ J " PROPERTY LOCATION / ' Siteaddress I ^/O •_____________ Property Identification Numt^r (PIP) 11 1 3 Please check one - Property____abstract or ___#^Torrens? i ■A ooo 3 Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name (yofiDoeA^oJ Address Citv rVDf^Q Phone ^home) 7 So -3»=^<=> fDru^A \ y^AJ Zin<'C?g< Phone (work) "PSO- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ______________ Address City__Zip Phone (home) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size /y.^o Z.3JY j5. as Present use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes _____ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites _ Existing Units _ New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) ^ Units per /Z ¥ Acres Z ^C. Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land _ Residential Other (specify)_________ X MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 3S0’ (you must obtain this list fiom Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature________________________________________ Date________________________________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature _________________________________________Date_____________ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fe«: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & 111) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S350.00 Subdivision Application (Class 1 & II) $350.00 ’ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class 111 & all non-rcsidential) Final Plat Application (Class 111) $200.00 ^0 Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 ^ ^0 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200 00 Totals _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class 1 and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Class 111. Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No chanee from original application) _____ Renewal of Final Class 111 Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: - V Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; lin. ft. x .50 = $_____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/Iineal ft; lin. ft. x .50 = $ 07 Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main E.xtension $250.00 + S25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 $50.00/per lot x new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/DweIling Unit 5^ The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator. City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necess^ to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by- ordinance. Zj ___________ Applicant's Signature Date Owner’s Signature 07 7 Date ^/2-L/ Applicant must have all subrmtt^s into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and lo advise the Building 8l Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. U' RUN DATE 0S/25/M BATCH 5021/56 01-117-24 11 0005 [ -PROP ADDR 04885 CO RD NO 19 r OMNER MAHE GARY 0 A THERESA A REIERSEN F-. - ^TAXPAYER GARY 0 A THERESA A REIERSEN i NAME/AOOR 4885 CO RO 19 MAPLE PLAIN »tl 55359 L 38 06-117-23 22 0003 PROP AODR 00180 NORTH SHORE OR H OtCR NANE OAVIO L NHITE ET AL TAXPAYER FREDERICK C NHITE NAME/AOOR 14195 PAULS ORK • ^ ROGERS MN 55374 ! 38 06-117-23 22 0010 PROP AODR 0««R NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADOR 0»tCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 0A665 BAYSIOE RO X T A M L 6EFFRE IRHIN T A MARJORIE L GEFFRE A6A5 BAYSIOE RD MAPLE PLAIN M4 55S59 SB 0A-117-2S 22 0013 0005B ADDRESS UNASSIGTJED R S A M M OLSON ROBERT S A MARGARET H OLSON 5010 HILLSBORO AVE N MPLS m 55426 38 31-116-23 33 0005 04660 BAYSIOE RD BAN CUFF BOBBIE A NEVA CUFF 4660 BAYSIOE RD MAPLE PUIN HN 55359 HEI6CPIN CCXMTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST36 01-117-24 11 0006 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO GARY 0 A THERESA A REIERSEN GARY O A THERESA A REIERSEN 4685 CO RO NO 19 MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 06-117-23 22 0004 00100 NORTH SHORE DR N S N CAMP ET AL STEPHANIE M A ROBERT E CAMP 100 NORTH SHORE OR N MAPLE PLAIN m 55359 38 06-117-23 22 0011 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO R S A M H OLSON ROBERT S A MARGARET H OLSON 5010 HILLSBORO AVE N MPLS m 55428 38 06-117-23 22 0014 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGfJED IRHlN T GEFFRE ET AL CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY m 55359 38 31-118-23 33 0006 04720 BAYSIOE RO B PETER ACHEY ETAL MR B PETER ACHEY ROUTE 2 BOX 68B MAPLE PLAIN 55359 REPORT NO. PI4SS401 PAGE 436 01-117-24 14 0001 00205 CO RO NO 19 CHESTER H NORMAN A NIFE JEFFERY REISER 205 CO RO NO 19 MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 22 0009 04645 BAYSIOE RO J J PFEIFFER A K J PFEIFFER J J PFEIFFER A K J PFEIFFER 4645 BAYSIOE PD OROn HN 55364 38 06-117-23 22 0012 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ROBERT S OLSON ET AL CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55359 38 06-117-23 23 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO C A PASS ET AL TRUSTEES JEAN T ARMSTRONG 235 NORTH ARM LANE MOUND 55364 38 31-118-23 33 0007 04740 6AYSIDE RO L YOGERST A 0 OUNN 0 DUrtI A L YOGERST 4740 BAYSIOE RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 I. I . - *1 |- •.4 ' • * • *• PROP AODR QI«<ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR f 38 31-118-23 33 0011 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO B R LANGE A J 8 BURRELL BRUCE R LANGE SUITE 615 S3 N JACKSON BLVD CHICAGO IL 60604 38 31-118-23 33 0012 00150 HCCULLEY RO MARCIA A BARNUM MARCIA A BARNUM 10564 PARKER DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 38 31-118-23 33 0013 04680 BAYSIOE RD M 0 SLETTEN A M K SNETSINGER M 0 SLETTEN A M K SNETSINGER 4660 BAYSIOE RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 !♦ i : f » t ^ RUN DATE Ol/ZB/n RATCH 502 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFOmATlON SYSTEM PROPERTY OmERS LIST REPORT NO. PX41M01 PAGE 5PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR pf 70 SA-lia-24 A4 0009 00067 MCCULLEY RD LARRY i SUSAN VENSEL LARRY A SUSAN VENSEL 67 MCCULLEY RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55S5f TOTAL BATCH 502 00019 . r . • < • i.- ■V» *s I f M I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT OF THE HEfMEPIN COUTfTY DEPARTMENT OF OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. ^ AKC An AI.UUKA IC AnU IKUC / I * y S\ APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS \ ] PROPWTY TAXATION» TO THE ^ DATE HILLOWAY CORPORATION & GREENFIELD CORPORATION 3220 Hopkins Crossroads Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305 750 3220 April 26, 1996 Ms Jeanne Mabusih Building and Zoning Administrator Ciu of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crxstal Bay. Minnesota 55323 Dear Ms Mabusth. Enclosed is the preliminary plal information for the subdivision located at tlic corner of County Road 84 and Countv Road 19. The o^Miership of the parcel being subdivided is between Greenfield Corporation and Hilloway Corporation. The date of the ownership changed April 23,1996. The property is being jointly dc^'elopcd by both corporations. Jeanne, please make note for your records the property was originally submitted for sketch plan rc^•ic^v by Barnett Corporation. We have since closed on the property with the two corporations as named above and they w ill be doing the dev elopment. We want to thank you and the Planning Commission for }t>ur efforts in making this the best plat for the property while at the same time mainlining the City ’s options for access to the adjoining property. Issues which were enumerated at the the meeting with the Planning Commission included; 1. A cul de sac to serv e as many lots as possible. 2. Property to the east access 3. Wetlands issues. 4. Septic setbacks. 5. Erosion control. We think that as a result of working with you and the City ’s consulting engineer that we have created a plan that addresses your concerns and the Planning Commission. Specifically: 1. The cul dc sac w ill serve three of the six lots. 2. There will be a road graded by us which provides access to the property to the cast. It will be the responsibility of that property ow ner to construct the road at the time that property is developed. VI 3. The welijnds have been delineated and are slioun on the attached pi-vn^ 4. Because we know the location of tlie wetlands we were able to have the Percolation Tests completed. A report is attached. 5. There were concerns regarding the erosion associated w ith the grading of the roads. In speaking with the Citv’s Engineer we have been able to solve the erosion within the graded but unfinished road by building dams with large diameter rock Also, we can cut a shallow V into the rod to contain the path of the water. This was a difficult parcel of land to design. We do appreciate the efforts of the staff. Planning Commission and consulting engineer to address the issues invoK ed. We look forw ard to seeing you at the meeting of May 20, 19%. Sincerely, Hilloway Corporation Greenfield Corporation t MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 18. 1996 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (Schroeder left the meeting at this time.) (#10) #2119 BARNETT DIVISION CORPORATION AND BILLOW AY CORPORATION, 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST - SUBDIVISION/SKETCH PLAN Mark Gronbcrg was present along with Lori Lundecn, representing Barnett Division Corporation, and Tun Pfeimig, representing Hilloway Corporation. Mabusth reported that the sketch plan review involves a 17 acre parcel. The City granted preliminary ^>proval of 2 lot division in 1988. At that time, one residential area was created with a 13 acre ouilot set aside for future development. The subdivision was never finalized. The preliminary resolution provide guidelines for the future development of the 13 plus acre outlet. The current proposal is for a 6 lot subdivision with a cut-de>sac located in the northeast comer serving lots 1,3, and 4. Lots 2 and S would each have a separate curb cut at CoRd 19. Lot 6 was to continue to be served fi’om the existing driveway. Mabusth said the access for the lots was reviewed with Gustafson. It was determined that the existing access for lot 6 was considered unsafe and suggested a shared driveway with lot 5. City guidelines had stipulated that an internal road should serve the majority of the lots. Mabusth said she would like to see a redesign of the accesses with lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 served by an internal road. Mabusth continued that the proposal also involves wetland issues. There are designated wetlands on the property along with a wetland designated on the National Inventory M^ in the northwest corner, which would be deducted from the total acreage. Mabusth said Staff would ask for wetland delineation. Type 1 and 2 wetlands are not deducted from the acreage. Another issue concerns a recently completed lot line rearrangement with the Geffre property to the east. The internal road should connea to western boundary of outlot C of Bayview Farms providing access for future development. Mabusth reported that septic testing was completed in 1988 for the existing residence. The alternate site tested did not meet the 75' setback from designated wetland. The On- Site Septic Manager confirms signs of serious leaching from the existing septic. Staff will require septic testing for a new principal drainfield site which must meet the 75' wetland separation. This may present a problem due to the additional right of way being dedicated for CoRd 19. 5- ii MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 18. 1996 (#10 - #2119 Bamctt/HiDoway Sketch Plan Review - Continued) Gronberg asked if the septic site be located in lot 5 if there would be the need to meet the 200' setback for the frontage noting the IT taken from the lot for right-of-way. Mabusth said the Commission would need to decide if they would allow that variance. Gronberg agreed that the access was unsafe to that lot. Mabusth said there was also the issue of number of lots if the internal road was built. There is 8 acres on the north between lots 1-4. Gronberg said there would be a problem with the steepness of the slope on the east lot line, and it would require fill. Gustafson was informed that the road would be a private road built to City standards. Gustafson said the road would be allowed up to a 12% grade, though 10% would be preferred. Jim Pfennig of Hilloway was informed that a private road can be used by another homeowner through an underlying public easement. This would allow the adjacent land owners use but remain private Mabusth said the costs involved in maintaining the road would be shared and could have an introductory fee but it would be decided with a private maintenance agreement resolved by property owners. Pfennig was concerned that an internal road would destroy the look of the lots and would like an additional curb cut for lot 2. Smith said a shared driveway could be used. Mabusth noted that the County may not approve an additional curb cut. Gustafson said there was good site distance, if kept far enough away from the intersection, but it would require following County jurisdiction. Mabusth asked if the internal road was possible and whether it could go beyond the Gefire property. Gustafson suggested putting together different options on what is or is not feasible in determining the road's location. Gustafson said the parcel does have the acceptable location for access road but questioned whether it was desirable to have all of the lots achieve access from internal road. Irv Wackman was in the audience. Wackman said he has a purchase agreement to purchase the property to the east and is curious about the road situation. It is his iment to build one home at this time and has no current plans to subdivide. Peterson reviewed that the issues for the sketch plan pertained to septic sites, wetlands, and the roadway. Mabusth noted the limited area in the northern part of the parcel. Peterson and Smith said they woula be willing to consider a lot width variance for an internal road. They w ere undecided on a variance if a backlot was created. Gronberg commented that with a cul-de-sac, parcels usually do not meet the 200' requirement and are routinely granted a variance. 4 •ar' i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 18, 1996 (#10 - #2119 Bamctt/Hilloway Sketch Plan Review - Continued) It was determined that there was possibly not enough area for 6 lots if lots 1 thru 4 were to be served by internal road. Mabusth noted that the slopes may also change the lot configurations. Berg said she has a problem with a single road. She would be in favor of the present configuration, which she noted was opposite of what is normally done. Berg said she would need to c.xplore this issue further and would like to receive input from the County. Lori Lundeen of Barnett asked what the purpose was for an internal road. Mabusth explained that the purpose was to reduce the number of curb cuts fi'om the county roadways. Mabusth also noted the desire, in this particular case, to tie into the property to the east. It was discussed whether a full road would be necessary or a driveway easement for the property to the east. It was noted that the connecting property has the potential of 4 lots at 14-1/2 acres for future subdivisioa Gustafson added, if a roadway was not possible, a driveway easement should be requested. Mabusth said Staff would like the internal road but would also like to see acceptable lots. Gronberg added that the slopes were an issue. Pfennig was concerned with erosion problems of 8% slopes. Gustafson said there was p ‘ential for erosion, and this would need to be reviewed in order to slow down the drainag. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#11) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Mabusth asked the Commissioners if they would like to consider having two meetings per month when agendas become lengthy. Peterson will canvas the Commissioners and rq>ort back to Mabusth. Mayor Callahan informed the Commissioners that Staff has advertised to fill the vacant on the Planning Commisaon and is awaiting a response. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#12) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 20,1996 MEETING Peterson moved. Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the February 20, 1996 Meeting of the Planning Commission. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. i A TO:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Planning and Zoning Administrator FROM:Stephen Weckman. On-Site Systems Manager DATE:May 8, 1996 SUBJECT: Subdivision Application #2136 Greenfield Corporation - Septic Review The applicant proposes a six lot subdivision requiring the use of on-site sewage treatment systems. Five of the lots are show n with new residences and tw o drainfield sites on each. The drainfieid sites for lots one through five are all located on slopes of six percent or less as required by city ordinances. The alternate drainfield site on lot four lies fifty feet from a type two wetland, not located on the City or State wetland inventories. No setback is required from this type of wetland. Lot six, which includes the existing residence, is very limited for drainfield siting. The existing on site system was observed to be surfacing in 1993, was slightly surfacing in 1995 and is surfacing significantly now. The system has not been confirmed as meeting the three foot separation from the seasonal saturated zone and would likely not pass. Therefore, two drainfield sites are required for this lot. Two drainfield sites have been identified north of the existing residence. The primary site lies on slopes of six percent, but the future site requires a variance for slopes up to eight percent. The primary site will also require a variance to be located 60' from the well. Both sites meet all the State standards for slopes and well setbacks. The sites also meet the required 75' setback to the wetland. In summary, all six lots have suitable drainfield sites for on-site systems, but lot six will require a staff variance for slopes of up to eight percent and a well setback of 60'. Staff is willing to approve the variances since all State standard are met and the City standards will not be significantly compromised. Bonestroo & Assoc. if I Bonestroo Rosene m wm Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Mav 13. I9V6 636 1311 05/14 '96 07:30 NO.424 01/02 4 smhh ^ * at/i# • # # •.#/♦• / ' f ,Ms. Jeanne MahuMh. Building* and Zoning Administrator Cnv ol Oronom Pt)sl OttiLC Box Crystal Hay Minnesota 35.^23 Re; Hilloway Corpt>ralion File No '1.39-21.36 Dear Jeanne. We have reviewed the preliminary plat and road plan for the proposed six lot subdivision to be developed by Hilloway Corporation The site is located east of North Shore Drive <CS a H 19) and south of Bayside Road (C.R. 84) in the northwest quarter of Section 6. Wc have the followmjt comments in regards to engineering inaUers. 1. Access: The access liKations for lots 2. 5 and 6 onto North Shrrrc Drive should be shown on the plan. Wc recommend that Lots .3 and 6 have one shared driveway located near the common lot line. The road plan and typical -section for the private street on Outlot B arc acceptable The subdivisnm plan should be submitted to Hennepin County for their review and comment. 2. Crnding: The grading, drainage and erosion control plan prepared for the pond and road construction i.s appropriate. The erosion control measures should be in place piior to any grading. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction t>f the houses and septic systems. The wetlands have been delineated and shown on the plan. 3» Draliuige; Driveway culverts should be slmwn on the plan us needed. There should be u drainage easement over the drainagewuy on Lot I from the cul-de-sae to the sedimentation pond. The drainage and ponding calculations are acceptable. The plan should be .submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their approval A. Easements: Drainage and utility easements sliould be shown on the plat five feet wide along all interior lot lines and ten feet wide along the existing and proposed roadway right-of-ways. Drainage easements should be provided across the drainageway an.l wetland areas. The drainage easement for the wetland on Lot 4 should he extended more or less to meet Outlot B. This area may be needed as part of u future sedimentation pond when the rood i.s constructed ovei Outlot B. Hennepin County should determine if additional right-of-way is needed for cither North Shore Drive or Bayside Road. 5. Financial Guarantee: The developer's engineer should prepare a cost estimate of the total site improvements for our review Ba.sed on that information we will determine the amount of the tinuncial guarantee required Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding thus matter. Yemrs very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Shawn D. Gu.stafson. P.E ...........'** 4#/ £<4 «.tr . I ,/tZ-— .IMM, • 4I»V,4. f Ar,|#,M|k aM.'laiMl , »l lorN* m * ,h tf , • rrmrAixt- Noy* I't • iC ,.|jt i| f, ’•'•ui. . ti» • t. ..y A M....rrt*.M t^» alfi.r.. «| t/ l»l .mj .hv M ♦ PA ‘ ur A> ^ .Ilf Cf A (aMilun ft •Vi.f.t.tW f'ftMr'flf f'« a .f.off J . I • .X .1 • I a .f.i -r • r.,1,^ ., r I,,,. , g ^ , A • V.«f, A !‘l . V I > . Il't r ff *• ll rr3. M vr • l»* ■ ii I ll I • : *1 • f •* ii:i *r>it Vtii .VN a W-.4..jfMV iJl' 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113-3898 • 6I2-636-4600 r I Hennepin County j JL An Equal Opportunity Employer / May 13, 1996 Jeanns A. Habu^thBuilding and Zoning Administrator City of Orono * P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 RE; Proposed Plat - Hilloway Corporation CSAH 19/84,, Southwest Quadrant Section 6. jTownship 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 2319 Review and Recommendations Dear Ns. Habusth: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys-, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat -and make the following commentsi... . . . .s - .. CSAH 19, along the proposed plat, is identified in the Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan, as a full accommodation{bikeway. That Is, there should! be both on and off-road bikeways for bikers of all ages and abilities along CSAH 19. In order to accommodate bicycles and to continue to have an economical, rural section to the roadway, there needs to be 60 fdet of right of way shown on thei plat plus a 10 foot easement. _ J Because of the narrowness of Lots 5 and 6, the county is willing to plan for a more expensive suburban section which requires!less right of way. In order to laccommodate both on and off road use, a${shown on the ittaSeS Knec^on: ^h^ should didicate an additional 7 feet of right of way, resulting in 40 feet of right “ay j[rj™ and along the CSW Ih icenterl 1 ne, plus » 6 .esewent elonyhe r^ht of wey. This 46 feet should provide sufficient width for road, bikeway, and Lot developmentJ Department of Public Works '«• • • • ••• 1 \ \ -1 I"*': \ 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343<-S496 ■ (612)930*2500 FAX:(612)930*2513 TDDt(6l2)930*2696 R«c?deiPdp«r ,1-------- cO'd 0Ti0£<Lr6 S>iaOn Dliand aid NN3H UOdd SbST-rt-AWI r ' L. Jeanne Mabusth Hay 13, 1996 Page 2 • • •• • • ? • I I h T I Along CSAH si, the dav«1op«r should dedicate an additional 7 feet of right of way for a total of 40 feet from and along the centerline of CSAH 84. • The proposed access for Lots 1, 3, and 4 from CSAH 84 via an entrance located approximately 530 feet east of CSAH 19 Is acceptable. An access for Lot 2, from CSAH 19, located approximately 370 feet south of CSAH 84 is acceptably. A shared access for Lots 5 and 6, from CSAH 19, located on the property line, between Lots 5 and 6, Is acceptable. The existing access on Lot 6 must be removed. • All proposed'construction within County right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This Includes, but Is not limited to access, drainage, utility construction, trail development,! and landscaping. TO Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for the apprbprlate permit forms. • The developeir must restore all areas, within County right of wiy, disturbed during construction. Please direct 4ny response to Doug Mattson. Sincerely, lAW Thomas 0. Jonnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/08H Attachment Hs\»UrS\MIUaAT ;09/tt/H ■ i- .. ^••• • «••••*••. •• m £0'd 0TSO£<!.rS sxaon onarid aid WBH WOdd t-£;TT 966T-ri-AHi.j • ••• *• *• i >'4b * . b . -i t • 4 f \ , • • ••A\•• •• I # •. *«. • •• ‘'r/Al2LANE.RURAL “ ■ COMMnBlE ROAOWAV • . » «• ^ am If - I jl HirH 55J (c^ ^fUl RlliACCOtMODAnON »■<(<• ♦•'.it-..V >>, 1-- • m # " C ‘ If u. > H O H Ifn • • «•• • w s. 2 LANE SUBURBAN > * ■ ■ '(f- I COMPATIBUE ROADWAY . { : I . t •* • *, . A* • 7t*- 19 FULL ACCOHMOIMTKM i . M8M r •. iMfOr itilAiitMig munu . f I •• I I n H K 3 D $ CO. RD.' NO. 19 (NORTH SHORE DRIVE W.) P \ \\ \ \ X \ \ K \- ^ \ ■-i V#'*- If 11' I ^ r i •: mi ;! li i*r ji !•: J ui V* •' f.v S lIMVEIMTORY OF THE INTERIOR / ^4 A I .« 4 f IHmci I PfMC PCMU P£M6 PEMC ■,P£MC' Pgci Cb ■ KMf I 1 I \ J / /^ •' •-■.-a * WETLANDS DELINEATION DOCUMENTATION FOR JIM PENNING, PROJECT IN ORONO, MN 0 John Anderson. WETLANDS DATA, Minneapolis, MN delineated and docLwnented wetlands boundaries on the subject property on April 18th and 19th, 1996 at the request of Jim Penning. This report provides information as to the dominant wetland characteristics at the site as result of the investigation The parameters of the wetland/upland boundaries are provided in each delineation report form as this information is redundant below. Please review documentation of these findings (referenced in report and site plan). A sketch of the staked wetland boundaries is included in the report. I LOCATION W1/2, NW1/4, NWl/4 Section 6 T117, R23 Hennepin County. Minnesota METHODOLOGY Wetlands were identified and delineated using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (U S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987) Revisions to the former method have been proposed by the U S. Environmental Protection Agency and are currently under review. Pending the adoption of these revisions, the U.S. army Corps of Engineers is applying the 1987 Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual. The wetland and/or deep water habitat were classified according to the methodologies set forth in Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39, Shaw and Fredine. 1971) and Classification of Wetlands and Deep water Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et. al.1979). CHARACTERISTICS OF WETLANDS INVESTIGATED Transect A.#l This is a Type Six (PSSiBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Box Elder (FACW), Pussy Willow (FACW), Sandbar Willow (OBL) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Black Willow (OBL) is less common. Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met, as soil is saturated. Transect A.#ll This is a Type Two (PEMIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Sandbar Willow (OBL) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is met. Site Is saturated. U- Transect A.#UI This is a Type Two (PEM1 Bd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Sandbar Willow (OBL), Green Ash (FACW), Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Tall Goldenrod (FACU) and Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC-). Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil Surface hydrology is met. Site is saturated. Transect A.flV This is a non- wetland checksite. Dominant species are Reed Canary Grass (FACW+), Tail Goldenrod (FACU) and Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC-) Soils are Kilkenny, a non wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met Site is not flooded, ponded, saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect A,#V This is a non- wetland checksite. Dominant species are American Elm (FACW-) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded, saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect B.#l This is a Type Six (PSSIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Sandbar Willow (OBL) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Pennsylvania Smartweed (FACW+) Is less common. Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met, as soil is saturated. Transect B.#ll This is a Type Two (PEMiBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Sandbar Willow (OBL) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW-f). Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is met. Site is saturated. Transect B.#lll This is a Type Two (PEMiBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Box Elder (FACW) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is met. Site is saturated. Transect B.#IV This is a non- wetland checksite. Dominant species are Box Elder (FACW) American Elm (FACW-) Reed Canary Grass (FACW+) and Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC-). Smooth Sumac (UPL) is less common. Soils are Kilkenny, a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded, saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect B.#V This is a non- wetland checksite. Dominant species are Box Elder (FACW), American Elm (FACW-), Green Ash (FACW) Common Buckthorn (FAC-), Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC-), Tall Goldenrod (FACU) and Moss. Soils are Kilkenny, a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded, saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. i\ i Transect C.#l This is a Type Two (PEMiBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Box Elder (FACW) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met, as soil is saturated. Transect C. #11 This is a Type Two (PEMiBd) wetland checksite Dominant species are Reed Canary Grass (FACW+) and Tall Goldenrod (FACU). Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is met. Site is saturated. Transect C.»l 11 This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC-). tall Goldenrod (FACU) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded, saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. Site has been effectively drained by a surface drainage ditch. Transect C.#IV This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC-), Tall Goldenrod (FACU) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met Site is not flooded, ponded, saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. Site has been effectively drained by surface drainage ditch. Checksite D This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species is Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded, saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect E,#l This is a Type Two (PEMiBd) wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met, as soil is saturated. Transect E.#ll This is a Type Two (PEMIBu) wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are CorJuva. a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met. Site is saturated. Transect E.#11 1 This is a Type Two (PEMiBd) wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded or saturated. Site has been effectively drained by surface drainage ditch. r wcznJ Transect E.#IV This is a Type Two (PEMIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Reed Canary Grass (FACW-f). Soils are Cordova, a wetiarKl soil. Surface hydrology evidence is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded or saturated. Site has been effectively drained by surface drainage ditch. Transect F.»l This is a Type Two (PEMIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Reed Canary Grass (FACW-t-). Soils are Peaty Muck, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met, as soil is saturated. Transect F.fll This is a Type Two (PEMIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Red Ozier Dogwood (FACW) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Peaty Muck, a wetland soil Surface hydrology evidence is met. Site is saturated. Transect F.#lll This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Red Ozier Dogwood (FACW), Green Ash (FACW), Reed Canary Grass (FACW+) and Kentucky Blue Grass (FAC-). Smooth Sumac (UPL) is less common. Soils are Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded or saturated. Site has been effectively drained by surface drainage ditch. Transect F.#IV This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Smooth Sumac (UPL), Green Ash (FACW), and Kentucky Blue Grass (FAC-). Common Buckthorn (FAC-) is less common. Soils are Kilkenny, a norvwetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is not met Site is not flooded, ponded or saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. LIMITATIONS OF WETLAND ASSESSMENT My opinions, conclusions and recommendations were based in part on information 1 obtained and evaluated from current sources including state and federal agencies, verification of the authenticity or accuracy of this information is not warranted and is not included in the scope of my services. Wetlands delineated under winter conditions may not be accurate and should be reinvestigated during the growing season. 1 appreciate this opportunity to present this analysis Sincerely, QJ V *• ■ *r • i P/Soc./vat-e' 6^g*tl -w£^ Lcx:^r7of<i% \/ / ^ jSAS(?C^^^^i A^(aJX/vtars" 4 nt>Poc->/^PH'Y TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. GafTron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:May 15, 1996 SUBJECT: #2112 Richard and Janet Putnam, 2765 C^co Point Road - After the Fact Variance - Public Hearing Application: After the fact hardcover variance for reconstruction of existing deck. Zoning District: LR-IC, single family lakeshore residential, 1/2 acre. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - 1996 Survey E - 1996 Hardcover Calculations F - 1 987 Hardcover Calculations and Sketch G - Resolution No. 2254 H - Inspection Slip 8/17/94 I - Miscellaneous Exhibits Pertinent Code Sections 1 . Section 10.22, Subd. 2; Section 10.56, Subd. 1 6(L) - 75-250' zone hardcover limited to 25%. 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 4 - "Prohibition. It is unlawful to convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any structure or use any struct are or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the zoning chapter." Summary Applicant was granted a variance for additions and remodeling of his residence in 1987 via Resolution No. 2254. The wording of the variance resolution and the plans and sketches submitted with that application, lead one to conclude that some expansion of the subject deck was proposed and approved at that time. Applicant obtained a permit (#1140) for construction of the screen porch and deck work in 1988. Applicant constructed a screen porch, added railings to the existing deck, as well as a stairway at the south end of the deck, but at that time did not rebuild the deck. The final inspection on the deck/screen porch construction was completed on June 26,1989 at which time permit #1140 would Zoning File #2112 May 15,19% Page 2 have been considered as no longer valid for further work. In 1994 the building insp>ectors found the applicant replacing major portions of the deck. StatT concluded that this additional work required a building permit as well as additional variance approval because it constituted replacement of existing structure/hardcover when the property is in excess of the standard hardcover limits. Please recall that by Council directive, since the mid-1980s staff has not had the ability to "negotiate" hardcover revisions when a property exceeds the 25% hardcover limit. In this case, and in a significant number of other properties in Orono. "in-kind" deck replacement where hardcover is excessive has been dealt with via the variance process. Hardcover Resolution No. 2254 allowed the property 4,405 s.f. (40.2%) hardcover in the 75-250' zone. A comparison of the 1987 hardcover approval and applicant's sur\ eyor's current calculations indicate the 75-250' zone is about 217 s.f. smaller than the area used in 1987, and the hardcover is currently at 4,789 s.f, or 384 s.f more than was approved, per the following chart; 1987 SUBMITTAL/APPROVAL (75-250'area = 10,937 s.f.) 1996 SURVEY (75-250' area - 10,720 s.f.) House 1,432 s.f House 2,270 si Garage & House Addition 1,100 s.f Garage 778 s.f Existing Garage 400 s.f Driveway 238 s.f Driveway 425 si Deck Not Over Patio 85 s.f Decks 244 si Patio 576 s.f Patio (not under deck)220 s.f Rock Walls 194 s.f Rock Walls 330 s.f Sidewalk 260 s.f Sidewalk 492 s.f Added Deck N. of Patio (= Screen Porch)120 s.f Steps 30 s.f 4,405 s.f 4,789 si There appear to be a number of factors related to this discrepancy including: 1987 survey by Schoell & Madson and 1996 survey by Gronberg do not match: Location of street lot line in relation to the pre-existing portions of garage is different. Location of 250' hardcover setback line is significantly different between the two surveys. Applicant cut back his original remodeling plans after variance approval but prior to i Zoning File #2112 May 15, 1996 Page 3 construction of remodeling/additions, and ended up with a detached rather than attached garage. Staff reviewed hardcover prior to issuance of the remodeling permit and found it would be within the limits of the approved hardcover numbers. (See Exhibits F-4 and F-5.) The square footage attributed to rock walls is significantly higher than what w'as originally approved, but this may be related to how they were calculated. Rock walls were to be reduced from 442 s.f. to 194 s.f., but still remain at 330 s.f. The area of sidewalks includes a revised configuration reflecting the detached garage, as well as the addition of a number of stepping stone walkways at various locations around the house. It is staffs opinion that half of the 384 s.f. "overage" is attributable to survey discrepancies, was originally approved in concept, and should not be at issue. The other half of the discrepancy appears to be attributable to the rock walls and other walkwav s. Given the nature of improvements on the property, the need to access various parts of the property via walkways, and the arguable hardcov er nature of the rock walls, staff would recommend the City accept the current hardcover calculations as meeting the intent of Resolution No. 2254 and would not penalize applicant for the numerical discrepancies. Replacement of the 19.2'x9.4 ’ deck "in-kind" does not change the percentage of hardcover on the property. That deck is not encroaching on any required setbacks, and is an integral part of the scheme of this property. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of an after-the-fact v ariance for reconstruction of the subject deck, and further recommends that the applicant obtain an after-the-fact permit for said deck, and that the inspections department complete the appropriate inspections. Note that applicant has paid the after the fact fee for what staff considered a renewal variance application (i.e. paid $120 renewal fee and $120 after the fact fee). During t! .e nearly two years it has taken to get this application in front of the Planning Commission, the applicant has expressed frustration with the policy that makes this application necessary. It can be argued that "in-kind" replacement of decayed and dangerous decks should not be subject to variance approv al under certain circumstances, such as past approval as part of a variance request, lack of encroachment of any setbacks, no changes to footprint or bulk of structure, etc. The opposite argument, adopted by Council as policy many years ago, is that replacement of such a structure is often an opportunity for the City to require improvements to the hardcover situation. Additionally, 1 Zoning File #2112 May 15, 19% Page 4 CounciFs policy was clearly intended to eliminate staffs ability to negotiate hardcover "trades" when a property exceeds the hardcover limits, the Council preferring to maintain direct control over that functiotL Options for Action 1. Approve per staffs recommendation. 5. 2. Approve subject to conditions (specify). 3. Table for further information/discussion (specify). 4. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Other. J ll ..f ApplicadoD # jLir^ Date Received il3iJ9lc Amount Paid ^ CITY OF ORONO - VAKlAWCt ArKLlCAt 10r« Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) 'JAN 3 1 1996 PROPERTY INFOR\LATION CMCO Property Idenrifi^tion Numh^ (P.I.D.) ^ t~ )^‘Z^ j ~ ■ * on re^tlire ’Attach legal description to application if not included on Date Property' Acquired *7^ d survey. (month/year) I (dotX^n^ also own the ^acent parcels of land. Prescm~«9C^property: U^toidential other (specify) Zoning District: APPLICANT Phone (home) ____ Name fZ.vy^Xzr> ^ Er Phone (^ric) ____ Citv: kJatAtM:r4^______Zip:_g£^3Z- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _______ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:Citv:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: _ It Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets 1f necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore _L:rOther (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS .inHiie hardshin or Practical difficulty or unusual proper^ conditions preventing A a A r REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the applicarion deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. Completed Application Form 3. 4 5. 6. l^Certified Propert>- ONsners List of o%vners u-ithin 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map fr^ Hemi^n County Denartment of Knance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required./O In addition, /^vide one (1) copy 8 ‘/j" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVV’ .\ 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in ^ the propertv'. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 7* As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. ___ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Ow-ner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to^e best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Dae OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable enuy onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, an ! Council members for purposes of inves^ation andv^fi^ion of this request. 4 Owner's Signature Date /'~ Applicant must have all subminals into the City offices 25 days befor- the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the thir'’ Ivionc’ay of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings f 't: Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled rj^ung, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 RUN DATE M/SO/96BATCH 507 raOP AOOR CMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHC/AODR PROP ADDR atCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AOOR GNNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR SB E0-117-2S 25 0006 02795 CASCO POINT RD S R PETERSON IRA PETERSON STEVEN R PETERSON 2795 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA HN 55391 SB 20-117-2S 2S 0010 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSZGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARR 9/1S/79 ST DEED 156756 SB 20-117-2S 2S 0017 02795 CASCO POINT RO J 0 HURO/J L ZEHRIN6ER-HURD J 0 NURD/J L ZEHRltJGER-HURD 2795 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55S91 SB 20-117*25 52 0016 02799 CASCO POINT RD LAURIE F QUINN LAURIE QUINN 2799 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA HN 55591 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OmERS LISTSB 20-117-25 25 0007 02755 CASCO POINT RO 0 S a J BREITNER DAVID S a JANA BREITNER 2755 CASCO PT RD HAYZATA MN 55591 38 20-117-25 25 0011 00056 ADDRESS UN6SSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEIIED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 9/15/79 ST OcEO 156759 SB 20-117-2S 25 0016 02775 CASCO POINT RO ELAINE E OLSON ELAINE ELLEN ERICKSON 2775 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA HN 55591 REPORT NO. ^1955901 PAGE 59SB 20-117-2S 25 0009 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HEhMEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 9/15/79 ST DEED 156759 58 20-117-25 25 0012 02776 CASCO POINT RO KELLE M DOHNEY ET AL B C DOHNEY A K H DONKEY 2776 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA HN 55591 SB 20-117-25 25 0019 02765 CASCO POINT RD RAJ PUTNAM RICHARD A PUTNAM 2765 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55591 TOTAL BATCH 507 00010 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INF0RMATI0T4 AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPAWY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE sji/% a f HARDCOVE R CAL CULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) v&' 75-250!250-500* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House •500-1000'; S.F. 1 Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. PatioA)eck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^_____ ♦ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X O. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ----------- * ® xioo Width X 100 - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ.. S.F. SI-. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.4^ m S.F. S.F. ^9 0 S.F. O % A I) ■ 'I.. -- V S.F. 4 S.F. S.F. S.F. i S.F.V.. V 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. A B • .• L. II i: f HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET • SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*250-500' FYISTINO HARPrOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk <.OLyK, E. Patio/Deck /V^'^ 7. V 0€ttc F. Landscape JfOCtC d^/Lt,f Underlain _____________ By Plastic _____________ Or Fabric srf^s G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE , _ . * A V7J^^ - B ^0120 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE . A. House _____________ X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A_ _ _ _ _ _ _" ® X100 - 500-H OO*'. 22 7 0 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^7^ S.F •• S.F. X m SJ.. X m 77" - S.F. X wm /? S.F. X m 22 o S.F. X /7. Z m / S.F. X m . ^ .V •7 7r> S.F. • X m S.F. X m S.F. X • 7(7 S.F. V7g» S.F. ✓Q.720 S.F. A D yy «<7 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.r. • •• ? y f V S.F. S.P: Vo A B • • HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET . \ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE ’ A. House 0-75’ K 75-250’*00 S.F. t X ^ Width S.F. # •X ^*S.F. X _A S.F. • B. Garase X ^ • S.F. C. Driveway 3f ^SF. • X _SJf.. 0. Sidewalk X _S.F.•e X _■i S.F.i £. Patio/Deck X _S.F. 1 X _•S.F.i *IF. Landscape X _ • • • S.F. Underlain X _—S.F.i By Plastic X _S.F.■ ’ Or Fabric i G. Other X Ml S.F. TOTAL HAPiJCOVER IN ZONE •o S.F.A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •20 S.F.13 C> A O ^ B .20 X 100 -o ACti t ^ PROPOSED Hardcover in zone A. House X _ % . S.F. />A CAFC4 Ai/f. US • Length X Width ■a S.F. • X m S.F. X m S.F. . -■ -.?Jh. •I ^ t -3^ B. Garaae X m • S.F. C. Drivewav X • S.F. •X w . S.F..• ^irV D. Sidewalk X ■B S.F. X ■i •S.F. E. Patio/Deck X m S.F.• '-Th X -S.F.« F. Landscaoe X m • S.F.n * Underlain X m S.F.J Bv Plastic X m ____S.F. Or Fabric • • • • • C\ Other X •S.F.J TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE DonocoTV ABPA. rN ZONE m S.F. # A m S.F:a A B X100 - _®/o • .• 1,^ mi. •? s “■■ I 01 % 5 0 • •StIUcI ton#: icircJ# rnr| 0-7:. •in lone •• #• Bpui#*/^rz.Itnqth X • • X ■ « » m be C«rj9x Prlve^jy X 9 ^<ir> X m • de SldXVAlk _X m ^rr? * • —• Ht j /rvu. e. r«tio/X • Omck 1 X • f. Lxndfcap#_ * •*7^• reA« vnderlAin . X mby r>8*tir •heetln9 X • V a X m A t. Othf r 10->« < • fu X m —^ i. *.f. • .f. 9.f . • .f • • .fi ^ ■ •f, S.f . • •f. - ».f . ».f. ..f. I ' • .f. • • 9 . f . total e»I5TINC »,*Bf.7ovri» IW :i>M . ,,, «M '-------. ?SC-5''0- ?Oi'-KOO*«v^vufw?4! \ij 6c^» •iRUf.l «J| J. .At I I . 1,., ., - - - •’ *./ • ’ V. • 'i3 Jl« i. Jr -.V. r k I , ^ « ‘•‘* ' ••• Vor.V ' " ' • - « ICO - */*> ^Jiyh:n^ --.r. ^ h mItl. •. : I ,r,. — 11 rp •___M rrrg : / J>r>2* h _oVTr.A.w* jN Wjl :! X ■ X 0 total s.r. TO pr Arrvo ^»8tlrq H..r>l ..y,-, tp ^ KcrovcJ. J_f_^v•• —------?i£!5 _______L,*!I!S*.^ « • TCTAI, g. f. ^------• -JIYJ— *.1. ------- -ii'2_ ..r. :------- • - ..r. __iS£5_ ..». J-C^L '.< t ^ « jkiL^kr:_ ______ * jh-Lli X iii •__tiiiA?. f ^ .f. i.?. ».f. ..r. /A* *-7 (3JT01AL S.r. TC l*r KSrucvTO rinjl ffjtdcovcr rrof^n^.^] . fLin* (ij « Lir« (2> -Line njj . • JLiJiLjf. ♦ . /-T^ , .r-A-.r * r».»tlng Tc to Added ?o to'removed * Ttoi.Qs<>.< Hetilrovof | . •■••■..-. uo.2i2alj^-» I .■> nr-- '^-1 J ^.T.‘a •' /^dJitil ■ r -.%. v: (£^ m ExHittr B, (^esoL, A)o. Apf'rw>web H^«2ftcoU€)? AFrEK SE/hovac #1 176 L. zrt/^ ^ ^Xi<r/A*G L Z:L\***»-?lt ,AT.''i.>4 c ( L City of ORONO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2254 A KBSOLOTION GRAMTIIIG VARIAHCBS TO MOBICIPAL XOIIIVG CODS SBCTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6(B) AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 PILE 11176 WHEREAS, Richard Putnam (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2765 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 132, Spring Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, that part of Lake Shore Avenue dedicated on the the recorded plat of Spring Park and now vacated and that part of a tract of land on the opposite side of said avenue all lying between the westerly extension of the north and south lines of Lot 132 in said plat (hereinafter "the property); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to permit the construction of room and garage additions to attach the existing residence to the existing detached garage which is only 2 feet from the side lot line where a 10* side setback is normally required for an attached garage; and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit construction of a deck and enclosed porch (qazebo) structure that will encroach 25’ past the existing average lakeshore setback line a.»d 9' past the potential future average lakeshore setback line, where no encroachment is normally allowed; and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow an increase in hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone from 36.4% existing to 40.2% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, and to allow 40.51 hardcover in the 250-500' lakeshore setback zone where 85.7% hardcover exists but only 30% is normally allowed; and a 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to allow a street setback of 20 where 30 street setback is normally required. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1176. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 6 1 iSSiSm '■ Ii;j City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^^54__________ 3. The Orono Planning Conimission reviewed this application on Seotarher 14, 1937 and reconunended denial of the proposed variances a) Four of five Planning Commissioners present indicated approval of the hardcover variances, finding that the proposal results in a net overall decrease of hardcover square footage on the property and in the dedicated right- of-way of 224 square feet. b) Four of Five Planning Commissioners present indicated disapproval of the side setback variance for the garage, based on the knowledge that the garage will likely require a new foundation and the opportunity to move it to a conforming location would then exist. c) The Planning Commission generally felt that the average lakeshore setback should be reviewed under the assumption that the seasonal residence immediately to the north will eventually be removed and replaced with a house closer to the lake, thus revising applicants average setback line. 4. The City Council finds that the increase in hardcover in the 75-250' zone is adequately counterbalanced by the proposed decreases in the 250—500' setback zone. 5. The City Council finds that the magnitude of actual reduction of potential or existing lakeshore views from neighboring properties will be such that it does not create a signifies view encroachment. 6. The Council finds that the location of an existing is a hardship to moving the proposed garage to the south, and tne effect if the proposed 2 ’ side setback for the garage is retained. 7. The Council finds that as a result of ^he attachment of th house and existing garage, the house setback will ^ 20' from the dedicated right-of-way where a 30’ street setback is normally required, but will still maintain a 40 separation fr the edge of the actual paved and traveled roadway. 8. on August 10, 1987 the City Council voted approve the requested variance and directed staff to dr formal resolution for approval. Page 2 of 6 L A CITY OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2254_________ community. 10 The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this irAnJtv are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other proper y xoning district; that granting the variance not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or to oreserve a substantial property right of the Applicant: and would be in with the spirit and intent o the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. COMCLUSIOHS, ORDER AMD CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby dec;- and enclosed porch (gazebo) structure . 1 past the f Isting line ^w”re no encMachmentpotential •• ture average l*^®®hore setbac)c line, where^no^en^^ is nor*^* allowed; and grant* a varxan 7S-250* rf fi-r - r’b ‘c°h zo\rir “o- t"her%^%n\y»»- is^‘'‘=.\!!rallowed, and ®llow « 5% hardcover_^in^^^ Tor?s ‘nor, ;iiy"ariowet Tnd g^rYn^s ^a variance to S c^on 10.25, f?^^ttV^YsVtYac\%Yn^Y.a\iy«VuYrYd,’^tS^bl^ following conditions : Page 3 of 6 City of ORONO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2254________ ,vs? s:: ^ 1432 S.fExisting Home 6 Home Addition Existing Garage Driveway Deck not over patio Patio Rock Walls Sidewalk Added Deck N. of patio 1100 s.f. 400 s.f. 238 s.f. 85 s.f. 576 s.f. 194 s.f. 260 s.f. 120 s.f. 4405 s.f. or 40.2% (Refer to Exhibits A 6 B Attached) -s|r^;fpar^f°and%%"o T.^f'^^s''wfthVn‘^te boundaries westerly of the dedicated right-of-way) Driveway (west of right-of-way) Driveway (within right-of-way) Sidewalk (included in 75-250* zone calculations) 270 s.f. 580 s.f. TOTAL 850 s.f. or 48.5% remolinrunn%"c«"s«^^^ *rUht-of-w.y les, the paved roadway-, or 175: s.f., as the denominator. no net increase in hardcover. 3. Authorities granted by f \‘'na‘’mu^’'be exerc/sed by%PPlica\ion' for a building permit ti^e dtte of council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 24, 1988). 1 Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and r^ntnfSSSe?* Shall a“t“a"icfl\“ t«^nalfLy alitholilT granted herliL and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 4 of 6 i baim City of OROJNO CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2254_________ OF ORONO 5. The undersigned h^'^*heirs *^success«s and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording o^thls r;sSlutlo*°in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of ^September, 1987. ATTEST:/ / /Dorothy/fft City Clerk i Page 5 of 5 CITY OF ORONO I 3 City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIl NO. 2254 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this 9r>h_ _ _ _ _ <3ay of October- - - - - - - - - -, 1982. before me a Notary Public within and for said county.- personally instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. •Bf eOUNTY 9/8/92 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ).:.S. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) before meOn this_________________ day of ____________________^ 198 a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoinginstrum^t, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same -ns his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 6 of 6 ^ I ' 0->n /X5, n c 1 Ci <o Oi QC<o fXHjaiT A P^^SOt. A»0. ^yiisTf^c, hi^fiocoMe^ • : I I ff9>4n r^rnrnmf^ e ^eeh^ _ I I EiLHi^tT B , <26S0L. A»0 2254 AppooMCfe HAiefeCOtfcje AFfF< ecwovAu 176 CITY OF ORONO INSPECTION NOTICE PERMIT NO. ADDRESS OWNER TELEPHONE NO. DATE TIME CALLED IN scheduled completed \A a w\CONTR. K Uj V4. 5 0 1 S QC ti: § O QC Ou. Ujcc Uj 5 Uj q: 5o Uj Ct Uj Q OO description . 01 FOOTING 02 FPAM.NG 03 INSULATION 04 WALL BO 05 Final 07 OEMO-SITE 07 OEMO—final 09 PLUMBING Rl 10 PLUMBING final 11 MECHANICAL Rl 11 MECHANICAL FINAL 2A25 WOOD BURNER. FIREPLACE 12 WATER HOOK-UP 13 METER SETrrURN ON 14 SEWER HOOK-UP 27 SEPTIC MAINT 15 SEPTIC install 23 SEPTIC FINAL 16 WELL TEST PUMP 18 EXCAV/GRADING)FILLING 19 LAKESHORE'WETLANDS 34 TREE REMOVAL INSPECTION S:^t?ROGRESS 21 COMPLAINT 22 FOLLOW UP OWNER/CONTRACTOR TO MEET YOU: COMMENTS: logJ'V' lyO\^ i/\0 - -lilcjypA STnp y WORK SATISFACTORY. PROCEED ^ CORRECT WORK & PROCEED C CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION ~ before COVERING 3 CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN----------HOURS. inspector will RETURN C STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR C INSPECTION required . CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS Z PROJECT COMPLETE C ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY _________TEMPORARY __________ PERMANENT Z PHOTO TAKEN T CITATION ISSUED Call (or the next inspection 24 hours in advance.473-7357 Owner/ContracJ«on site: Inspector cl White Copy/Inspector's File Canary Copy/Site Notice ClTYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN SS323 0066 Dick Putnam 2765 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 RE: Deck Reconstruction Dear Mr. Putnam: This letter is intended as a review of the 1987 variance approval for additions to your residence, as well as to provide you a format statement regarding Orono's hardcover and structure replacement policies. I received your fa.x including copies of Resolution No. 2254 (which is the correct resolution) and its exhibits. 1 also reviewed our variance and permit files, which lead me to a number of conclusions regarding what was approved: The Council approved the proposed screen porch/patio/deck configuration and its associated hardcover as showu in Exhibit D of the resolution. It is unclear from the file whether Council had seen the "octagonal ’’ version of the deck plans, which version was submitted for tlie building pemiit but which was not built. Also, it might be concluded from either version that some expansion of the existing deck was proposed. The resolution wording could be construed as assuming the deck might be rebuilt. (Ultimately, we view this as inconsequential, because the variance and permit expired long before the existing deck was finally replaced). The porch/deck plans submitted for the building permit showed an octagonal configuration, apparently proposing to slightly .evis- the fcotprint of the existing deck and add a stairway at llie south end. Those plans were approved by Tom Jacobs on 8/23/88, and permit #1140 for "deck extension/screen porch addition" was issued on 8/31/88. I don’t know why we approved a deck plan different from what was approved in the resolution e.xhibit. Telephone (612) 47M357 • FAX 4734)510 i Dick Putnzim January 29,1996 Page 2 You apparently constructed the screen porch as well as a stairway at the south end of the pre-existing deck in 1988 or 1989, added new railings to the existing deck, but at that time did not rebuild the deck. A final inspection on the deck/screen porch construction was completed on June 26, 1989, at which time permit #1140 would have been considered as no longer valid for further work. In 1994, the Building Inspectors found tliat you were in tlie process of replacing the portions of the pre-existing rectangular deck which had not been rebuilt in 1989. They consequently placed a Stop Work Order, and you proceeded to complete the replacement of that deck without the authority of a building permit. It is our recollection that you were advised by various members of the Zoning staff that a hardcover variance was required before we could issue a building permit, and you never proceeded to make such an application, hence a building permit has never been issued for this work. No City staff person ever authorized you to complete the work absent a building pemiit, although I do recall your stating to me that at this stage it was imperative for you to complete the deck to make it safe. There are two specific issues involved which I hope to clarify for you; 1.Any work on the existing deck after permit #1140 was "finaled" in 1989, would require a new build* g permit. Once a project has been considered as final, any further work, whether five months or five years later, requires a new building permit. 2.Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subd. 4, makes it unlawful to "convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity witli the Zoning Chapter". 'Hie City has consistently interpreted this to mean that any building or portion of a building which is intended to be removed and replaced, is not permitted if the replacement construction is non-conforming. Replacement of your pre-existing deck is non- conforming because it constitutes hardcover in e.xcess of 25% in the 75-250 ’ zone. Note that since Dave Breitner built at 2755 next door, your deck conforms to the average setback. Further, the City has interpreted that whether a structure to be replaced exists legally via a past variance approval or is "legal non-conforming" because it existed before the pertinent codes went into effect, replacement of the structure is subject to the current codes. Past variance approval does not grant a permanent right to later rebuild a non-conforming structure. And, because the existing deck presumably had to be substantially removed in order to construct the new one, for some period of time in 1994 the deck did not exist and therefore its replacement is considered as new 1 construction. Dick Putnam January 29, 1996 Page 3 In conclusion, it is the City staffs position that had you replaced the pre-existing deck under the permit issued in 1988 and as part of your home remodeling/additions at that time, such deck reconstruction would have been covered under that variance a*id that deck permit. However, replacement of the deck five years later after tlie original permit was finaled, is considered a new project that requires a new permit as well as hardcover variance approval before tliat permit can be issued. Staff does not have the authority to deal with hardcover trade-offs when the property is over the hardcover limits. Such trade-offs, even for mere replacement of existing structures, require that the variance procedure be followed. Because the deck you built in 1994 appears to match that which was approved in 1987, we could reasonably consider taking in the variance application as a renewal. Part of your submittal would have to be an updated hardcover survey by a certified surveyor. My recommendation is that you file the appropriate after-the-fact variance application for replacement of the deck. If you have further questions, please contact me or Jeanne Mabusth at 473- 7357. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator MPG/lsv cc: Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Lyle Oman, Building Official Bruce Vang, Field Inspector Enel, a) b) c) d) Exhibit B, Resolution #2254 as approved by Council Plans submitted for "Deck Extension and Screen Porch Addition", 1988 Survey showing pre-existing deck Final inspection slip 6/26/89 / I / /Jt ]<__-------------------:? f^XMlBlT B ^ l^esot.. AlO /JPPrtOW^fe AFrCiC CCWOVAtl A' •«JUTr^*-CU i«/7y Exknsion^ of ihe Norm line of Loi-132 llo..( t • *•:*o --?65./6- ----II2.SO —rr^ z4*Basswood . 947.9 ./ Sfeps^ jfi .M" Maple 934.4 t ! • Q cc ^ ir ‘ •« ■> V- .^Overhano 36.3 tn cn 6 to • • • 4 Mo. '•" * Basemerdflf'-elev. =HS.s w ■V’ / ..-f / / ) V ' ' 'ZO ' * ^ f y S ^ar. 8 f i 3T7S . ^Oak iM , »6.S >3'^ Z4"fhpl^ 952.0 462.3 I/3.1G -----Vv 36“^ai: 953.2* 1 \efNopk *953.6 S ‘tn&if Id-,3, — 2GS. /6”~ — 109.20— Ho. /' / •« •• • .0 • r ■■ *• . w ••.« I 1 ■V* 1« ( f1 . ••c■ I CALLED INcmroFORONO INSPECTION NOTICE// U/) scmeoulcoDSPUrr NO. ___' r A-__ comalitcoPERMIT NO ADDRESS OWNER _'' 1% «•IL__ COMKlTfO ^CONTRTELEPHONE Na C/-7/- ^3*rO S(irooTiHo^;rrrr;|^>j%^^^ ^cauMWNOw ' ' •: : c^uuBiNOPiNAU '.: * crtwiufwCNUMINO - 1 ■■■ ■-••;<>■>. , PMm4wm^L-, m lll-'SW MNNILUC Wmvcc ■'4 Pl|m s rsiTfwca DWOi.TI»TW<» i T-^.‘ •,>;' .• • • '■'"■* tv ’f.v- -v-.-j ..*. •4,> •A COMMENTS:______ •••• .1•^;'V'A'^^^ 4 • • •.* •*•>. • • '4 • It >T'- ‘» vr> • •'. \ . n * • • .. *... . •/» . .; • • ^'o 1-.v", - • '* 't ' *<l >4S*‘ mV • • ?•• •'►/ / » •» V*?‘ '•I* .* •. •;«. /CiA.L, . I • -4 « 1'. •*• 1,1^^; 0 ' ♦ *ll.•;.:,v ! , : *r-> . *' L ’ * • • * \i • •* ' * -1- • . : % . .-H . . ; • I . •»• .?; >. •• ‘ •* -i . t r'vwimsAmrACTOwr.fwctio m/r oo«wccT»4)iw*wwctto _____ ■ §. i: coPWCTwoNtCAurowwiNMicnow C . MtOMOOWlNNO • % « t«. S PHOTO TMtN a OTATlONmUlO C «$gtC«nPlCAT10P0CC»P4MCr J - TmtawAHT PIPMANfNr •• •• . *•' . *••* • * V \: >*. % ^ rV, r-w 5-r E* • • •• • ma *• V • ^ lir- •-v:--‘ >■ c»*spf< .> y.., %.\f-,.i *' .• • X ?- • * * 0 ir* • •• . ^ ^ ' VL‘ ■”' <•''' Inmel •-T* • •• Vr*•? • . • t;?f .! it- ..•: . .*•?•... mmuHoa . • * -t •V ■ '7' •■ ;;‘..v. • •___________________f.■■•If ■; " *■, .::,'\'^-r.^'.‘ 0 OOPP€CTUNSAPiCONO«TlON\«TMIH, IHSPfCTOHWiaPfTUHH n STOP OPOCTPOSTia CALL IMSPCCTOH _ c PISIWIONwow*«acAUTOAAAAHOf Accm ^ w ' -i ,,^a*ho«M.dM«..4737357i^^::^ Owim/CwrtncjMonilM:-----------------—— “^ .;• • . %.i • ■ -A V A*; * ' • *'\***4**^ ^ ••••'—♦>‘**^1*** •.•.VL\V •;■> T •.■.;■■ >“••;•“ 'V* ; •. • ■ '■;’ ‘ ■ •• ; •k:y •,-• ,> • • ••• ' •:• • V.....• '-C , • • • • •’. % ’• * i vV**'* 4,*. i C-Af KiV 3. TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Department DATE:May 14, 1996 SUBJECT: #2133 John and Karla Spooner, 1385 Orono Lane - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA Lot area = 50.840 s.f. or 1.2 acres Application: Applicants seek approval of lakeshore setback and hardcover variances within the 0- 75' setback area that would allow removal of an existing deck at the lake side of residence. The deck shall be replaced with a granite grade level patio. A 4'x6’ cement p>ad is also proposed at the base of the access stair located at the southeast comer of the residence. The improvements will result in reductions in hardcover within the 0-75' setback area and improve the lakeshore setback. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review; Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) - Review of stmctural coverage. Total area = 50,840 s.f. Allowed = 7,626 s.f. or 15% Existing = 3,554 s.f. or 6.9% Proposed = 3,265 s.f. or 6.4% No variance required. Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) - Lakeshore setback. Required = 75' Existing deck = 26' Proposed grade level patio = 40' Variance = 35' or 46.6% (existing = 49' or 65.3%) Setback reduction of 14' or 18.6% Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Hardcover variance within 0-75* setback area. 0-75' setback area = 24,300 s.f Allowed = 0 Existing = 4,140 s.f or 17.04% Proposed = 3,851 s.f. or 15.8% Hardcover decrease = 298 s.f or 1.2% 1 Zoning File #2133 May 14,1996 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicants’ Addendum/Hardship Statement C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List E - Topographic Map r - Existing Surv ey G. ? - Hardcover Inventory H rloor Plan I - Applicants' Site Plan J - To-Scale Survey of Existing Improvements K - To-Scale Site Plan Proposed Improvements Review of Application Applicants propose the removal of the lake side deck totalling approximately 650 s.f. in addition to the removal of 37 s.f. of brick steps located at lake side door coimecting to deck. Refer to Exhibits J and K, at the base of the stair case at the southeast comer of the residence, applicants propose to install a 6'x4' cement pad for use of an outside grill. Total improvements will result in a reduction of 289 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75' setback area. The proposed grade level patio will be located some 40' from the shoreline (Qrdinary High Water Level at 929.4). The existing wooden deck is located 26’. Applicants have also advised that they plan to install access stairs to their lakeshore yard in the east side yard. Such structures are subject to the standards set forth in the Shoreland Regulations (Section 10.56, Subd. 16(Fl-7). Applicants’ contractor must apply for a separate building permit for the access stairs. Review Exhibit E, the topographic map of the property, the banks are steep but based on code standards they are not part of a bluff. No land alterations or structures will impact the steep slope areas. The topographic survey confirms that the level area where deck and patio are proposed is approximately 10 ’ above the OHWL of the lake. The existing deck has been installed at the top of the steep bank. The seating around the edge creates safety concerns, at least for this staff member. Refer to Exhibit B, applicants advise the existing deck is in need of repair. Hardship Statement Please review Exhibit B, applicants’ hardships are reviewed as follows: A. 70 year old house built before current standards for lakeshore development. B. Present deck is unsafe and in need of repair. Zoning File #2133 May 14, 1996 Page 3 C. Proposed improvements will result in reduced hardcover and improve lakeshore setback for accessor>’ structure. D. Minimal space sought for use of outdoor cooker grill to be located 50' from shoreline. E.Approximately half of the area of the 1.2 acre property is located in the 0-75’ setback area. F. Property is surrounded by lakeshore on both the south and east sides. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. Applicants propose reduction of 289 s.f. of existing ha ’^dcover improvements. Should additional hardcover improvements within the 0-75' setback area be removed or reduced in area. There is 20.1% hardcover improvements within the 75-250' setback area should additional hardcover improvements be removed or reduced to offset excesses in 0-75' setback area. 3. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Options of Action To approve as proposed or amended. Any recommendation of approval must include the condition that the applicants provide appropriate erosion control at the lake side of the residence prior to the removal of the deck and that erosion control shall remain in place until entire disturbed area is restored to natural ground cover. Applicants are further advised that a building permit is required for construction of access stairs to lake, the following standards shall apply: 1.Stairs not exceed 4' width. 2. Required landings not to exceed 32 s.f area. 3. Canopies or roofs not allowed. 4. Stairs to be located in most visually inconspicuous portion of shoreline. Application # Date Received '^/a s/T(j’ Amount Paid -,’;7r: c'V CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Rene\\'al Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) ^ V'^ariance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) '± C% ,» * . f .•»> PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress Orov\r> LcLrvg ■ , \AA.v\ STS3^1 Property Identification Number (T.I.D.) Q2 - 11*^ ’2.“^' 3A • ^_________ A V Attac h legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired lAA<^ii . IS^S" ________________________ I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ___pother (specify)__________ Zoning District: 1 &________________-__________________ Xmonth/year) APPLICANT Name ^ Ko^rVcx- Address: 1*5^ S' C>re>v\& Lo.^^ Phone (home) ^0 A - ^ \ ^ _____ Phone (work) City: LCajL^gQ.Vtx Zip: -SS5^\ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ (r.COO Describe request in detail: _______________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width Hardc''ver Lot Coverage i/ Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: S&e, ci.bkxcUi»-4___________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1\ 'i ■ L REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150 ’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Surv'ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVi” x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SVi" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNA The owner hereby-'^lmowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant mustsubmitt^s into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Me^ng. Plamiing Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 f:. b John & Karla Spooner 1385 Orono Lane Wayzata, MN 55391 T'': jj 4. f I <« • ». • CITY OF ORONO VARIANCE APPLICATION Description of Request: Remove existing deck and build a granite 15 x 26 foot patio (inclusive of one 18" stair leading to lake and one stair leading east and west that is 1' x T). Add a concrete pad, 4' x 6 ’, by the south eastern door to facilitate barbecuing. The existing deck is 650 S F. and the proposed patio and pad would be 398 S.F. HARDSHIP/DESCRlPnON OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY' CONDITIONS: The house is 70 years old and was built well within 75' of the lake. The present deck is in need of repair. We would be satisfied with a much smaller patio to reduce hard cover. We would also like a small work area for outdoor cooking by the east door, which is the only reasonable place to locate the grill. aA £t t -------r- 6"' >r ^ ' . • > .• f V -* ’• - . , - , ■\', ■■ OZ-II7-Z3 -3H (3r«»-</('i5 (5°-^ o RUN DATS OAAIl/M MTCH 5M NiMffPIN COLAfTV RRORCRTV INFORMATION SYSTCH PROPERTY (MCRS LIST OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR M 0t-117-tl S« OOOS OlSaS (MONO LA J P SPOONER A K • SPOONER JONN SPOONER A KARLA SPOONER ISOS ORONO U NAYZATA m 55S91 PROP Al ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 0A-1I7-ES 34 0011 OlStS SHORELINE OR TIMOTHY R 0U0O5 TlNOTIfY R OUOOS ISAS SHORELINE OR NAYZATA Ml S5S91 REPORT NO. P19SS401 PAGE AO SO 0A-117-AS 54 0004 01S07 ORONO U DOUGLAS C HOEN ET AL DOUGLAS A JUOITN HOEN 1S07 ORONO U NAYZATA Ml 55S91 SO 0A-117-AS 34 OOOS 01S09 ORONO LA H N SEE A G S SEE HENRY N A GAIL S SEE 1309 ORONO LA NAYZATA Ml S5S91 SO 0A-1I7-A3 34 0012 013S5 SHORELINE DR 0 A H JOHNSON DOUGLAS 0 JOHNSON S90I S E ST LOUIS 0LV9 040 STUART FL 34997 TOTAL OATCH SO* OOOOS I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXmON, TO THE OEST OF HV KNONLEOGE AND BELIEF. , . DATE 3PERTY TA)^ 4^ ■ ) • • •* A« ■ J -• .i • ' - /v ‘‘V 1 \- ' V: "r-- V f • ■■t rl Wattf 928.7 JOHN AND KARLA SPOONER Mimi-a. COUNTY, McmiMt rvlictiMM ffyoti. M tott ivt of • Otfr*. tM $&n •# OMOVNMNt Ut I, M ■ftrUlMi t, II?. tS. all OM«rlM M coMinii ft tOf •IfNfl. fftmin •MfT f? m I, If •• IfWt tff*s ttffff fMMOfMtfrlf flffl M flffttarlf Itff f# uti I. I. tff I If HMnf ff ipfff't Mt* • Oliff f ff it? fffti tl«ni tifUitif tf ttf Ifft ftt ftriii m fifftaa « oittffff fi 41.M #M to tOt iittfHf lloi ff m •ff* tf mm ff Iff f tffifHfit ttffff OfflfTtlff tf ttf rifM froa Iff ■tnOfflf llff •# mmm* « 9mm*% tffMt $mmmm m alfftfi • tltwacf •# li.M ffftrtiMM Mlfftltt •• uif rtfM ti otfftff It olfMf tf Iff fifp* •? ifif mffftfiifi tfffM mmtm%9 aat fMtfr|f •ifffl b wrnmm •? ifif Mtfftfiff tf ttt Iftfraaitlf ««ta iff tftffaiii of tOa NMt lift ar•ifffl iff aam a? tatf •itaataitf t# ttt ittaraaitlaa atta tta tataatiai af tta «Mt lift m latl la ^MOft aa taaM'a tar*} ttaaaa aartt ttaat tta aataaafaa aTtia Mat liaa ar lat t If ^taf ^ag^jyta^ alaay ^aja^lMia^^iat | aafSafat* !* atSa5*^s5i?j'iiJ*«ryss*is'irii?» (i^u'«s S ts **■'*“ "**** ***** mmm f»f MM sl^irsAr ( Cl fl\ .V ( i! tIMf Ifaatlaa . It iai fttMlff# If ft tfff r»tr j.x j -• •! w if •*. /■ ii.'. t'. * • ’ : * SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) JoMH f Ud)Ti r-y HARDCO VERX^CULATlOiN VVOKKbtllLt. i 's’ o/ *• /\)ux*\ ^(6^7^ 75-250* 75«500* • CAA-lAon* ^. . i500-1000' [Nn HARPCOyFH TN ZONE A. House ______________nsot S F. >) lia iu I B oat ^oo<,e B. Garage C. Driveway J.' I', 7?7T X X X Width 2.1 T?5^ S.F. S.F. S F X X ZlTo - ^ • cJ 4t/«r^A4f D. Sidewalk^ S . s.it- , .\. X X 3^ f. S.p^- ^*- S.F. f . •*••••,% E. Patio/Deck BtootSTiTAJ Z X X ^50- 37.S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric X X X ■q" •*, t) EV' S.F S.F S.F. G. Other 6<?wcttrrfc 4a 23 S.F K TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ^/4C S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ffy€u4S4AyC, C4*/f) K.3O0 T~ S.F. A ^i4o * B ZA.^OO X 100 - /7.04 % A B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE I *•a •• A. House S.F. Ltofth Width X X X «(•**•• S.F; __S.F. S.F. B. Garage C. Drivew^ S.F. • • •I •• X X r V S.Ir. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S>. I X • A •• ? • E.' Patio/Deck X X S.F. ^S.F. *. • F. Landscape Underiain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. I I«I I O. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ■_______ ♦ ® X 100 - ;FCT S.F. A S.F. B • « • • M • • «, • ♦ • • • t a • . .1 • * .**• • • • • • • • ;* ^ KAR lA . . hardcover CALCULAiiUifiM'VOKKi^^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 ’ ^S-2^ 25-500 ’ V ■ •• • • f A. - House X •- • • •Si • mm9 • • 1 Leagdi X' Width WM X • X m :*, B. Garage X •« • P C. Driveway X * w • i«• 1 *X ■i. V- W <• .D. Sidewalk X ♦ % flB If R m<t#h£ \muc X E. Patio/Dcck X • m • a • . •• ‘ • a X • ♦ . .%• ♦ # • . 9 F. landscape X • •1 Underlain X1•Bv Plastic.X • •r Or Fabric •• • • •• G. Other X •. • « • • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A SJ26 - B • m Z6,5o<P X 100 f PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE • • • •A. House X ’■■ “ Ltagih X Width . . • • 1 • ’m • •• *• • • • •X. 1 #• f • •• . •-x ■ # *B. Garaee X • aA • C. Driveway X • %. IK • •X . » 1 1 D. Sidewalk • X t # X E. Patio/Deck X IV • X •^ ... • • • • F I.aful<cape • X ♦ • t Underlain X « Bv Plastic X • • • Or Fabric X •• . • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in ZONE A ♦ B • X 100 • • .. ;• • ' 14 • $ • • • • . I4^£> • o* • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. J<oo S.F. S.F. .N If -S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. fc* i S.F.. S.F.. S.F,. • C*. 9 « .V r'■'ri ss S.F. S?26 S.F. 2€,SOO iT S.F. /o A B % ; S.F. S.F. 's.F. * s.f: S.F. *. i S.F. S.F. ..S.F: • . • S.F I I. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.P. % A B .*• ** • .1 • *. • • •• • i KAftlA hardcover CALCULATIOM VVOKK5 • . • • * • • SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)0.75t 75-250’ Q5=500^-SOO-IOOO’ • » EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE • !r A. House X _* ■t • * Leoffh X • -i. WidJh •• '« 1 •• • t fi •X _ • • •X ■i • i f*B. Gance X _ $ 1 • * p •.t • • C. Driveway X ^ • • * • *• ••• 22 r. • * •* • •• t •X « .I;-• D. Sidewalk • • X m •X m E. PaUo/Deck • X ... ^ •• . •X m 1 F. Landscape X . #!Underiain •X .i By Plastic.X m • «Or Fabric •• •• • • • ^ • t•» • • • • * a G. Otter X • A • 1 i TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - 2i TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •t •A 22.X 100 -_rr. c I PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE • *4 t A. House X ■i • 4 Ltagth X Widdi • • ••X ^ - .. * •• X ^# f • -• • a •B. Garace X ■B* • • •• f • •• C. Driveway ... • • • _ m • X •D. Sidewalk • • X » •• •• > • X * • t • E. Paiio/Deck • * X > •X K F. Landscaoe X m Underlain X • • By Plastic X K-• •Or Fabric ••• • 0. Other ---------------------• • • #m • • • « • • • • • 0 /rrs ' 5VA<5 84^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A •-- - ®X 100 « ••• • • • •• • . .1 • • I - F. r: .F. .F. • F. • - F. I .♦ F. .F..1 • F. . . • F.• , i •F. F. .F./ ■ K • .F. • ;.F. I* • • • % • • ' . • ..F. ;.F. fo A . B « • ;.F. «% • ;.F. ;.F. :.F.. •• •« •• f . . i ;.F. :.F. 1. . • - :.F. :.P. # • b % ;.F. ;.F.i ;.F. ;.F. i.F. • \ • - i 1 i • • j.p..'•• SF. S.F. %•• • A ' B • •• • • • • •• * • • t r*s 5' 3 ’ (Aototr ^ oeas •y rf\ N-* CM r •• .*. f rr-:-.'. *. ♦ f-L •; H/ %r: sj PcOvu^r V5&' 0~Kmo Lcma^ mnunzoJn . f,i/.. m /---o-^ -<! I r 0/ iy<£^S 4 »I / 3/T3 lIo ^ ^2^ 1^'* Vo 9r70Ci/y^^ -ixo<Jr JOHN AND KARLA SPOONER m lOTt 1 - 3. HOMES ON mowirs lAV NCNNCPIM COUNTY. MINNESOTA lAtm MifinctafiMci UtM. MKHrTIW 09 HttNISO: Utt I. I. I. ACcrvtiMt aim rAlittlANi ^ * sirj.i/u-’i i: s s K=:; Kp.‘rs:jrr8?*;u.?'sa^^ia« Uft !•• jAfTAW •• NlAAtNA A tfttAACA A# 41.M fAAt f 4SA SATt^ll I lAAA#JI»NA • StA* S tor* to tto AAlAt AT SAfUAlAft tSAACA SAYlACtlAA tA tM flfH fTAN ISA | 1^ A#%MrArStotoi*> SA»ni toZiAi U mtmgft • Af luji tto rIfAt II tofTAAt If NlAAtoA to tto ttorA #f Uto NlAtoto^l U aaaa toiNSAflf ana MAto^f ^ •’•A?' —-------------------- ,, lAtATtoAtlAN Alto AfeN AAtototAA #f Ato NAM IlNA A#]fM II AAtTAAA It ^Aj^ U^^toNAi AA tfANA * A lAf *; t>AAAl *to^ AtNAf INA NAtAAAlto Af la «HtoAt AA StAAA*A tof* AAA HArtA AlANA tlA tAtt llto A# La A t AA# M ArAAA*t tor*, to Ato torAtorlr IIaa ^ *toAii an toMAN*t to#*; AN tM torAtorlr 11 AA Af *«AMt AN IrAAA't tor* to ANA pAiNt Af NASitot AA A# tNA NAtA llAA Af 4AA t lAt AlANNAlAA. IN toANAA ___________ ,AAA AAAttoAftArlf ilANf . AAI a A Af NAtl< •: N aan Ia A irAA AArtor fAtot toArlAff toAAN art totAi a #an aa aiaana S 4a A an , Ato lAtoiATlAt Af ana AtoAA.totofifeto tg#y t It AT AAirilUNANU. f« MS Ato lAttAlAN Af coliix \ I\^ItovA nmK A m aa rum UM*my MmAI Cm I U«W N»wAn» irM , i J ./ Jj *0 OD 3 n o» 0 3 IM« Ck, t- 3 - » H tA n o n < 093 3 » VI VC :t * •— o |T9 3 0» I/I -A 3 -* 0.01 VI 3 V* n- a. I 3* » Ot -I ^ o» r»- IP I 3 •-» I lO T3 ►- t IP oi n 1 rt ■ r\> (»u> o O 3 I I/I 9 01f) *- o • •-0 3 < IP H Cl. IP -1 0 IP IP C VI 3 r> It n a o 3*9 IP • IP — 3 cr rf Qt VI IP 3 rt Q. r- o. • o T Op- rr rt •—V* 3 «< U> Op 0 • rtm O p» "o o a 3 oi 3 Ip .o. *1 10 3 rt n 9 rtp—O O 33 n -ti aio -f IP rt Z Of rt 3 0 IP 1 O ft ft 3 < 33 V* 9 ip-a O *1 9 .9 ^ Z 3 rt «< O Q.^ 1 CL •-It -1 3 IP VI 3 1C —tt It IP •- n 9 0 9 O rt It fP ti fcp* ft O • L*, :: TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator May 16.19% SUBJECT: #2134 Robert Albrecht 1810 Shady\%ood Road - Variance (After-the-Fact) - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre. Application: Request for after-the-fact hardcover variance for construction of new 207 s.f. deck on lake side of residence. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter from Neighbor E -1991 Survey F - Enlarged Survey with Sketch of New Deck G - Deck Plans by Applicant H - Submitted Hardcover Calculations 1 -1991 Hardcover Calculations J - Submitted Landscaping Plan K - Photos L - Resolution #2955 M - Selected Exhibits From Prior Variance Applications N - Topographic Map Pertinent Code Sections 1 . Section 10.22, Subd. 2/Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L) - 75-250' zone hardcover limited to 25%. Summary Applicant began constructing a deck addition to the lake side of his existing residence this spring without a building permit. The inspections department discovered this, stopped the work, and advised the property owner that a hardcover variance is required. The deck meets all setback requirements. Zoning File #2134 Mav 16, 1996 Page 2 The deck constitutes 207 s.f. of hardcover, of which 165 s.f. is new hardcover and 42 s.f. is over the pre-existing steps. Applicant also proposes sidewalk and landscaping revisions resulting in a net increase of 54 s.f. hardcover. Applicant proposes the removal of portions of the existing driveway, to result in a net 75-250 ’ hardcover decrease of 35 s.f Hardcover History In 1984 this property contained a small residence, and was owned in common with the (then vacant) lot to the north which contained a detached garage ser\ ing this house. The owner at that time, Mrs. Johnstone, was successful in gaining City approval to allow the two lots to be sold as two separate building sites. Resolution #1718-8 required that maximum hardcover allowed on the 1810 Shadywood property shall be 2,775 s.f, i.e. 25% of the 75-250' zone. A permit was issued in 1985 for additions to the residence subject to the use of "grass pavers" for the driveway, with a stated hardcover proposal of 19%, meeting the 25% limit. In 1991 it was found that the then owner. Steven Tibbets. had pave'^ the driveway with asphalt, and further had constructed decks on the property without the appropriate approvals. Tibbets ultimately was granted variance approval via Resolution #2955, which allowed hardcover on the property to increase to a le*.el of cpproximately 5,080 s.f For some reason, the area of the 75-250' zone was at diat time determined to be 13,500 s.f rather than the 11,100 s.f used in 1984, hence the hardcover level was approved at 5,080 s.f/13,500 s.f or 37.6%. Hardcover on the property currently includes the following items; (Area of Lot = 17,545 s.f based on 60.5' lot width x average depth 290' per 1991 survey) (Area of 0-75' zone = 6,445 s.f) (Area of 75-250' zone = 11,100 s.f) Hardcover Item 0-75* zone 75.250* zone Stairs at lake (3xl9)+(6xl3) Portion of house (19x19)/2 Remainder of house w/garage (49.7x22.4)+(8.5x 10.4)+(28.6.x22.1)-180 Entryway deck (7x22.1) Front steps and sidewalk (Nom.) Driveway (Nom.) Pre-existing rear deck and steps (12x12) Landscape area at front entr>' (Nom.) Landscape timbers around sandbox (0.5x72) 135 s.f 180 s.f 1653 s.f 155 s.f 124 s.f 2810 s.f 144 s.f 115 s.f 36 s.f Totals 315 s.f (4.9%) 5037 s.f (45.4%) 1 Zoning File #2134 May 16,19% Page 3 Total hardcover originally approved, 1984: 2775 s.f. Total hardcover approved, 1991: 5080 s.f. Total hardcover as of May 1996, e.xcluding proposed partially built deck: 5352 s.f Proposed deck, net hardcover: Proposed sidewalk/landscape revisions, net hardcover: Proposed driveway hardcover reduction: Net proposed hardcover changes: +165 s.f + 54 s.f - 254 s.f - 35 s,f Proposed Final Hardcover: 0-75': 315s.f(4.9%) 75-250': 5002 s.f (45.1%) Planning Commission may wish to review the 1991 approval resolution. It raises two specific important points: 1.In Finding No. 3(e), Planning Commission found that the e.xisting driveway (as it exists today) provides the necessary safety level for vehicular use on a busy County Road. For that reason. Planning Commission felt it was not appropriate or necessary to reduce the size of the driveway, '• '.lich reduction is currently proposed. 2.Condition No. 2 stated that "The City will approve no further encroachment of the principal structure (this includes decks) within the lakeshore yard." The meaning of this condition is unclear, however, the Planning Commission Minutes of April 15, 1991 suggest that no additional hardcover should be approved for the property, April 22, 1991 Council Minutes do not shed any more light on this. Lakeshore Stairway The 1991 staff memo noted that the lakeshore stairway was in disrepair and would have to meet current standards of maximum 4' width, ma.ximum 4 x4 landings. That stairway has since been rebuilt without a permit, at a width of 3' on the 19' long stairway portion with a 6'xl3' landing ^ong the shoreline. That stairway/landing system is teclinically not in compliance with code, comprising 135 s.f of hardcover where a compliant stairway would be approximately 90-100 s.f in area. Average Lakeshore Setback After further review (see topographic map. Exhibit N) it has been determined that the proposed deck will not encroach on the average lakeshore setback as defined by the neighboring adjacent residences. ,T t.fr , T — Zoning File 134 May 16,1996 Page 4 Issues for Consideration 1. 3. 4. 5. Given the ever increasing hardcover on this property, which now comprises more than 30% of the entire lot area (compared to the DNR’s 25% standard) what is the justification for allowing additional hardcover near the 75’ setback line in exchange for reductions in the driveway far from the lakeshore? Does the 1991 Planning Commission comment that the driveway is appropriate "as is" suggest that its partial removal is not a reasonable trade-off today? Is there a hardship that justifies the proposed hardcover trade-olTs? Is the non-compliant lakeshore stairw ay and landing so far out of compliance that it should be rebuilt, or should applicant merely be required to obtain an after-the-fact permit for it, leaving it as is? Since applicant did not pay an after-the-fact variance application fee is there any reason he should not be required to pay that fee? If the variance request is denied, should the after-the- fact variance fee be required? Staff Recommendation In order to recommend approval of this variance request. Planning Commission must be convinced that a hardship exists, and that the proposed trade-offs, or additional required trade-offs, will justify granting of the variances. The history of this property’ clearly suggests that it currently contains extreme excesses of hardcover, virtually all of which have been created in after-the-fact circumstances. If Planning Commission recommends approval, staff would recommend the payment of the after-the- fact variance fee, and whether or not the deck variance is approved, applicant should be required to obtain an after-the-fact permit for the lakeshore stairw'ay system. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval of after-the-fact variances, payment of after-the-fact variance and permit fees. 2. Recommend approval as above, with specific additional conditions (addressing deck as well as lake stairway). 3. Table for further information/further discussion. iL. Zoning File #2134 May 16. 1996 Page 5 4. Recommend denial, giving specific reasons, and address after-the-fact permit for the lakeshore stairway. 5.Other. Application #XI34 Date Received V- ■ y Amount Paid ^ 2 'Ji ^ ^ CITY OF ORONO - VAgUfiiCiLAPPLICATION F<c""^20.0 A Initial Application $220.00 ^ (S50.00 per each additional variance) s jj r a Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ^ • •’ (no change from original application) ‘ • Variance for non-conforming structures $320100 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) { . • • • *i' • . 1 PROPERTY INFORMATION xn. ^ ka J .SiteAddress l5^|0 5»ftn1Uf.V)D f Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) I V\ * —OOdZLrropeay luciuiu^iiLivii v*----------■ ■ ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propertv Acquired N\AS ^ ----------------------------------- I (do) ^ nS) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present usT^property: X residential ___^other (specify)----------^ 7r>ningDistrict: IC--------------—------------------ (month/year) TK Phone (home) 4- 4'bc^V\-V ------ Phone(work ) AHHrPss- i9.\ry SWK^'^NOOll SlL_ City:. ^--------Zip..5^5all OWNER (if different than applicant) ^ PJjone (hotne) Name -T^g^ AthP.cctv4_ Phone (work) F.0 City^li^R^--------------Zip:j£S3i DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constiuc^n Cost $------^QQQ Describe request in detail: A. pnftfiOV (IftiVe.VdA^ A&Ld gr»AQ rUrX-------------------;-------------------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Setback: ___Lot Width Front ___Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) compliance with Zoning Code requirements. X bAr.tc 4-Vvg VvAa.i*( v^-AUv .^4- 4wn c.Jin.<k ^ v^C. An rf_ (attach additional sheets if necessary)(ariacn aaLiiiiuiiai u. (o ftdoGi (\AP>\covjiA. Aco>/vv)Aii. dscf; REQUIRED SUBMITTALS j. All of the following information must be submitted bv the appUcatiQQ dcadUot date in order for vour applicarion to be consi dered compUtgi 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Ow-ners 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). 1 1 Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) ana include' hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 ‘/j" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. __^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 ‘/j" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicart and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vfijiE variance application is not complete if the ab ove information has not been included* APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Applicant’s Signature Date ^ OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of jpjt^stigation and verifk^n of this request. Owner’s Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, ple^e make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 iUk DATE 04/1&/96BATCH 501 PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 36 17-117-23 21 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGTCO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO MARSHLAND PROTECTION/ALSO*LA 7/27/73 ST DEED m567 STORM NTR PONOINGAFILTRATION HEM4EPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMNERS LIST36 17-117-23 21 0006 01795 SHAOYHOOD RD LAD PILGRAM LEROY A DELPHIE PILGRAH BOX 61 NAVARRE MN 55392 REPORT NO. PI93540X PAGE 136 17-117-23 21 0029 01780 SHAOYNOOO RO GLENOINE ANN HARRIS GLENDINE ANN HARRIS 1760 SHAOYNOOO ROAD NAY2ATA MN 55591 PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 36 17-117-23 21 0025 01790 SHAOYHOOD RO DONALD J URBAN DONALD J URBAN 1790 SHADYHOOO RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 29 0001 01625 SHAOYNOOO RD DIANE LEE RUUD DIANE LEE RUUD 1625 SHADYHOOO RO HAYZATA MN 55391 36 17-117-23 21 0026 01800 SHAOYHOOD RO DOUGLAS R SEABOLT DOUGLAS R SEABOLT 1600 SHAOYHOOD RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 29 0006 01835 SHAOYNOOO RD S H A K M HUTTON SCOTT H HUTTON 1635 SHAOYHOOD RD HAYZATA MN 55391 58 17-117-23 21 0027 01810 SHADYHOOO RO RODERT C ALBRECHT ROBERT C ALBRECHT 1810 SHADYHOOO RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 29 0007 01855 SHADYHOOO RO MARLYS L FRANKLIN MARK J KOSEK I GINA M FINK 1855 SHADYHOOO RO HAYZATA MN 55391 c .X .»v. /; • ' ■’I t - ■> •• ••} PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 36 17-117-23 29 0015 01620 SHADYHOOO RO B A SKJERPIN6 A L S CAIN B A SKJERPIN6 t L S CAIN 1620 SHADYHOOO RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 29 0016 01890 SHADYHOOO RD JOHN J BURKE ETAL JOHN J BURKE 1890 SHAOYHOOD ROAD HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 501 OCOll I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOhLEDGE AND BELIEF. : • • y a DATE Jl - % .r?-r\. t "A -2.<^>-^-t Ke^ aJUr«oL-cVX^ \'?,oa P r ^r C>—r^ro-C^— iMj-—^0>.‘>r'-<i^ ck«>—c3?*~ ^-S-e*. ^iJLe------- **^—S.-^0_ O >i Xi ■-\n \ o^io Douglas R. Seabolt 1800 Shadywood Rd. Orono, MN 55391 ! i Ul > S j£SLYsr Jz'dSt' t.' ":;: *51 ;vtwtoci4 •f 1 1 Awaef# • m f 3fm 1 W O 1 K iti 1 w§ 9 t • m 1A <1■9 1 LhKigaIM 1 HATvDrO'.^R CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZOM:: (CIRCLE 0>E) 0-75’ fytsttng in zone A. House _____________— Len^ 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 G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE __________ PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other 75-250’25-500’ 13 StDcfL Width TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA LN ZONE ^ * A l ^ B AS/2^X 100 e^. H-< 500-1000’ S.F.y S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.y s.F.y S.F. s.F.y S.F. ^55. iHid S.F. / S.F. ✓ U5.S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2Sl S.F. S.F. % A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ‘ S.F. 23:1 S.F. S.F. \ss aM S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B 1 I -lCNVU3/v\ Ar4V J 3Nrai:0H3 kk A «Q IVAOvCIii 33:;^;f^J*2Q3«Q "OKnCW^ iHOtid 2- JCliVAVOXB S n"o ]^'fn°9 3 y SONylS^ "9 9pOHS3>nn • •t C MLc*^**^ 4 =^fc -'"'^ub ‘SW./aVfc^ f^ffUCAfKiTS l9^C^ \j/^t>ce>\J^fZ ^eiMiTTAL- HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORra . SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 1 75-25^ 250-500' 500-1QC0' ^_J^isTiNG H ardcover in Zone A. House S.F. LENGTH WIDTH rr: t\hciba.d^ /,7/Z I 'JO B. Garage . X S.F. S.P. ,F. '3 *< '-K . Driveway W x H S.F. S.F. S.F. 0. Sidewalk 5"I2.H E. Patio/ Deck It . X [ox. F. Landscape areas underlain BY PLASTIC SHEETING / l^. '3. X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. ^iS.s >a^ S.F. S.F. CO W J S.F. 6. Other Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone _ S.F. ..F. JJ2,, S ec S.F.B ^ 4fTl 100 - '% 13, K 2- v/et-.’S cr sibc nf-cTK i<^ ' PE- ? • k ^ ^ <1 i f5 r-^.-- tSt,ss:gnii^ KaEa.-^st-.'. -- ml.Tr:-7 w. L / o. o V // i i 1^ , ^ v*> at-r !' '• CITYof ORONO ;:•> iV. -, A//RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2955 A RES0LUTI08 GRABTIHG apter-the-fact variamcbs to municipal XOMIIIG CODE SBCTIOH 10.22, SDBDIVISIOH 2 SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6(B> FILE *1636 WBERUS. Steve Tibbetts (hereinafter the owner of the property located at 1810 Shadywood Road within the City STorono (hereinafter -City-) and legally described as follows: Lot 22, Shadywood, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to flo peLl? improvements to the property that result « hardcover within the_ 75-250' setback area at 1,684 s f or 12.4%the Vo-zhU culczo ^ i *2 ^ 1 e; e ^ r>r- is el lowed end e side setbeck verxence peironly 3,375 s.f. 1°*" ”uld allow a deck 3- 1" from theSection 10.25, Subdivision . ^ side lot line instead of the required 10 Minnesota: HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1636. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore R^sidentia/zoning District s.f- °r 1/2 acre in area. The property consists of approximately 18,000 s.f. 3. The Orono Planning Commission «viewed this »PP “”^gff,°" tfrianct; «^r%^s%%=°b::er^upr^thrioflowing findings and hardship: a) This property was granted lot area and o\\^i»^=a^U^L-':rre^“g^^n"teV of Resolution 11718-B specifically noted that all i-Jrofex-cVe^d f^^«SV-T5"o^%e\''bick^‘'z%Ve. * Page 1 of 5 CITY of ORONO ■^f4 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2955NO. Building permit #5678 was issuea on uu±y 12, 1985 for remodeling and an addition to the existing residence. The permit w-s issued on the basis that "grass pavers" or mono slabs were to be installed for driveway use at total 19% hardcover (635 s.f. for hardcover of "grass pavers"). c) Since the issuance of the building permit and upon completion of the remodeling and addition, a paved driveway was installed resulting in 2,809.95 s.f. of hardcover. d) The applicant claims that the "grass paver" proposed by applicants in seeking approval of lot area and lot width vairiaincc dir6 not suitabl© foz Minn©sot€i*s s©v6r6 cliinatic extremes and will suffer frost heave and plow disturbance. Failure of such a system would potentially cause damage to applicant's vehicles. In addition, the permeability of the "grass pavers" has not been demonstrated under continuous usage conditions. In 1986 the property to the north was approved at 35% hardcover to allow a paved drive in place of the "grass pavers". e) The Planning Commission finds that existing drive provides the necessary safety level for vehicular use on a busy county road. f) The request of 75-250* hardcover of 37.4% is not exceptional but is similar to many other properties along Shadywood Road. g) Resolution #1718-B states as follows: "Any extension westerly of the north wall of the existing house must meet the 10' side yard setback. The deck structure does not involve the extension of th*^ north wall of the existing residence. h) In 1986 the grade level deck would have been allowed as close as 2' from the side lot line. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that grpting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is Page 2 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2955___________ _ _ _ substantial property right of the ^ • e . ^ J __ a __ __ X £7necessary to preserve a ------------------ ------ ^ ^ ^ - applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Contprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare o community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council herebv grants after-the-fact variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 approving total hardcover 75-250' setback area at 37.4% where only 25% is allowed e»4-KAf'ic variance of 6' 9" or 69% were 10' setback is required for a grade l^evel deck with railing, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant/owner to obtain and street side deck. Such permit shall be subject to a penalty fee. yard. Ap|licant/owner shall obtain a Permit to construct^a stair structure that meets current City standards ( P and 4' x 4' landings). 4. Authorities granted by this variance run not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must oe exercised by application for a building permit «i‘hin one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will exp that date (April 22, 1992). Page 3 of 5 _ i O O A ' J * •I • 1 c S’ CITYof ORON ^/7 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. -955_________ _____eolation of or non-compliance witn ahy of T.he terms conditions of this .ai-iance shall constitute a violation of and the needzoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority gra herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 22nd day of April, 1991. Property Owner(s STATE OF MIh'Ni.SOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of April, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallinr Mavor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. HENNEPIN COUNTY My commi*«ion axpifM M-92 Page 4 of 5 % I bir«ty ctriif> tr.n U.li 6 iroc c-rrtc*. rtfnscot4»i^u * a»nc> UU ^ a£d Um 1 o: «U St^jui^Lf u^rtjc purport to 0000 0U.tr U.vryA^.'iOi.ta or t&erooero^or.tOt w.* ^r.>. dwuMtrict of It ooct r<op ‘J***’- •• • .•:*f •- Ci?- . ; •»««kr .t*. .—'JiUiwr ooBXi «. cornu cu., me. Soolti OoU I 1 lock • be foov^' JUM 1?, iMO oantr i- r.i. o 8 T- oma Ntf. flaiu I. OroQbtrg Mg. ko« 1?7^*5 iagintoro and Land Surwyoii ^nr_? Tjuto. ORONO PLANNING CO:iMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (#6)ZONING FILE #1635-0'SDLLIVAN & ERWIN SMITH CONTINUED times a year. The other trees will remain." Mabusth added that the City Engineer has recommended removal or the Cottonwood trees because of the new construction. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Cohen,^ to recommend approval of the side setback Variance anc Commercia- Sj.te ?*an as presented, subject to Staff recommendations #1, #3, #4, and ?5. All vnf*^^—ayet Motion carrj nd- - - -- —- (#7)ZONING FILE #1636-STEVE TIBBETTS 1810 SHAOYNOOO ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES-PUBLIC HEARING Steve Tibbetts was present. At 7:26 p.m., Kelley opened the P-blic Hearing. Mabusth outlined the issues noted in her April 15, 1991 memo relative to Mr. Tibbetts' application. Johnson asked Mabusth what the total hardcover is for the entire lot. Mabusth stated that the coverage for the entire lot is approximately 28%. The Planninc Commission, as a whole, agreed that there were really no other forms of hardcover on the property that could be removed. They agreed that the back-up area of the drive should remain to provide turn-around space and eliminate the need to back onto Shadywood Road. Johnson noted that ta n of the runoff from the property down the driveway o.ito Shadywoocl Road, rather than toward the lake. Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 7:36 p.m. He stated that he was a Planning Commission member in 1985 when the application involving the porous pavers was reviewed. He said, "The Planning Commission was skeptical that the pavers would work, and they have not." It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to recommend approval of t.he af ter-tho-f act lakeshore hardcover, and side setback Variances. It is recommended that the resolution of ^ppj^Qval, if adopted by Council, include language restricting any additional hardcover on this property. All voted aye. Motion carried. - 9 - 1 ©VI, VM-Z I ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 22, 1991 ew (#5)ZONING FILE #1634-MAUS CONTINUED adjacent residential structures, a:i a'^erage lakeshore setback Variance must also be addressed. Bernhardson noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this application. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2954, granting a side setback and average lakeshore setback Variance to construct an additiv')n to the existing residence of James and Joan Maus, located at 3,00 Bciyside Road. 11 ave. Motion passed. _ _ _ ___ _— (#6)ZONING FILE #1636-STEVEN TIBBETTS 1810 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE-RESOLUTION #2955 Steven Tibbetts was present. Bernhardson provided a brief summary of the hardcover statistics for Mr. Tibbetts' property, as outlined in Jeanne Mabusth's April 11, 1991, memo. Ha noted that the Planning Commission had recommended approval. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Butler, to adopt Resolution #2955, granting after-tho-fact hardcover and side setback Variances f jr the c«>nstruction of an addition to the principal structure of Steven Tibbetts, located at 1810 Shadywood Road. All voted aye- Mc-tion passed. attorney, Robert (#7)ZONING FILE #1637-SPRING HILL LAND COMPANY 725 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-RESOLUTION #2956 Jud Dayton was present, a*- w-.s his Mitchell. Bernhardson reviewed t!ie insues pertaining to this application as set forth in Jeanne Mabusth's memo dated April <.2, 1991, and her additional April 19, 1991 comments based on the Planning Commission's review. He stated that a question had arisen at the Public Hearing regarding whether or not the "for- profit" company would be able to operate and lease out other conference soace. The initial opinion was that would not be allowed. How'ever, either the Church or the Freshwater Biological Foundation would be able to do so. Bernhardson advised that Staff also learned that as long as the property is owned by a "for-profit" company, it will remain on the tax rolls, even thouch tine property will be leased to non-profit organizations. Bernhardson anked Mcbusth to clarify the issue of legal combination of the parcels involved with the Conference Center. Mabusth confirmed that the applicant has agreed to legally combine the parcels on which the Conference is located. She noted that an amended letter has been received from the applicant’s attorney setting forth the revisions deemed necessary - 8 - • I Omtmt •abj#ctt Mayor Peterson ft Crono Council Members Planning Coeeiission Chairmen Kelley Orono Planning Coasiission Msmbers City Administrator BernhardsonJeanne A. Mabusth, Building ft toning Administrator April 11, 1991 •1€3€ Steve Tibbetts, 1910 Shadywood Road - After-the-fact Variances - Public Hearing 7 Fertimemt Ordinances - Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - After-the-fact lakeshore hardcover variances. 6-75* Setback Area ■ 4,500 s.f. Allowed ■ 0% Existing - 178 s.f. or 3.951 Approved in Resolution 81718-B (Exhibit D) 75-250* Setback Area - 13,500 s.f. (recently confirmed by surveyor) Total Lot Area ■ 18,000 s.f. (Exhibit H) Allowed - 3,375 s.f. or 25% Approved with Building Permit 7/12/85 - 2,109 s.f. or 19% (existing house 534 s.f., addn 940 s.f., porous block drive 635 s.f., no sidewalks or decks, second floor deck, 49 s.f. not included in hardcover inventory - see Exhibit H) Existing Per Recent Survey « 4,901.55 s.f. or 36.3% Existing Per Staff Inspec. ■ 5,059 s.f. or 37.4%* House Drive • Sidewalk - Street Side Deck Lakside Deck • 1,711 s.f. 2,809.85 124 154.7 102 Lower Level (second floor deck located above not included) Landscape Area ■ 115.5 w/Plastic Lakeside Deck Stairs “ 42 (3.5x12.5) Section 10.25 - Side setback variance required for street side deck. Existing ■ 3*1** (approved per Resolution •1'^18-B) Proposed - 3*1* Variance • 6.9* or 69% Zoning File 91636 April 11, 1991 Page 2 of 5List of ExhibitsExhibitExhibitExhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit ABC D1 Er G R 1 J K1 L M N O - Application- Property Owners List- Plat Map -3 - Resolution 91718-B, Approved 1/14/85 - Permit 95678, Issued 7/12/85 - Hardcover Fact Sheet Subsiitted w/Building Permit - Survey Submitted w/Building Permit - Surveyor's Letter of 3/14/91 - Hardcover Pact Sheet - Hardcover Site Plan -2 - Floor Plan/Elevation - Street Side Deck - Floor Plan - Lakeside Area - Staff Site Plan - Elevation 2nd Floor Lakeside Deck - Resolution 91908, Approved 1/86 Review of Applicatian - Although a building permit was issued in 1985 for the proposed addition to the existing residence on the property, applicant has only recently applied for a certificate of occupancy. In the process of making the final Inspection, the Building staff noted variations from the approvals granted for the development of this property in Resolution 91718-B (Exhibit D1 through D3). The applicant was advised that he had obvious hardcover problems and that applicant had constructed a deck along the north side of the lot line where the above referenced resoluton would have prohibited expansion. It was staff's understanding that all new construction at that portion of the property would have to meet the required 10* setback. The applicant claimed to be confuased because it was his understanding that he was only at 19% and the property was approved for 25%. Please review Exhibit F, the hardcover fact sheet that was submitted with the building permit. The 1985 building permit covered a 2-story 22'x49* addition to the south side of the structure that included an 8*i*x6* second floor deck. The permit was issued based on the use of porous blocks for the driveway. Review Exhibit N, note the building permit did Include the second floor lakeside deck. Review Exhibits K1 through 2 and L. the lakeside deck at 102 s.f. and the street side deck at 154.7 s.f. were not shown on the building plans. Me ^ e also that the floor plans in the dinette area showed windows and not doors. Doors were also not shown within the existing living room area. The lakeshore deck does not encroach the 75* setback line nor an average lakeshore setback line (Exhibit M). The structure would not have required a hardcover variance at the time of the issuance of a building permit even if they were included because the driveway was to be at a 635 s.f. hardcover. I April 11, 1991 Fagp 3 of 5Roviow Exhibits D snd 0, in 1985 tho City granted lot ires SAd lot width variances to this property and the property the isMdiate north. The purpose was to allow the otmer to sell the lot to the north for residential developwent. Development was to be based on specific guidelines set forth In the approval resolutions. Development of the subject property was spelled out in Eesolotion 1718-B (Exhibit D). In 1988, a year after the orifiaal variance approval, the City granted hardcover variances to the lot to the north because the current owner then claieed practical hardships with being required to install a driveway with the porous block. In order to allow a driveway with an appropriate backout apron, the property was approved at 35% hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. Review the findings and hardships noted in that resolution. The applicant has asked the sane consideration as porous blocks are not practical in this clieate and create even wore problena for hoeieowners in the naintenance and upkeep. The paved drive at 2,809.85 s.f. results in 20.8% of hardcover within the 75-250* setback area. Zaonoa for Conaidoratloo - !• The side setback variance for the street side deck locatW* 3.1* tr^ nortlt "side Tot line. Resolution 91718-B states as followsi •Any extension westerly of the north wall of the existing house oust neet the 10* side yard setback." The deck does not result in the extension of the wall of the foundation of the principal structure. Ifhat was the intent of this condition? In 1985 a grade-level deck would have been allowed 2* from a aide lot line. Staff no longer considers decks with railings as non-encroachsienta but as part of the principal structure required to meet all setbacks of the principal structure. The deck would now have to meet a 10* setback. The deck was constructed some time in 1985-86. Applicant contends that based on the location of the current entrance and entrance to the addition on the south side, that the connecting deck made functional sense and a positive aesthetic benefit to the structure. Zoning Pile il83€ April 11, 1991 Page 4 of 52.Excessive hardcover within the 72-250* setback area.The existing paved drive brings the property up to 37.4% hardcover. Review staff*s sketch (Exhibit M). Staff has sketched in areas of drive that could be removeu ^nd still function resulting in a reduction of 800 s.f. >r 4.4% hardcover. Note alto that there is a landscape area under lain with plastic at 115.5 s.f. or .85%. Can f he same findings be made for the current hardcover /ariancs application as was made in the variance applicat'on of 1988 (review Exhibit 0)7 Please be prepared to respond to this issue. 3* Issue of deck constructed without buiIding permit authority, in 1985/86 deck wouidi have been approved at i.V setback. Would such action have been in conflict with intent of Resolution #1718-B? The decks would not have created hardcover excesses because porous blocks were to be used for drive (hardcover was at 19%). Both decks would not have required other setback variance. Optiona of Action - Denial. Please refer to the necessary findings section in your toning code; or Approval as proposed and require applicant to obtain necessary building permits to cover lakeside and street-side decks. Building permit to include penalty fee. Conditional approval of application as proposed subject to applicant obtaining building permit for lakeside and street side decks, to include penalty fee, and the granting of a hardcover variance of __ _% and a setback variance of _ _' or _ _ _% for street deck based on one or more of the following; 1. Approval or disapproval of lakeside deck as built* 2. Approval of street-side deck; A. at current locationi or B. to be aIterated to meet 10* setbacki C. other. 3. Excessive hardcover at 37.4%* toning Pilo IliSf April 11, Iffl Pag« 5 of 5In roviov of Rotolotion lltot, is ths granting of m hardco¥or variance appropriate? If so, at what percentage? * northom property approved at 35% or as resiovals shown on staff sketch (Exhibit N) would result in reduction of 715.S s.f. or 5.3% or other* There is an access stair/deck structure at the lakeshore bank that is in a serious state of disrepair. The final resolution must advise applicart or future owner that atruitural repair will not be allowed and new access structure shall be built to approved standards (4* step width and 4*x4* landings). toning Pile il€3i April 17, 1991 Page €Additional nts and Planning Coamission Eeo sewndation The Planning Conaiission reviewed the original 1915 lot area and width variance granted the subject property and the property to the isuaediate north. Henbers also noted the 35% hardcover variance granted the year after to the northern lot. Hardcover in a recent review involving the northern property showed hardcover at a 40'*^%. Members felt the landscape area to be minuscule in relation to overall hardcover (115.5 s.f. or .9%) and that driveway in its present configuration was needed to provide safe access from the site. The Planning Commission recommended against any further removal of existing hardcover improvements and approved hardcover at the current 37.4%. The lalceside deck and street side deck were approved as constructed. Members found both decks not overly ambitious but wanted to create a special notice in a final resolution advisina a future owner that no further encroachment of the lakeshore yard will be approved. In consideration of the street side deck. Resolution 11917-i did discuss that the extension of a foundation wall would not be allowed. The street aide deck did not require the extension of the foundation wall. Members approved the side setback variance and noted the original 20* setback between structures was satisfied (condition of 1985 variance). There was additional discussion regarding the existing access stair/deck structure. Puture owner should be advised or the unsafe condition and that existing structure would not be allowed to be improved and that new access stair must meet current standards of the City. Of the options set forth above, the applicant chose to approve the variance application as proposed. The enclosed resolution haa been draft per the findings and conditions noted above. I i CIT V Of ORONO City of ORONORESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNat MO. 1T18.B ___ CRAItTIIIG h VARIAHOS TC MDRICIPAL ZOHIfiG CODE SECTlOtl 10.2S* SOEDIVISIOR 6 (B) PILE 1874 WHEREAS, Mrs. Donald Johnstone and Duane Barth (hereafter "the applicants”) have an interest in the property located at 1810 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City ”) and legally described as follows: Lot 22, Shadywood (hereafter "property ”), and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow a aide setbac)c of 3.1 feet for an existing house where a 10 foot side setback is required. HOW TBERBPORB BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 1. 874. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as part of zoning file no. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The property is 17,200 square feet in area, has a lot width of 60 feet, and contains an existing house. 4. The existing house is located 3.1 feet from the north side property line and 57 feet from the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. 5. This house and the proposed house expansion and improvements to the property can meet the hardcover requirements in the 75-250 foot lakeshore setback zone. 6. Because of the required 75 foot setback, the building proposed for the adjacent Lot 21 will maintain at least a 20 foot separation distance between the existing house on Lot 22 and the proposed house on Lot 21. page 1 of 3 I CITY , I Of ■ orono city of OROISORESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL Na ins-B 7. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the aplicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 8. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow a side setback of 3.1 feet for the existing house at 1810 Shady%K>od Road where a 10 foot setback is rrninj:niii siilijarf ** ^ ^ 1. Maximum hardcover allowed on the property shall be 2,775 square feet. ___________ ___ 2. All future improvements to the property shall meetthe current performance standards of the LR-IC Zoning District. In addition, any extension westerly of the north wall of the existing house must meet the 10 foot side yard setback requirement. 3. Applicant shall obtain a Hennepin County driveway access permit prior to construction of a new driveway to serve this property. 4. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance w*ll *plre on that date (January 14, 1986), page 2 of 3 CITY OF ORONO city of OROIVO RUOLUTIOW OF TMi CITY COUNCIL mi 1718-B _ 5« Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the soning code# shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdesieanor. €. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council on this 14th day of January, 198S« (i) Propefty Own^ page 3 of 3 STATE CF MIHNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this 2-^_______ before me a Notary Publ appeared _ day of lAC within ami for said c f rcrsL^L— bed in and who 1985 the person(s) ^^s^ribed in an instrument, and acknowledged that he his (their) free act and deed. county, personally ______ known to me to be executed the foregoing (they) executed the same as MiCHAcL P GAF.-RC:J mot AAV AUALIC • MNMNf SOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY amm. itff hotaby public /Y Ja-W // /9fr> MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 1985, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared _________________________________________ known to me to be the person(a) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the tame as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES \ \ ■‘iriv,-"r-'-v;;>.* % %.w* '•« %u ,‘‘.- .;'4/ * ..(^. M-L-»• “■/ - "•'V ;:J ^ 1-^ (V ' y I^BHfcfer^sr:rirf![^"?r*t All of tho not* ordinoaeo and will oloo Boot . ■ > la tho 75 to 230 foot sono whioh.i^*^^*®"^y;^^»tioobd.«t yow loot boo ting. Thooo two . ;v '•• v; '.tK-: -s ** .'•• ,yr •* • ^ . • < • %» »^ -. t- • ■ ;. I • < ^ r 4 • «N • BftMMImmA \mt4^A4»^' % *.-• . % fod dowotlvo.pdrouo- block drlvovoy 428 of X 35X 15.000 of 9.120 if 1*839 of 235.4 of f* % * 4 At ft', • • ^ - .v>^;?4Vf. ' !• •''I V • i’.. • • -' ' rtloKrt / it IfiSi .! 4. V" V \* ^• r *. r V. la ordloBMO ■ 2280 of 2.074 of _ . V' -: ■•/« , ■ •„ «- tA, \ - 22.7% .‘-V ^ft^Mto^nowo^W '/O:. to 2;xono ■1X 35X 73 V to, 250' xono In ordloonco - 2775 of _5 >y.s>; /AenbpV • ^ - > -T .'■urc-.^.''.;5# • • * * • • • 'j ,t• *>-:v vV J- M.n •.t..--y-u v i*‘» »- . P'rii * *• \ ' ' 'v..r# . ff«*•* •' 1 •’ f^ • •I* *.#. ;* ,• . •*.* ’•. ft. — .'*|••• .*ft ' .• *■ .ft \ .. . • • : . ' ■«....* ft * • * -• 5 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator May 7, 1996 #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund/Edna AIbcc Estate, 1575 Long Lake Boulevard - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR-IA. Single Family L?keshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered Application: Request for lake setback, average lakeshore setback, street setbacK, side setback, 0-75’ hardcover ,ind bluff impact zone variances for construction of additions to existing residence. List of Exhibits A - Application/Letter of Request/Photos B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Neighbor Comments (Bigbam) E - Survey-Existing F - Survey-Proposed Site Plan G - Topography H - Haru^over Calculations I - Existing/Proposed Elevation V'iews J - Existing/Proposed P oor Plans K - Septic Report Excerpts L - Bluff Analysis by Staff Pertinent Code Sections A. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C) - Required lake setback = 100' (Recreational Development Lake, unsewered); existing and proposed = 49’. B. Section 10.23, Subd. 6 (B) - Required street setback = 50’; existing house = 32', existing detached garage = O' (10' minimum allowed on lakeshore lots); propo.sed house including attached garage = 1' approximately. J. Section 10.23, Subd. 6 (B) - Required side setback = 30', proposed = 18' for attached garage. D. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B)/10.56, Subd. 16 (C) - No encroachment of average setback allowed; 32' encroachment existing/proposed. IV i Zoning File #2135 May?, 1996 Page 2 F.Section 10.22, Subd. 2/10.55, Subd. 8/10.52, Subd, 16 (L) - No hardcover allowed in 0-75 ’ zone; proposal is to increase 0-75' hardcover from 6.79% to 7.27%; area of structural hardcover increases. G. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C) - No structures allowed in bluff impact zone (bluff and 20' from top of blufO; proposal includes additional structure within bluff. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J) (5) (h) - No fill or excavated material may be placed in bluff impact zone. Summary of Issues This 0.65 acre lot currently contains a one-story, 820 s.f. residence and 240 s.f. detached garage. The entire house is less than the required 100 ’ setback from Long Lake, the closest point being 49’ from the lake. The applicant proposes to purchase the property and construct major additions, including: increase the footprint of the house by 400 s.f. add a second story above the entire house, including a third bedroom. remove the existing detached garage and add an attached 475 s.f. garage. The property is extremely substandard in a number of respects; and the proposal requires many variances: Average depth of the lot from the street to the lake is 110 ’, making it impossible to meet the required 100 ’ lake setback and 50 ’ street setback. This lot has no buildable envelope. The existing house does not meet the required lakeshore or street setbacks, but does meet the required side setback. The proposed house will be even nearer to the road. The existing detached garage is a few inches into the Long Lake Boulevard right-of-way, and less than 20 ’ from the pavement. The proposed attached garage will be only 1’ from the street lot line. The existing septic system is non-conforming, and the property contains only one possible drainfield site that can support a system for a three-bedroom home (this is an area that is proposed for municipal sewer within the next year or two). 1 Zoning File #2135 May 7. 1996 Page 3 The west end of the existing/proposed construction is in a defined bluff area, where no construction, filling or excavating would normally be allowed. Setbacks The setback o :he lake is not proposed to change. However, a second story will be constructed above the existing house, adding to the visual bulk of structure near the lake. Based on the elevation views submitted with the application, only two stories will be visible from the lake. This is not a basement walkout situation. No height variance is required, and the stmcture as proposed is not as towering as the Code might allow. Given the nearness to the lake, does Planning Commission wish to consider limiting the height to two stories as proposed, not the 2V2 stories the Code would allow? The new house additions will be approximately 30' from the street right-of-way, which is not out of character with other homes in the neighborhood. However, the proposed attached garage will be only 1' from the street lot line, and the attached nature of that structure may have a visual impact of the entire structure being "right up against the road". While the proposed garage is not large by today’s standards, its location does not even meet the 10’ minimum setback that would be required on a lakeshore lot for a detached garage. Further, the proposed garage location encroaches the required 30’ side setback, and the neighbor to that side has indicated an objection to such a setback. Can the proposed attached garage be relocated further west on the property to meet a minimum 10’ street setback and avoid encroaching the 30’ side setback? Is there any justification to allow the variances as proposed? Assuming the garage can be relocated, is there a hardship? Hardcover Hardcover is proposed to increase slightly in the 0-75’ zone. Certain areas will be converted from non-structural to structural hardcover, including the entire addition on the north side of the house, as well as a deck over the existing 4 ’ x 10' sidewalk at the south side of the house. Existing and proposed hardcover is as follows: Area 0-75’ = 17,600 s.f. Area 75-250’ = 10,895 s.f. Allowed hardcover = .25 x 10,895 s.f. = 2,724 s.f. Existing:0-75’ = 1,195 s.f. 75-250’ = 887 s.f. 2.082 s.f. Proposed:0-75’ = 1,280 s.f. 75-250’ = 1,783 s.f. 3,063 s.f. I. , iriBf iz-vr lP'-.-t-r • Zoning File #2135 May?, 1996 Page 4 Is there any hardship or justification to allow the proposed hardcover increase in the 0-75 ’ zone’’ Is there any hardship or justification to allow hardcover on the property to exceed the 2,724 s.f. that this property would normally be allotted? Would it be appropriate to limit 0-75 ’ hardcover to the exiting 1,195 s.f, and limit total hardcover on the property to 2,724 s.f? Average Setback Both the existing house and proposed additions encroach the average lakeshore setback by approximately 32’. The average setback line is drawn from the adjacent residence at 1545 Long Lake Boulevard to the residence to the west which accesses from North Farm Road. Neither of the adjacent residences will have significant lake views impacted by the proposed construction. Bluff Impacts Per Exhibit L, just the westerly end of the existing/proposed house is situated on a bluff by definition. The midpoint of the property me'*ts the 30% slope/25’ rise criteria for a bluff, but the east and west ends of the property have an average slope less than 30%. The impacts of the new construction are mainly visual impacts as viewed from the lake, and there is little existing vegetation on the lakeside of the house to soften the visual impacts. Further, because the yard quickly drops away from the house on the lakeside, it may be difficult to establish the degree of vegetative screening which could help reduce the impact of the additional facade created by the second story. The project as proposed will involve additional fill within the bluff impact zone in order to accommodate the new driveway. A detailed grading plan would be required prior to issuance of any building permits for this property, and erosion controls would be needed during construction. Septic System Requirements Applicants have provided a septic system design sufficient for one system for a three-bedroom home. However, no alternate drainfield site exists on the property. This property is within the "North Long Lake" area proposed for construction of municipal sewer in the near future, perhaps as early as 1997. If sewer was not on the horizon, staff could not support the expansion of this house from two bedrooms to three bedrooms absent an alternate site. An option for Planning Commission to consider is that such expansion not be allowed unless/until municipal sewer becomes available. .1A Zoning File #2135 May 7. 1996 Page 5 Foundation The Inspections Depanment has inspected the existing basement and finds that it is 8" block. This will require an engineered design to support the additional story, but will not require replacement of the existing foundation. Summary of Issues for Consideration 1.Addition of structure less than 100’ from lake. 2.Attached garage only 1' from street lot line, 18' from side lot line; house only 30' from street lot line. 3, Proposed hardcover increases in 0-75' and 75-250' zones. 4. Average setback encroachment. 5. Structure and land alterations in bluff impact zone 6. Septic system limitations/future municipal sewer. Stafl* Recommendation Any recommendation for approval, partial approval or conditional approval should clearly define the hardships and justification for each of the variances. Planning Commission should consider whether the proposal can be revised to eliminate the side setback variance, increase the street setback to a minimum of 10', eliminate any hardcover increases in the 0-75' zone, and limit total hardcover to a level equivalent to 25% of the 75-250' zone (2,724 s.f.). Finally, Planning Commission may wish to delay approval of the expansion from two to three bedrooms, until a final decision to construct city sewer is reached. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. C ^ • Recommend approval as proposed. Recommend approval with specific revisions/conditions Table for revisions/further information. Recommend denial. Other. -3"*/J? iApplication # Date Received V - Jc L> Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 / / » V(no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $22tt00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) V,■nVJ*. t >* 6 r*. PROPERTY INFOICVUTION Site Address 1S~^T LC>«>^0- L-A-Pd__ Property Identification Number fP.I.D.) 2G - H V - 2-3——OO i |------------------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propert>' Acquired Pe-^^ ^X^ ______________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the^jacent parcels of land. Present use of propertv" N/residential ___^other (specify)---------------------------------- Zoning District;^----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- / Phone (home ) *3T) H ~ O'SPl Hp^rs uosirs /S>os H-iXj>^Phone(work) 3>D ^ ^ City: _________Zip: APPLICANT^ Nune f-nO*. • t Address: I 7jO?^ jiJrOWNER (if differed than a^l Name'.j;^^^ (I Address: aja ' DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Phone (home) ~ <jy 7 ^ ___ Phone (work) Citv: Zip: 5~A'3s-W. // A/t . Re Estimated Construction Cost $ |(X>.ooo -ifo^cxao Sgg ________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width /side •/' Hardcover Lot Coverage y/^ Setback: F ront Average La** ore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements:------------------------------------------------------- sgtr (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1 2, ✓ ^ Completed Application Form ^ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you J y 5, 7, 8 must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govi Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy x 11" for , reproduction. y Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. __ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SVi" x 11"). of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in V the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ^ As an addendum to this application, please anach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yfiuj: variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee pa>Tnent) and'or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to ^e best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature f Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation ai^verification of this request. Owner's Signature ^ • Date------^ — Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 €•^•* / #;. I Descripf ior, of Requesf From f he CHy of Orono We are requesting permission from fhe (Sfy of Orono fo approve the required varfamoee allowing proposed improvements to be made on the attached property. We make this request and need the variance approval in order to create a dwelling more representative of today's housing market and to provide appropriate Tivir^ space for our current and future family needs. Proposed strudure: • 3 - Bedrooms • 2 -Full Bath • 1 - Half Bath Hard^ip/Descr^ifton of Unusual Property Conditions One needs fo look at the survey fo see a a number of unusual property conditions at 1575 Long Lake Blvd. The unusual conditions are as follows: Lot Size - 28.495 square feet (.62 acres) 0'-75' Hard Cover Zone - 6.79% Rear 9et Back - Oarage Bfrucfure located on lot line Lake 9hore Bet Back - Majority of house structure inside the 75' setback House Size - 750 square feet. 2 bedrooms. 1 Full Bath The question is. what improvements can be made to this property given these preexisfir^ conditions and what would be considered reasorwble when considerir^g fhe variances required fo make those improvements? Given this scenario, we feel our proposed plan provides a balance between the need for structure improvements and viable livir^ space while incurring nominal changes in fhe existing property conditions. We thank you for your con^derafiooi 9ue and Paul Hedlund M l) . '■rf '• » / m r- s 9:^Mmm ,.4v -V '■■=■=«' '... v-Xr:^.35gV>rPW'» • ’:. r K * ■ Tr iVtfr ST SI I. '• V'i-; ■*“ tV . ^ • -* y :- ■ 'i .■••- <$lTttT u,' RUN DATE 04/2S/H BATCH 506 MOP A1 ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB 26-11S-2S S3 0007 01540 LONG LAKE BLVD ROBIN E CRANFORD ROBIN E CRANFORD 1540 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55S56 PROP ADOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR SB 26-116-2S SS 0012 01545 LONG LAKE BLVD J L BI6HAM I C A BIGHAH JANES A CYNTHIA BIGHAN 1545 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE HN 55S56 PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 38 27-11B-2S 44 0008 01669 NORTH FARH RD JOSEPH H OFFERMAN JOSEPH H OFFERMAN 1669 N FARM RD LONG LAKE MH HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OmERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PAGE IS SB 26-118-23 S3 0008 01570 LONG LAKE BLVD C E TRUMAN ETAL CHARLES E TRUMAN 1570 LONG UKE BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 26-118-23 33 0011 01575 LONG LAKE BLVD EDNA H ALBEE ESTATE OF EDNA H ALBEE NANCY A GANRON P R 920 DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 26-118-23 33 0030 01586 LONG LAKE BLVD ARDIS J SEVERTSON ARDIS J SEVERTSON 1586 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 26-118-23 33 0031 01580 LONG LAKE BLVD JOEL S BOVEE JOEL S BOVEE 1580 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 506 00007 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE „ -feif Mdiu) ■„ f A (Li f . *t, • V:/W ,v-' ‘i‘^y f .fit • V / \ - V I (we) Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form % &Li/D have reviewed* the plan/for the proposed improven#it or proposed^ise ot i at Uvu/lA^C ^li/D also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (w^ 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 Citydeclare approval or ui:>appiuv<ii uiw ------^ -------- . ^ Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans ^d that the proposed Mighbo^ ________:— \i/o . A jL 0-^ ropcrty Ow ^ /^4J^ 4t,-^ oTCity 0^yler Date -?C**iifCi^^^***v<^^^^***^^^*************’^********************************** 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, 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Ow Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use cation, please submit your comments to the BuildingZoning Offi^at least 10 da^ to the scheduled meeting date. tO(Ly _ ^ ir 1/ ^ k *. ___-r.vr. ► : i f C*rtittiitf of Swr»«r lor fiMitmoiMe )• t *% >1. U. 1% I 10, tuOG lOki AOOIIImO N»Mnw|fiii CnuMtji. •I • . •^ r*: \ <*. •.• \ \X \ \ ' \\ '\ '' '' .\ ■' '. ■ ’•' V \ • » ' * \ V ' \ » ■ » K >1 > . ' ' 4'k' ' 'N'v VvV ^ ^ V X^I N \ S N N ^ X ^ S X V s ^ X^ \N •'v'o. » X n X v X'» '« •''• '1'' ' 3fSC»:>i:ji if rii«iSI\ Su«*HC0 '. J* ll *4 IS «**4 ?*'• ••»» »»|I' -it Ibt l|. »i •i''^ n*.r, i««r I**i . \4r.rf KitvnOt Cu tO*i. ••»# »uwMa«flv% ••# fOv tOOtv •!• %ct ib.H • ^ «**4 li*^ loCflttuW I,* «n »«i»tin| Im-.i\^. jir«.|«. ^i»! 4H ***•' •i.if!» •■‘•'J ».•*• It ^•|•|•wr‘ lu khoa • *»f »*Xkr i«ora«e«9<»t k «r •>««< ru4r^o#ii| « I ’ •'■ «•?!»» kn*j«N «rv r**|*l ................ 4k%iiO*<l •l«lwO. ••k* s»< ■«Mk*W^l••U • •k* «rk«^ 0 0-/f •(■nilj\'&Q<0\HhRC,I\('.I KmK aitMt A«« ikM ••««•« « M |•<•|<•«l J K mr-4 •« Jb>*' ••(*♦ OB' Nk» k«Mr >4 ‘ V . I I i. ' V • I. I • I' il U«»4 B t««K«t Vwm4«l»rov \miOm UTM •«'l • •Bll m / / / // \//A // / / / // / .. / / /// / / / /// / / / / / / // • / f / /y / , /y /y ' X / /I // / / fV Sf' ^ ? ^4 ' / / / ' / // ‘ • / /y M»/ / / ■ \f /// M I ••ii /iy'Ji.^i I / / / / ’•»'/ / / / I ///// /ra/ /%V \ / , / // /fa jf I / -M'l / / dT/n £> HARDCOVERJil^CULAllOM VVOiav5^ibi ‘ SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) (o^75*250'25-500'500-1000’ • M EXTSTING HARDCOVER IN ZQN£802. • A. House •Lxnfth X X Wi(iA m • S.F. • 4 •X • « •S.F. t 1 •X ' S.F. « ^er-f- ' i •| • • B. Garage C. Driveway X ? S.F. i; X SI S.F. X*^ • •*• •1 *• • « • • • * 0 H • •S.F. i-Q 1 srt^^ ' D. Sidewalk 4- r.S X <0 73 • * • /8Z-^ S.F. ir • 3.^X to «3 9.0 S.F. • *•••• \ E. Patio/Beeky . a F. l^dscape y SLM^S uMerlain ^ By Ptotic. Or FabSc• pi riMtt^S 7 G. Other >• m •• X • • •• S.F. • • • • •/0£.7 S.F. 1:X •/2.0 S.F. ^ o X *-f z <y V /. r -^.0 S.F. -j"" - s • \ ^ \'Vy '•« X •S.F. X • • A • 9^ • • * 25.Z S.F. -rr\XAT UAOnrnVPR IN ZONE //9B.^ S.F. a OonoCOTV APPA 70NP /7^ao S.F. A •r B n^oo X 100 ■ ..79 % 1 PRQPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE X •1 iOO^M S.F. Length X ‘ WidOt S’.S.F. •X ■S.F. .X S3 S.F. • • B. Garage C. Driveway X •S.F. t X • S.F. • K . .»S.F. • -5»TS(^ D. ^idewjJk *.• * •« • ^ a X i.sr S S.F. •« X S.F. E. Patio/Deck ^ruoP X I X & • • • • • t . r • • • • iXx/|0 S.F. ------------S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X . 'T“< ^ ^ G. -ether A> TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY-AREA-lN ZONE - ......' - —' 4* o • • I * • •••«** • •• • ’14 • •• • • .. *.-• ...•----•— «- I • A B A B . i t 1 ^L66e B^r^ra hard CO VER CALC U LATIOil\v U 1<K5 KJtt J SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* 25-SOO’ /O-J/ '5^* 500-1000 ’ EXTSTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE At House X • /4 S.F. • • IXAfCh X VrufA ••- • S.F.• X * «f S.F. ! ?. * !X ■S.F. B. Garaee -B,24-0 S.F. • C. Driveway ■• •««ZSO . • • S.F. 1,X S.F. D. Sidewalk x Z.B 40.S.F. 1'■ •• X *• •• ... ?IS.3 S.F. «•^L'A/y ' Z E. PatioXOttk x ■ . .2- ^•. -/Zi.O. Z7.»*S.F. p* ^ 1 . * *S.F. F. Landscape x • •* • ei •S.F. Underlain x «S.F. Bv Plastic ZZ X *S.F. t • :' 1 •* • • Or Fabric • / B6(K G. OtherCfi x 7.f O.A • • v.-z • • • 40.5 /14.Z 1 Site • ' • .* S.F. > ! :total hardcover in zone •9ay S.F. 1 * i total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE m S.F. A ft8 7 -r B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _ X /CS95 x ’lOO as 0./4 /O • 4 •• i • •• •2\Z-fc 1 • • S.F. 1 • ' ■ *» Length • I • ^ m »• m m • ^ WidA •S.F. W 1 ¥ ' ■■ X • •«•• S.F. • X m S.F. • B. Garaee T7Ltl£L X % S.F. C." Driveway * ,• x > • * • • • • • «• • ■m S.F. D. Sidewalk 7/lA,r X X E- Patio/Dcck X X . • S:F, 5«y.O~~S.F. A B I «• .• F. Landscape __; Underlain 5fi^ By Plastic __ X X X S.F.±,0 S.F. "s.F. Or Fabric \ o. oiher » (Ld-T— total HARDCOVER IN-ZONE total property area in zone .6 8^^^ s.f. I B X 100 - Kvl-L- s.F. S.F. % A B •• • • • • • - *•.*••* »».. .• i ‘ 1 I 1 • * X V forth ARCHITECTS HEDLUND RESIDENCE,• » 1 f*i*TiU4t dcumfLe^ioti OdTpl'q)£)FORTHARCHITECTS < ■ ■i' •f^tofo->ca> cAvr eijeyfWTiOA4 r ••/ S- M«nu<» pA>r «uvj«no4 H. \ • % FORTHARCHITECTS ! -» k- I %- »\«CTV4 1 ll —U- tJ M • ^ wStM # I r^ sfir HEDLUND RESIDENCEt fTT■ ■ ■m III iXKTlNl«l (i^V>Cflo4 M Vx) Bm. rv f*|i 3w mtuk. v.irj FORTH • • 111 > *,‘.v .*v*- " HEDLUND RESIIDENCE • 1 CL >i m ••n IQ•c.a <C 4^ 1tb!b»D Fi FORTHARGHTIECTS - —.•JT7 ,6^ \: S'•5 J *7 • ' r - yV.-; 'i. • • I t. f HEDLUND RESIDENCE k» <r jil(L !Mr i- . VO IR••n !R !Q i. Q.a npoqu FORTHARCHTTECTS •• •^7l COwjjf \ \@ f. K/J HEDLUND RESIDENCE I11 i • ] pxm.k CITY OF ORONO SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVAL CITY of ORONO MunkipBlOOkci Poit Ofhct Boi 66 CfTsUl Bay, MimiaoU 55323-0066 LOCATION: 1575 Long Lake Blvd. OWNER:Edna Mbee _SEPTIC CONTRACTOR:GENERAL CONTRACTOR._______________ SITE EVALUATOR: Soil Testing RgpQgj DATE: 2, 1996 The City of Orono has Approved your on-site system design as of January 5, 1996 (approved-disapproved) (date) The site is limited due to steep slopes, mottled soils at 39^48" and fill witli the following comments: soils at approx. 40”. Jim Anderson (U of MN) . Bob Kocn (Koch's Soil Testing;, and Duanne Ritter (Ritter Exc.) believe that a gravelless system will function adequately under these conditions. The e 1st. No alternate site is available, but sewer may be available in the THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a design approval form which must accompany the site plan. A pcnnil mutf uture be issued to a licensed septic contractor prior to installation. A list of currently licensed septic contractors is enclosed. NOTICE TO INSTALLERS: Any changes to the approved plans and specs must have prior approval of the Inspector (473-7357). Call for inspections 24 hours in advance. ALL DRAINFIELD AREAS MUST BE FENCED OFF prior to building site excavation and fencing must remain in place until final site grading. Approval to pour footings will not be granted until the Inspections Department has verified that primary and alternate sites are adequately protected. NO VEHICULAR TRAFHC OF ANY KIND (cars, trucks, earth moving equipment, etc.) is allowed within 20' of tested drainfleld sites either before or after system construction. Compaction of these areas could render them unusable prohibiting the timely completion and or limiting the long term use of the property. A site copy will be available at the City Offices for the septic contractor. CITY OF ORONO On-site Systems Manager ‘mXFHONE-473-73S7 • FAX-47MS10 •»•••.* •• •««/ ... *• . • , . KOCH’S SOIL TESTING p,0. BOX 81 L0RETT0,MN 55357 TEL: (612) 479-2637 Edna Albee Estate 1/2796 Job Site: 1575 Long Lake Blvd., Orono, Mn — t\/CTr*f 11 * #« ^ m a^aTp»«U.ion rate was 19.9 min./in. and the dep* to monied soil was at 39-48 ‘"tee the enclosed soil borings and percolauon tests fot the details. Note: the perc. test ^ " rd t"-" ““ of 39 inches in Soil *'• n/27/95 with Mr. Jim Andeison (University of Upon <“'*«'■ “>> ^p"^®J!!"”V|,eve Weekman (City of Orono). Duane Ritter (DuaneMinnesota), Mike Gaffro n Oi^hert Koch (Koch Soil Testing, Loretto.Mn.) Ritter Excavating. Rockford, Mn.) “^^^^nct gri^etst;™^^ sy^em could be ^tated son"^nrw«rtaken that day (12/27/95) and mottled 50“^“"'' “ «tches mlg inches. It L agreed that the gravelless trench system would be the •r .. - tsr ST, Overall drainfield size: 900 sq. ft. ^ . ,nn ft “ S?“ E vs.... ... .■».- «> “"V Ir^ Wyears. This practice will enhance the life of the system. MPCA Certified Robert Koch nrIr% r-i •% .........../ \ o1ca ^4 O ^s»cer< t BSTV &« e>R(£>?*i^ ntllLDIMO. CWMiT^PUAW RSVU£ft» PERMIT NO. APPROVED AS SUBMITTED 1 APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS AS NOTED ^ NOT APPTOVED — CORRECT & RESUBMIT ■ DM* cowwmnte art for your Information Ail worti fftall So M a taaoooMillanco|wMhaN appOeekia butkf<t« & zar*« asi» a i- •ramanti In^fudins Hams not apacMcaiiy notad irt tfita <f FP THIS JiAN SET ON SirE /rr ALL TIMW J 5 srI \\,_v ^ V >^LV^ ? \ 'v >/eN , ^() -■ Id" Cl r\ rt ''T'- '3T\»'ti 0 > ----------u ^ f. Uv- n !l I •»i i * ! • 1 long Lake Boulevard S 5S*3t ‘30"£ >s,t§i.ts \ V V NX imr ^ • A/^TS^neAc X ^ X X x\ X ^ V ^ A* *> ^4> ^ W — ^Cf7V'^ /■ ' \ V ^ ^ Xnoo/r'’* V ^ - - ' ■ 'VA . i I X* V^ ^ ^ ^ Vri X. ^ ~ — — — -C'-5^’^X-'.-=-- •’jf^YTr”'^ . tiVt'tO'*! Ift^ S^rtAfk^ ^I^JpCAr^ • 75" //UC€V3tp<?«k * /^D S^K.S \ /if I t-oKe tLOf-f V—/ CT> •n fO-Sf-93 {oMuf} A(^ I i I » / i. 3 I I» I * f » i ♦• » I • ! I '£'0|t6»Tfe5> j/ACi ;! »• I Ii . ! ! I ! : / • ; ! ' ! I ' *: ' I ! ! I 2,-S-'+ A^ja\ie ■0\^LJ ! * ! i. I TDjoAi^ aoti y 1 ' ' i ■ I I i J f ♦ I t ! ! ! ^ I i I ! > t I I . I I I ♦ I ♦ n*3«wvjic-c^ / I ! 1^ I ■ ’/5 A £i/ filler. I I i 1 .tw0 ,-roc -TO ^ eoirn- r-oc# i ; i i <5K|^j- /A\jeoA6rt*i 5o“/. o(i-‘ yAo^ (oe^o^ A-r- iK /'Jot Mt'fci i>ef. jpc>»c, J\ ' fbfNT'a iMi-c-rk c|er.|p~j. I'Tiof c,(i I I • ' i I . 1 » I t♦ • I • I I ! i 4 I I ' /f- e^xcUUs /A "3?5 '■ w7j<»- p" v\i^r7^r %U k-^w;.ir • i^-'k L^s<|) - -<\^H M"V' i ^ M : ! <?*/y ‘7yyl ip I i J • ! i t^CAr^ I I /M I fI *I ' ! ‘ ! 1 'I I! ! ;< •* * •» : i . I I I : I II I I » !! iiII I I I I ’I ! • « I I ) ! yOsewf'; 7oM-Pj\^| IrJft^rve. : , ' l[o; A Po/»^T 2^ I 1 i I ! * : i t I r I • I • • 1 * ( f 1 i 1 1 !! - I1 1 4 « 1 ! i 1 1 1« 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! » : 1 ♦ j 1 f • 1 A ! i 1 -I - At Ato Pbi^r - • lAate TT f- - • I I i I t : ! { 2^5 ^ i ^ (i Aiti $Ci.oco tfofi ' !.! dULktif I I >0f s »x>r M0!T Off. I i fo«:.*-^^^^* i • I f I I I I ! I i . 1 I I I m - • •/ iocjb^rkS^/ .^. s»tofr'/.%• Bovv' r./^7£T i.. L. ^ / l^ ^'■- i-'^"?' i.'f^jo A^ ’-ro€' -rO A r-oC>>4.om^ oh*-*-’'- ^o'/» op- Mof?^ ^(i?<:c.u<Lr PoimT - ^IiotX P04rt ^)oT rA^n’ AS^/ir /*^ ex^gTrti^- It — fb/^Ve. IVc-t-r'S. P<?T._f=o/2_ ^-rof CLuFfi . • • « * • ■ ^ 1 .fcr 2 • • • • •« •• • •• -%i - •- •...3^/ • • > • •.f • • •m •• « ♦« T PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 20,1906,7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - JoEUen Hun ATTENDANCE AppUcants prescating proposab before the Commission are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced by the Chairman. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGSVPUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEW 1. 7:00 p.m. U21 36 Greenfield Corporation, 180 North Shore Drive West - Preliminary Subdivision ACTION ITEMS Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 2. #2112 Richard Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Road - After the Faci Variance - Public Hearing 3. #2133 John and Karla Sptwner, 1385 Orono Lane - Variances - Public Hearing 4. #2134 Robert Charles Albrecht. 1810 Shadywood Road - Variances - Public Hearing 5. #2135 Paul and Sue lledlund, 1575 Long Lake Blvd. - Variances - Public Hearing 6. #2137 William and Susan Dunkley, 2709 Walters Port Lane - Variances - Public Hearing Planning Commbsion Comments 7. Other issues for discussion Additional Items 8. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the April 15, 1996 meeting 9. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the June 10, 1996 meeting of the Council Adjournment i 1 (S. To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:May 15, 1996 Subject:#2137 William and Susan Dunkley, 2709 Walters Port Lane - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 Acre, Sewered! Application: Request for average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback, 0-75' hardcover and lot coverage variances to allow conversion of existing deck at southeast end of residence to a room addition. List of Exhibits A - Application B C D E F G H I J K L Letter of Request from Landscape Designer Plat Map Property Owners List Sketch of Proposed Room Addition Sur\ey Site Plan-Existing/Underway Site Plan Including Roof Overhangs and Proposed Conversion Area Letter from Neighboring Property Owner Resolution No. 3619 Overall Landscaping Plan Hardcover Review Pertinent Code Sections 1.Section 10.22, Subd. 2/10.55, Subd. 8/10.56, Subd. 16 (L) - No hardcover allowed in 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. 2. 3. 4. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) - No encroachment of average lakeshore setback is allowed. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Lot coverage by structures limited to 15% of lot area. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (A) - 75' lake setback required for all structures. Zoning File #2137 May 15,1996 Page 2 Pertinent Facts 1.In October 1995, applicants were granted a variance to add an entr>"way and replace retaining walls. A proposed 10' x 33' enclosed porch and 10' x 16' open deck on the lakeside of the existing house were specifically denied in that application. Approval was conditioned on significant removals of hardcover. Most of the work, including hardcover removals, is underway or has been completed. 2.Applicants now propose to convert the existing deck at the southeast end of the house to an enclosed room for a swim spa. The room will be of a slightly different configuration than the deck, and slightly smaller in footprint area. The proposed addition will meet the required 10' side setback, but requires the following variances: Additional structure less than 75' from the lake. Change in character of hardcover in 0-75' zone (changing from deck to enclosed structure, net result is hardcover decrease of 24 s.f.) Increase in lot coverage by structures from 15.6% to 16.7%. Additional structure encroaching average setback line. Discussion Please review the letter from Dale Gustafson of Gustafson Design, who is representing the Dunkleys, and the letter from the neighboring property owner, Douglas Bell. The applicants' need for the spa is related to a health condition, and apparently the spa cannot be incorporated into the existing house. Planning Commission may wish to have applicant address whether there are other possible locations on the site that might accommodate this addition. Applicants have completed significant hardcover removals per the previous approval conditions, including the removal of extensive (and what turned out to be very deep) rock beds. Permits for the entiy vvay and retaining wall work were issued after applicants' surveyor had provided detailed hardcover calculations, indicating a final hardcover (consider this as "current hardcover") of 35.4% in the 0-75' zone and 49.0% in the 75-250 ’ zone. Recall that these were reduced from 49.6% and 74.2% respectively. The current proposal results in a net decrease in the 0-75' zone of 24 s.f. of hardcover, reducing that to 35.2%. The average lakeshore setback encroachment includes virnially the entire house, since this property sits on a point, more or less, when the lagoon is taken into account. The proposed spa room location is such that no significant views of the lake enjoyed by neighboring property owners will be affected. i ^2^ Zoning File #2137 May 15. 1996 Page 3 The slight increase in lot coverage by structures, and the proximity to the lakeshore of the proposed spa (approximately 40' at the closest point) are somewhat related in that they address the bulk of structure on the property, and in this case, its visual impact from the lake. Although the proposed addition meets the required 10' side setback, it will to some degree reduce the perception of open space on the property. Vegetative screening such as some shrubs and small trees, might help reduce any negative visual impact as viewed from the lake. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. Is there sufficient hardship demonstrated to support the proposed variances? What specific measures might be appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the additional structure if it is approved? 3.Are there any other locations on the property where this addition might be more appropriate? 4.Although hardcover is proposed to further decrease as a result of this addition, ate there further hardcover reductions that might be appropriate? Staff Recommendation In order to recommend approval. Planning Commission should establish that there are sufficient hardships to the property that support and justify the request. Planning Commission should consider if there are further appropriate hardcover removals, or other conditions, which would help to minimize the impact of the addition. Options for Action i. Recommend approval without conditions. Recommend approval with specific conditions. 3.Table for further discussion or additional information. 4. Recommend denial, stating specific reasons. 5.Other. 5 HI¥ Application # 3'^ Date ReceiTcd Amount Paid r!3in. * *TY of ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 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) iVv' - p .r- ‘« • •< t . / PROPERTY INFORMATIO Site Address FORMATION Hi/2r7cA irn c a Property Identification Number fP.I.D.) - H I P ^ ------------------ Attach legal description to application if not inciuded on r .juired survey. Date Property Acquired -------------------------------(month/year I (do not) also o^^■n the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of proper^ X. residential ___other (specify) Zoning District: C.l^ j ^_________________________ APPLICANT I I Name > t K1 Address : -7 rr^ /-/^^ < ■ / r Ji (■ citv~C Phone (home)_ Phone (vvork)_ >v<r'„Zip: y/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ' ________ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address:CiW:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTw. _________ F<rimat^ Construction Cost S ^rf Describe request m detail: CC(T uv ^m aeiaii: f--\k ac -------- - p\.fc L e Clr Y'/c--------------- ' (attach additional sheets if necessaiv ’) iC pA I V. VARIANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area _ 4 Setback: ___Lot Width Front __Side Hardcover Lot Coverage Rear ^ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance uith Zoning Code requirements.-----------------------------^---- ncr^', \-v:'T ^Krto-\cs- (attach additional sheets if necessary) i T REQUIRED SUB>nTT.\LS All of the following information must b< I^ted bv the aPpHcatioo d^^dltgc dat^ in order for vour application to be consider ed complete; L 2. j. X Completed Application Form ^ Certified Property Ov-tters 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). 2^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8VS x 11 for reproduction. y' Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V2 x 11 for reproduction. > Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ___ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yimi variance apnlication is not complete if the above information ha; ngt been in^lud?d» APPLICANT’S SIGN.ATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expen^^'incurred 1 in review of ,this application, and certifies that the information supplied is^rue and ^rrect to the his/her knowledge. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Applicant's Signature / -/- Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the propert>- by Cit>- staff, consultants agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals Into the Cit>’ offices 2o days before the Planning Commission .Vleeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an ?pplicant is unable to anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 GjStafsOn Tiesign Inc. Fa • :6U‘544>->:5 Hpr A .p. o:B gustafson design, inc. r , Mm * April 26. 1996 •-V-. Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 • .• Dear Ms. Mabusth: Attached is the application for the Dunkley residence for a variance of the 75 foot setback rule, and hardcover rulings. The owners are requesting variances to allow for the conversion of the existing :^<%ck into a spa deck for the installation of a swim spa for medical reaso'.*. The inclusion of this feature will change the structure from a deck to an enclose.' structure attached to the house. The current plan allows for a very slight increase in the hard cover. In light of li lO Ii:r^ amount of hard cover that has been removed to date, the increase o' 2.6 squ. feet seems reasonable. Please advise me if there are other considerations that need to be considered. Thank you very much. 1845 Wisconsin Ave. No. Golden Valley, MN 55427 tel (612) 544-4215 1 i 4 ^ RUN DATE 04/Z6/94 HENT4EPIN COUrJTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIASB^Ol PAGE ABATCH 502PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 56 20-117-25 lA 000702A95 REUY AVE SAN KAPLAN GARY BIRNBAUM 2695 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 5S551 56 21-117-25 25 004502705 HALTERS PORT LA DOUGLAS J BELL DOUGLAS J BELL 2705 HALTERS PORT LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 56 21-117-25 25 004402707 HALTERS PORT LA .H 0 BLUNT ADM BLUNT TKTIS HUBERT D BLUNT 2707 HALTERS PORT LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER IIAME/ADOR 56 21-117-25 25 0045 02709 HALTERS PORT LA N M A S K DUNKLEY HILLIAM M A SUSAN K DUNKLEY 2709 HALTERS PORT LANE EXCELSIOR MI4 55331 36 21-117-25 25 0046 02710 PENCE LA DEAN E TERRY DEAN E TERRY 2710 PENCE LANE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 56 21-117-23 25 0046 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ENVIRONMENTAL PLA»«4ING INC ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INC 4550 IDS CENTER MPLS MN 55402 f, ^ ' i 1 PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 56 21-117-25 25 0049 00056 ADDRESS UNASSICNED DAL UPNOFF DARYL L A LUCY S UPHOFF 2699 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55551 56 21-117-25 25 0051 02710 PENCE LA DEAN E TERRY DEAN E TERRY 2710 PEfK:E LANE EXCELSIOR MN 55551 TOTAL BATCH 502 00006 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCimATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF If4F0RMATI0N AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HErt4EPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION# TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF.. DATE V 04-26-1996 00:i7«1 FROM C. A. Smith. Inc.TC 5446885 P.02 r '■ TOTft. P.02 '•I■I : o :3 ■4 ii o 1*^ inI ns i.f %/»*f »t*« .c;.. C7**} •■: • h % - iPTi -f»W f-V^n -I ^ > \ \ r. / ••• Concrete Steppers oOOOJ^^ I f Propsed WaHs / *' ''it! %4>it ft-l DUNKLEY RESIDENCF Gustafson Desi*^)^ l«i Date: 10/27/95 Scale: 1'« ao'-O* ^e J !*•%u« • U m:* «11 f; u. uc •—I ccn »/><DCl co m »y) ■V#!. ■ _ *« / New IsPt Overage / Lol Ana . 1^49 sq (t Sbuct )^44.7$sqR added structXzSI .78 sq ft percent^ oovdufe > 22.67 STtYT A»cfn?S ^ &i/f. L gustafson design, inc.Ounkle/ Residence 4 H9 Wdlert Ton Lane f «•!$*>. MN aod» : I Mdl>aSiMI Ap^at. I9H IMSViicoiitinAve.Ms. GoMm Vdey,UH 5S427 Jtl^ham: (SI2) 544 • 4215 DOUGLAS J. BELL 2705 WALTERS PORT LANE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 612-471-8070 Jeanne A. Mabusth Buildine & Zonine Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 1 1956 Dear Ms. Mabusth, Thank you for the recent Planning Commission notice sent to my attention regarding the upcoming May 20, 1996 planning commission meeting. In particular, I would like to direct my comments to Item #5 entitled "#2137 William and Susan Dunkley - 2709 Walters Port Lane". This past summer, 1995, the Dunkley's had the unenviable task of rebuilding the SW comer of there home because of some stmctural problems that had occurred due to settlement. In a very open and transparent manner they informed their neighbors of their problems and solicited our comments regarding the repairs necessary to correct this problem. In addition, they asked for any other comments that we might have regarding overall improvements to their home. Due to the extensive amount of work that needed to be done to complete the repairs it was necessary that they rebuild a rock retaining wall and small patio adjacent to the structural damage of their home It was at this point that the Dunkley's engaged the services of costly professionals to assist them with the structural engineering, soils testing, architectural design, and landscaping design to bring together a well thought-out plan for the overall improvement of their propeny During the course of this design particular emphasis was given to the stringent requirements of the City regarding setbacks, and hardcover issues They have reduced their overall hardcover and have taken every step possible to add additional landscaping and green area to the lot area The design also took into account the upgrading that was necessary to take care of outdated and obsolete functional design and uses. In other words, they attempted and I believe succeeded in bringing the home from the 1960's in appearance into the 1990's while still attempting to meet the "spirit" of the zoning ordinances that apply to residences such as theirs and mine in this area X As a neighbor, two homes away, I believe that the Dunkley's have attempted to satisfy all the city requirements within reason, that any owner of a 1960's built house on an irregular shaped lot being repaired and upgraded to 1990's design and functional use can possibly do. This overall project and the room addition, are a credit to our small neighborhood, and to the City of Orono also. The City of Orono needs to encourage people to udee the time and effort to make the kind of design and improvements that the Dunkley's have made and the improvements they are asking approval for I would like to respectfully ask that the Planning Commission give favorable approval to the Dunkley ’s for this variance to the City of Orono land use laws. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Douelas Bell 1 i T CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ^ ^ 9_____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO NHJNTCIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1, SECTION 10.55, SUBDIMSION 8 ANT) SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C) AND (L), AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SLDDIVTSION 19 FILE NO. 2073 WHEREAS, William Dunkley and Susan Dunklcy (hercmafter the "applicants") arc the owners of the property at 2709 Walters Port Lane located within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 3, Walters Pon, Hennepin County, MinnesoU (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1, 10.55, Subdivision 8 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) and (L) to permit the construction of an entryway addition constituting structure and hardcov.;r in the 0-75’ lakcshore setback zone where no structural hardcover are normally allowed, and recjuesting similar variances for an enclosed porch and open deck located within 75 of lakesbore where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed, and for a conditional use permt per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 for the reconstruction of retaining walls within the 0-75’ zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: findings 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File "2073. The property' is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Paae 1 of 8 3. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 9 The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 18, 1995 and recommended approval of certain of the requested variances and conditional use permit and recommended denial of certain variances per the following fmdings: A. Planning Commission recommended approval of the necessary hardcover variance and conditional use permit for replacement of existing retaining walls, finding that such walls are necessary to the integrity of the propertv', and that such walls should be constructed per the recommendations of the City Engineer regarding removal of the existing wood walls prior to construction of new walls. B. Planning Commission recommended approval for repair of the driveway, replacement of a retaining w'all along the north side of the driveway, and replacement of a front walkw’ay from the stoop to the driveway, finding that such improvements are necessary to protect the driveway and the neighboring propern- and provide access from the driveway to the house. C. Planning Commission recommended approval of an approximately 100 s.f. front entry addition to the house to alleviate a water problem due to topography and roof pitch at that location. D. Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed 10 ’x33 ’ three season porch and 10 ’xl6 ’ deck behind the garage, which construction would be located as near as 24’ and 19’ respectively from the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, which construction would consiimte additional stiucmral hardcover in the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback zone, and which construction would increase lot coverage by structures on the property to in excess of 16% w'here only 15% lot coverage by struemres is allowed, and which additions would add to the bulk of the struemre as viewed from the lake, and which additions would encroach into the average lakeshore setback. E. Planning Commission further recommended that substantial amounts of landscape hardcover on the property' be elunmated, given that existing hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone is 49.6% where no hardcover is normally Page 2 of 8 oWX.'»T CITYof ORONO mm RESOLUTION NO. ■m| aTY COUNCIL allowed, aod given that hardcover in the 75-250’ lakeshore setu.?cic zone is 74.2% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed. Planning Commission finds that the hardcover areas recommended for removal are not necessary to support the integrity of the property, and there is no hardship to justify the continued existence of said hardcover in light of the current hardcover variance request. 4.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by Cit\’ staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the communitv. 5.Tctc City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances and conditional use permit would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; w’ould not merely ser\’c as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessar}' to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessar}’ to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10-03* Subdivision 19 and variances to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) and (L) to allow certain structure and hardcover and reuining walls in the 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed, as follows and per the following conditions: Pa2e 3 of S CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 R ^ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Approval of the replacement of existing wood retaining walls with modular block walls per the site plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Existing wood walls adjacent to new block walls must b«^ removed rather than buried, except in the locations shown on Exhibit A. Approval of the 100 s.f. front entry way addition as proposed, per the construction plans submitted with the application. This approval is subject to specific hardcover removals as shown on the "removals" site plan. Exhibit A, and subject to the final site hardcover allowance shown on the "final" site plan attached as E.xhibit B. The property owners are advised that all hardcover required to be removed shall be removed prior to fooling inspection for the proposed entry addition. Applicants or their contractors shall obtain the appropriate permits for construction of the proposed entry addition and construction of the retaining walls. Further, prior to issuance of such permits, applicants shall provide a "proposed hardcover" survey correctly depicting the new driveway, indicating all proposed retaining walls, sidewalks, stairs, entry addition, etc. and all other proposed hdrdcover, including a 'proposed' itemized hardcover calculation by applicant's surveyor confirming the proposed final hardcover percentages in the 0-75' and 75-250' zones. The proposed 10'x33' enclosed porch and 10'xl6' open deck are specifically denied, and shall not be constructed. Any future hardcover placed or constructed on the properly of other than the nature, location and area of that hardcover shown on the final approved site plan. Exhibit B, shall first require approval of the City Council, and likely will not be approved without substantial removals of nre-existing hardcover resulting in no net increase or a net decrease in hardcover on the properly. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must oe exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the d .te of Council approval or the special conditions of this resolution will expire or. that date (October 9, 1996). Pace 4 of 8 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 6 19_____ 8.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 9.The undersigned applicants has 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. Acopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of October, 1995 •Dthy M/'rta/lin, City Clerk / Edward J. Call^^, Jr., Mayol ■■ /Z-M Vo fwJ Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ? )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of October, 1995. by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City'. 7 Notary Public iv JAMIE LBOSMA N □ NOTARY PUSLIC-MINNESOTA » y HENN'EPIN COUNTY fi ^Commission Expires Jan. 31.2000 Page 5 of 8 Y STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ClTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ^ ^ ^______ £S. On this day of __Cktatir^_________• 199^, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared U;l/;ar»i rytarrUd..------------------- known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed flie foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. CAROLE A. HASEMAN NOlMirMUMANNESOtA •iWNCOUNTY My !S2 G Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of ^ ® within and for said County, personally appeared S^t^- ^ , i j-'i '- f-t. 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 / JAMIE L BOSMA NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Commission Expires Jan. 31.2000 Pa2e 6 of 8 -'HI J04:>V<lKptW«w*ftmi. Co>i«wnV«tn,.M»«&5*?y Tticplvm* |DI?I f*44 • 4?|5 I :r iDunkley • Hardcover & Lot Coverage Summary I. Hardcover.0-75’Zone (17.290 s.n 75-250’ Zone (6.915 s.f.’l Existing 8-21-95 8577 s.f. (49.6%)5133 s.f. (74.2%) Proposed/Approved per Rcsol. #3619 61 14 s.f. (35.4%) Current Proposal 6090 s.f. (35.2%) 3386 s.f. (49.0%) 3386 s.f. (49.0%) 2. Lot Coverage (15% allowed): (Lot area =* 24.205 s.f.) Existing 8-21-95 3664 s.f. (15.1%) Approved per Resol. #3619 3764 s.f. (15.6%) Added 100 s.f. entry Current Proposal 4035 s.f. (16.7%) Add 271 s.f. spa room # • «•* a I r- € V V 4; Ih •f r F • • • w.'Pi^'^iC'Ley H A R nroVTER Ci^CULATION VVORA5tltt ■ SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) (^7^ 75-250’ 2S-S00’ EXTSTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _______ - Lec|;h WidA X X X B.TtfiUei (»*• 8"6 f 30 C. Driveway 5r»»!f^5 X X D. Sidewalk \)C6D AfttPS ^ t CP X ' E. Me/Deck "PATfO ZO.^X X F. Landscape w*uu___S Underlain ________ By Plastic. _______ Or Fabric • X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE X ^ A 603Z + B . PROPOSED HARDCQVER-tN ZONE A. House L<n|ih WidJi T/*U«5 B. Gftrag t C‘' X X ■X'*•»•••• • • • • • 4" X f JO C. Driveway yrtppe ts X X D. Sidewalk /S3 ^ 7a X X E. Patio/Deck X X X 100 - F. Landscape f Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X gjgr Z G. Other total hardcover in zone total PROP^R^^A^A IN Z(^E ^x.10.0 - *• • • to to • 14 ■ . A 500-1000’. 34,^4.S.F. %S.F. •S.F. .S.F. S.F. fG 375 M S.F. 7 S.F. S F. no 'S.F. z^/ ~S.F. i03^S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • t « S.F. 603 i S.F; !7l*io S.F. % 3757 • *• S.F. • S.F. s;f. S.F. ZZ6 4^S.F. /o 3rs S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.‘ • Z4t S.F. /o3S S.F. S.F. z.S.F. * • • •S.F. / S.F. 6//4.• S.F. S.F. ■■ SS.JtA A B A B i < • • I • » • «; u v/. OuMittcy ^ ^ hardcover CALCULA'nO£iVVOl<li5tt^ i * SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* (^-2S^ EXTSTINC hardcover IN ZONE A. House_______ Length X X X •- -»J B. Ganse C. Driveway s X •• f • • • D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X • • • F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric • X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 3f33 + B .X 100 PPnPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lcnfih Width X X X WALL^ B. Garage !Z’'JS C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk 4'X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape _ Underlain By Plastic _ Or Fabric G. Other X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in zone A 330^- - -- - -‘■*~”B- •• 25-500*500-1000 •B' • • • a « S.F. m • • -s:f. S.F. m •S.F. • Mr •S.F. a e •««• S.F. a ‘S.F. • •mmam • S.F. •S.F. •. • .* . . »• • • S.F. a S.F. S.F. a S.F. ■ m , % . • • •S.F. * • « « «ib SB S.F. 3/33 S.F. ••S.F. a 3S>3/% • • • 1 • >• • • . .. S.F. S.F. «. ‘ •♦ • •S.F. a S.F. a> /^/ , /S'-S.F.• a Soys ’S.F. •S.F. • • S.P. • S.F. S.F. m •S.F. .S.F. • •S.F. S.F. • • _S.P. • S.F. •^9/S S.F. • • • r# : 14 A B m A B . .* “^V*/lC.CKY SETBACK ZONE:(CIRCLE ONE)(1EXISTTNG H.ARDCOVER EN ZONE A. House X Length X X X T'''*f£S^9 B. CMijc X C. Driveway X X D. SidewaJJi /S3 Hr- it AN S. Patio/Deck X DedK.X F. Lar.dscape X Underlain X hardcover CALCULATIO iN 75-250 ’ 25-500 ’500-1000' By Plzsuc^oc^ Or Fabric • G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A SS77 - B proposed HARDCOVER IN ZONT) A. House ______________ Lcn|*^ X X X 3. C c,- C. . nv"V2;.X X D. SidcwaJK X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X F. Lir.dsccpc Undcriim By Plasiic Or Fabric X X X G. Oihcr TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN Z<^NE A - - - -^- - -- B «S.F. WidA a •S.F. a s ^ a S.F. C9 a s ^w • * • 3<9 / e?• a 389 S.F. S.F. nc?_______S.F. ^•1 ^ /a a /z. c?S.F. • •••S.F. a 29/S.F. »g.Z638 S.F. a S.F. 2 a f4>S.F. ' S.F. \S67^S.F. P •f'/2.90 S.F. /1Z90 X 100 -ft • • • s S.F. wuei a S.F. s S.F. a S.F. -g S.F. S.F. =S.F. S.F. ss S.F. S.F. a S.F. S.F. a 5^.F. a S.F. S.F. • S.F E •S.F %. X 100 - t • tf A B A B ,-X' r g-U-9S SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’(jS^^ 25-500’ 500-1000’ -------- IUt, A. House X s S FLcrjCi X WidA • S F •____ X S F X a - • •j.* • S F B. Garajs X S F C. Dnvc’.vav •\m w . A • • ••• • S F X m S F D. SidcwaJk X S F X m S F • «k E. Patio/Deck X • • •• S F X S F F. Landscape \ • S.F. S FUnderlainXm By Plastic.X m S.F.Or Fabric •% G. Other • ^9 X z m S F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ,^/33 S.F.iUIr.L AREA IN ZONE -4, 9/^S.F. A ___ P/^3 -r B ^9/S X 100 =% PROPOSED HARDCOVER TN 70VF •• A. House X • • S.F. Lcnfih X WiUJj S.F. X a S.F. X a S.F. B. Garage X S.F. C. Driveway X S.F. X s S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. 5. Pstio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F.Londscspe Underlain • By Plastic Or Fabric X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______________ B . S.F. S.F. A 3 S.F A B X 100 - • »• 14 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 15, 1996 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Stephen Peterson. Sandra Smith. Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, and Elizabeth Hawn. Charles Schroeder was absent. The following representetTthe City Staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Sherry Frost. Council member Hurr was present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m (#1) 7:00 P.M. - #2122 KAREN SKOOGATAMERA CHRISTENSEN, 280/350 TONKA AVTNUE 7:01-7:08 P.M. A. VACATION B. SUBDIMSION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicants were present Mabusth reported that the comprehensive application was for a lot line rearrangement and the vacation of a portion of unimproved Hill Streei The property to be divided amongst applicants consists of lots 17 and 18, which have been legally combined, and have been assessed one sewer unit. The Skoog property would gain all of the vacated Hill Street. Lot 17 would go with Christensen's lot. and lot 18 w ould remain with the Skoog property. A 10’ drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated w ithin the vacated right-of-way to the extreme south edge, so as not to impede future additions to the Skoog residence. Mabusth said the City has no interest in Hill Street and is awaiting confirmation from surveyor to determine if there are any utilities located in Hill Street. Lindquist asked the width of Hill Street and was informed there is a 40' right-of-way. The applicants had nothing to add but asked that the sewer assessment be waived. Peterson said the Planning Commission is unable to waive the sewer fee but the request would be forwarded to the Council It was noted that the Planning Commission is in favor of waiving the sewer assessment. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve the lot line rearrangement, subject to the legal combination of the lots, and approve the vacation of Hill Street, subject to applicant dedicating a 10* easement to b ^ located at the extreme south portion of the vacated right- of-way. V'ote. Ayes 5, Nays 0. t MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#2) 7:30 P.M. - ^2126 CIT\' OF ORONO - VACATION OF PORTION OF NAVARRE LANE 7:33-7:39 P.M. Tlie Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mabusth reported that the recent 0'SuIIi\an application involved the partial vacation of 33' of Navarre Lane ^ong the northwest side of the property. The Council, in granting approval of the O’Sullivan's vacation, conceptually approved and recommended the City proceed with the comprehensive vacation Navarre Lane has been barricaded since the 1960 s Part of the vacated land w ould be used for a retention pond to treat and store runoff from the contributing 4 acre watershed There are sev eral utilities located within the right-of-way A 66' easement over the vacated right-of-way will be granted by the Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association, John O’Sullivan, and the church During public comments, Brett Hallonquist asked what was happening with the church lot. Peterson said there are no applications currently before the Commission regarding this property. Mabusth commented that the retention pond, which would receive runoff from the church property, would benefit the neighborhood. She advised that the neighbors should be aw ard of the landscaping or barriers being placed along Olive Avenue Mabusth said the City's recommendation for vacation resulted from their desire that no commercial vehicles enter through this area Hallonquist asked if there w ere any drawings of how the area will look Mabusth invited Hallonquist to review the City's records. She noted that there were .o draw ings of the pond but suggested he review' the drawings of the project at O'Sullivan's Peterson moved. Hawn seconded, to approve the vacation of the portion of Navarre Lane subject to Staff recommendations and with Staff development of pond shrubbery. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0 (#3) #7:45 P.M. - #2127 DAVID F. WILDE, 4689/4695 WEST BRANCH ROAD SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT 7:45-8:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The applicant was present Mabusth reported that the applicant proposes a lot line rearrangement of two existing lots, 'ach 3+ acres in size. The property is located in the LR-IB, 1 acre zoning district. The 2 acre zoning district surrounds the ^/roperty. The purpose of the rearrangement is to provide additional area for septic use to serve one of the lots. The access plan to the property is via a 25' road and utility easement along the west side of lot 2 of the West Branch Hill Subdivision. The City is concerned with the use of the 25' access located within property to the north because the alternate septic site is close to the proposed access drive. Mabusth said additional testing will need to be done. L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15. 1996 (#3 - U2127 David Wilde - Continued) Peterson asked if there is adequate area for an alternate septic site*’ Mabusth said this is unknown at this time. If the property is developed w ith access as proposed, additional septic testing would be required Mabusth noted that the property is within the MUSA but no sewer is available to the property. Mabusth also commented that the property is close to the 9-1/2 acre park land property to be given to the City. Mabusth located the parcels owned by the bank that the Saga Hill Preservation Society has an option to purchase for eventual transfer to the City as park land Mabusth noted that the north access was considered and reviewed in 1980 by the County under a past application. The County, at that time, said the existing access could only be used by three properties Any additional properties gaining access would require the hill to the east in the County road be reduced Mabusth said the County allowed the access when the Trapp property was developed but stipulated that no additional propeilies gain access from that area. Mabusth said at the proposed level of use by 5 properties, the City would require a private road. Mabusth said the area and width of the property would satisfy the backlot division requirements David Wilde said the property was inherited by Barbara Sollner-Webb. Wilde said Sollner-Webb asked Wilde to represent her and find out what could be done with the property. He noted that the lots were 3 acre in size meeting the one acre lot size requirements He agreed that the topography was difficult but was of the opinion that the lots were developable. He understands there are limitations to the lots. Wilde said he has spoken with other property owners, Hawkinson, VanSloun, and Trapp, and no objection was voiced. Hawn asked what was involved in reducing the hill in the County road? Mabusth said this would be a major project. Peterson reported that the Staff has asked that the application be tabled in order to gain guidance as to access to the property. Wilde said he was unaware of the county road problem. Peterson said the septic site was a major issue and must be resolved. During public comments, Carol Trapp, adjacent property owner to the north, said she was concerned with drainage. The steep grades could affect drainage onto her driveway. Trapp said she would prefer the development over vacant land or park land. Peterson said proper drainage would be a requirement of any development plan. ii MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#3 - #2127 David Wilde - Continued) Peterson commented that a roadway would require a cul-de-sac with a 80' finished diameter, platted at 100*. Bruce VanSloun, property owner to the west, said he was concerned with access He said there were tremendous issues to be solved. V'anSloun noted there was no cul-de-sac on the right-of-way now. He said he would need to know how this development would affect his property value. VanSloun noted that for a road going over his or the Hawkinson property, the easement that exists extends only part way through. Peterson commented on the need tor tabling the application with the various issues being brought forward. He asked the applicant to w ork with the Staff and neighbors in determining access, easements, and drainage. Peterson moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2 127 to resolve questions noted. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) 8:15 P.M. - #2130 NORBERT JOHNSON, 1181 WILDHURST TRAIL - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Peterson moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2130 at the request of the applicant. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. ACTION ITEMS (#5) #2088 WINFIELD STEPHENS, 3770 BAYSIDE ROAD - VARUNCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - WRITTEN RENOTIFICATION OF NEIGHBORS 7:09-7:32 P.M. The renotification of the public hearing to the neighbors was noted. The applicant was present Mabusth reported that the vacation of the alley was approved earlier. The amended application, now includes the area of vacated alley totalling 20,143 s.f Mabusth said the foundation of the structure was reviewed and found inadequate to support a second story. The project will now be a tear down and rebuild. An area variance will be required. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#5 - #2088 Winfield Stephens - Continued) Mabusth reviewed direction given by the Planning Commission in previous meetings advising that structural coverage be minimized in order to meet the code The setback variances were to be reduced It was also requested that no new addition be permitted to the east so as not to impact the views of the neighbor to the northeast. A 6’ expansion is proposed on the east side The variances required in the application arc tor setbacks, hardcover in the 250-500’ setback area and lot area Mabusth said the proposal involves a 2-story residence with the attached garage The residence structure would be 50* from the Bayside right-of-way with the covered deck at 45' setback. The garage, which encroached Landmark Drive, will be removed The 15' setback from the west lot line would satisfy the agreement with the Landmark Homeowners Association The City requires a 50' setback A 3* setback variance would be required from the north side lot line 15% structural coverage is allowed and is proposed at 14 3*?o There is a hardcover allowance of 30'*/o in the 75-250’ setback and is proposed at 48.2% for a 18.2% excess. Smith asked what changes were made to the variance requests from the earlier proposal Mabusth explained that there is now an increase in the lot area reducing hardcover and structural coverage excesses Setback variances would be required for the expanded second stoiy. Smith said the proposal for 4 bedrooms, a den, and a porch was still excessive in her viewpoint. The applicant had no additional comments but was asked about the possible loss of the maples trees on the east side. Stephens said there would be some loss of the maple trees but was unsure how healthy one of the trees is. He noted that there would be a loss of 2 oak trees to the south. There were no public comments. Hawn said she was concerned with the tear down of homes on substandard lots and the rebuilding of homes larger than intended for a particular zoning area She noted that the codes were present to ensure the proper size homes for a lot size. She was not in favor of a second story expansion with the current foundation problem Peterson opined that approving the side and rear setbacks created a problem. Smith said with proposals of rebuilding on new foundations, the City was more critical and stringent in applying the codes. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15. 1996 (#5 - #2088 Winfield Stephens - Continued) Mabusth ask^ the Commissioners their opinion of the 3-1/2’ setback to the side lot line and what their recommendation would be of the encroachment into the County right-of- way Lindquist noted the proposal meets the structural coverage allowed and suggested the home be rearranged on the lot to meet the setback The applicant said the building inspector said the foundation could be used, if more support posts and beams were added, to extend the home 6' and add a second story. Mabusth noted that she will review ’ this matter with the building statV. The former owner noted that the original part of the house had a fieldstone foundation that was 2-3 ’ thick and adequate to support the addition with a new foundation wall on the east only. Mabusth clarified with the applicant that the proposal would only require a new foundation wall on the east to support the structure Hawn noted that the project would then not be new construction Smith asked the applicant if there were any reductions that could be made to the home. Stephens said he used the 15% allowable for structural coverage in designing the house. Smith suggested reducing the structure to eliminate the need for any variances. Lindquist noted if the home was rearranged, it could have significant impact on the views for the neighbor to the nonh, and felt there would be the need for a variance for setback. Peterson commented that the dramatic variances are for side and rear setbacks. Hawn commented on the need to be consistent when homes are being tom down and replaced She noted the value in taking the impact to the neighbor ’s view into consideration. Mabusth clarified that the 3-1/2’ setback variance is for a side setback to the principal structure. The attached garage will be located 27’ from lot line. Lindquist asked if the existing foundation would be used with the exception of the east w all The applicant said the existing footings and foundation with the e.xception of the east wall would be used Peterson said the proposal would be acceptable to him if the applicant would remain within the e.xisting foundation. Berg noted the need to clarify the inspector ’s comments. There were no public comments. i minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#5 - #2088 Winfield Stephens - Continued) Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2088 for a 15' west side street setback for the garage, a 3-1/2* north side lot line setback, structural coverage not to exceed 15%, setback ot 5' from Bayside Road for covered porch, with the understanding that the existing foundation w ill be used with the exception of the east foundation wall, w hich would be replaced The Building Official must confirm thai existing foundation, except for new support wall at east side, is to remain. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Smith, due to excess structure. Motion approved. (#6) #2098 EVA THEOBALD, 4104 HIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - WRITTEN RENOTIFICATION OF NEIGHBORS 7:40-7:50 P.M. The Affidavit ot Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Stuart Hoam represented the applicant Mabusth reported that the original application has been revised The street setback mains the same as originally proposed. The west side lot setback, originally proposed at 6 8*. has been revised to 9 5*. where 10* is required The separation of the neighbor's garage to the house has been revised to 11*. meeting required 10* separation The lakeshore setback is met by the proposal. The lot coverage has been revised to 1492 s.f meeting the 1500 s f allowable The hardcover in the 75-250* setback, originally proposed at 46%. has been revised to 40%. The code allows 25% in this zone. The lot area and lot width remain the same. Hoam commented that the applicant and he reviewed and followed the Planning Commission's direction, which resulted in the amended proposal. Hoam asked that the application proceed on to the next Council meeting There were no public comments. Hawn asked if the driveway w as of the size to allow a visitor's car to park. Hoam said the driveway would hold two cars with two cars inside relieving some of the street parking problem in the area. Commissioners commented that the proposal was in keeping with the neighborhood, and the applicant's addressed the concerns previously brought forward by the Planning Commission. Hawn said she was concerned with precedent setting and noted the need for the Commission to discuss the overall codes and set specific guidelines. L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#6 - #2098 Eva Theobald - Continued) Peterson noted that the lot width was a problem with the application. Mabusth commented that drainage and storm water was a problem for this particulai neighborhood. Hawn commented on the 40*^0 hardcover being proposed in the 75-250' zone Lindquist noted that the applicant was allowed 15'^o structural cov erage Peterson added that the coverage was behind the 75' line Hawn said she would like the resolution to note that no additional hardcover be allowed. Smith added that the proposal was in keeping with the area. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2098 for side setback on east and west, street setback, hardcover in the 75-250' zone, and lot area and width variances, with the understanding that Staff, Engineer, and adjacent property owners review the drainage to the east. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0 (#7) #2124 JOHN A. EARLING, 2165 COLIN DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:11-8:29 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicant was present The property is located on the south side of the cul-de-sac on Colin Drive, off of Brown Road Mabusth noted that the proposed detached garage has been increased in size to 18’x30'. The garage is proposed 10' from the road outlot extension, and will maintain the 50' required setback from the cul-de-sac and 50' in front of the principal stru^'ture. Mabusth reported that the maximum height of the structure is 18'. Peterson inquired if the City had any plans to develop the outlot road. Mabusth said it would only be built if needed to connect with development to west, but this would be decided by City at a future unknown date. Peterson asked how the garage location on the lot was determined. Earling said the other two options considered were affected by the location of the wellhead and visual impact on view from the master bedroom. The only variances required for the application is the 40' variance from the street with the garage being located in front of the principal structure. 8 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#7 - M2124 James Earling - Contmued) Earling said the area is a good location as there is good coverage with elms and vegetation of 15-16' in height blocking out any impact on the O'Shaughnessy's, his neighbors to the immediate north. It was also noted that the downward si re from the O'Shaughnessy's house minimizes any impact. Smith asked what the purpose was for the garage Earling said he would use it to store his boat and garden equipment. Smith asked if he considered placing the garage closer to his home outside of the two locations previously mentioned. Earling said if he moved it farther down on the property, the cost for the driveway would escalate. It would also create a tunnel with the woods. He said it was his goal to keep the garage out of the way and sheltered by the trees. Smith said she would prefer the structure being located closer to the house. Peterson said the size of the structure was not a problem. He commented on the precedent of setting the garage in front of the principal structure but noted the large size of the lot Peterson questioned whether the structure should be placed so close to what could be a road at some point in time. Peterson said the access structure being placed in front of the principal structure was a separate issue and was more concerned with street setback. Lindquist was informed by Mabusth that the extension road outlot was 50' wide. There were no public comments Hawn commented that the structure sight was tastefully placed with it being hidden in the downward slope. She noted that a barrier of trees would aid the location. The applicant said he would be willing to add trees Hawn suggested evergreen trees. Smith noted, with the size of the parcel, there should be other places on which to locate the structure. Earling said to move the structure to the east would bring it near where the property drops to the creek and is also where the gardens are located. Earling said he was maldng use of the belted tree line and the structure would be 35-40' from the neighbors. Earling said he thought the goal was to make the structure inconspicuous. Earling noted that the pitch of the garage would match that of the existing garage. Berg and Lindquist commented that the structure placement was not an issue and was the best location for the garage. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#7 - #2124 John Earling - Continued) Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to appro\ c Application #2124 for a 40' street setback variance and placement of structure 50* in front of the principal structure. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Smith Smith noted her objection to the location near the outlot, the front yard, and other areas within the parcel where the garage could be located. (#8) #2125 RICHARD D. CLIFFORD, 4760 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:30-8:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. Clifford was present along with the buyer of the property, Tim Olson. Mabusth reported that the application was for variances to lot area and lot width, both variances which have previously been approved by the City in 1984 and 1986 Since then, new shoreline regulations have taken affect, and a setback variance is now required for land alterations within the required 20' setback from the top of a bluff. The bluff is located in the street yard adjacent to the county road. The structure meets the required setbacks. The 20' impact zone would be impacted by land alteration encroaching 3' into the zone. A letter from Ceil Strauss of the DNR was read stating the structure meets the setbacks and noting the amended elevations will provide a stormwater benefit. Strauss, with the grading as proposed, approved the application, noting the runoff would be slowed down and ponded somewhat on the property. Peterson noted that the bluff issue went into effect in 1992. The City adopted the code based on st; te and federal regulations. He reported that there were strict guidelines in determininu whether an area was a bluff. Olson questioned, based on the 44% rate caused by the cut of the roadway, whether a second bluff was created. Mabusth informed Olson he could meet with Mike Gaffron, who did the analysis. In public comment, Jim Thomsen, 4750 North Shore Drive, said he was concerned with approval of a width variance. Mabusth said the measurement is taken at the setback line from the north by coming in 35' and measuring the distance Mabusth said the standard is 140 ’. Thomsen asked how close the proposed building would be to his existing building. Mabusth said the setback is 10 ’ and is proposed at 15'. Thomsen asked about the elevation of the home. Mabusth said the home was a walkout design with 3 levels being visible from the county road and two from the north. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#8 - #2125 Richard Clifford - Continued) Frank Koubsky, 4784 North Shore Drive, questioned the addition of another user of the driveway within Park Lane Mabusth said this issue was never raised by neighbors or the City in the earlier variance reviews, but felt at a minimum address changes and address signage at Park Lane and Tonkaview intersection must be resolved. Patti Affeldt, 4765 Tonkaview Lane, asked if Park Lane w ould be w idened to facilitate the new residence Mabusth said a private driveway that serves 4 residences is maintained privately and is located within 30' of unimproved public right-of-way. She noted that there was not enough right of way to improve the roadway to a public road Thomsen said there was no homeowners association. All of the residents pay to maintain it. There are 4 residences now on the road with a total of 6 possible Thomsen said there is no turnaround. Alfeldt said theie were two residents with the same address at this time. Koubsky voiced concern over the building sites He said he had only a limited amount of yard and was concerned with a road using up any more of his yard He also voiced concern with view s and destruction of landscape. Sandy Thomsen noted that the homeowners have maintained a buffer of trees and is coiicemed that it not be destroyed. Clifford said there were many dead trees on the property but trees were present on both sides of the proposed home. Clifford commented that any building within 10' of an oak tree may kill the tree. The east setback at 15' may result in the loss of trees, but Clifford said on the west side with the 35' setback, the line of evergreens will be saved. Mabusth asked if the house could be moved to the midpoint of the lot. Olson said it could not, adding that the east side contained the majority of small trees, many of which were dead, and only a few large trees Mabusth informed the applicant of the requirement in providing a planting schedule. Mabusth noted the plantings in south yard will provide both a visual and sound barrier to County road Olson had planned on leaving the area natural. Affeldt inquired what the current ordinance said regarding use of a road. Mabusth said three units require upgrade to a road. She added that this particular roadway could not be improved with the current easements. Peterson added that the road as it now exists could not be approved by today's standards Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2125 with applicant providing a landscape plan, the use of silt fencing, and payment of a sewer unit charge with building permit. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#9) #2128 ORONO HOCKEY BOOSTERS, INC, 1025 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 8:59-11:03 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted Mark Engebretson was present representing the Orono Boosters, along with architect, Ted Roseboom. Engebretson stated the ice arena was being engineered by Hamilton, Green, and Abrahamson, and building contractor is Kraus Anderson. Engebretson updated the Commission on the main topics He noted the filing of the application with the Met Council by the City to bring the site within the boundaries of the MUSA for sanitary sewer. Some downstream pipe work would need to be done before any start of the project. The sanitary sewer is necessary for the project to be constructed. Mabusth said the school property may be addressed by Met Council as a separate issue from the more comprehensive comp plan amendment. Engebretson noted their desire to maintain the construction schedule, which would require a 5 month period. The Boosters would like to have the ice arena operational for girls varsity hockey to begin on October 31, 1996. The Boosters will pay for the number of sewer units established. Engebretson said an application has been submitted to the MCWD for a stormwater management plan. Mabusth said the permit would be required before a building permit is issued. The lease with the school district needs to be signed before construction can begin. A draft of the lease is expected from the school this week, which will be reviewed. Gerry Timm, 2885 CoRd 6, asked if there would be any stipulation of a future purchase of the ice arena by the Boosters Engebretson informed her they would be tenants only. Engebretson said there was a zoning code requirement of 80% funding raised before the City could approve the conditional use permit. The school required 90% of the funds be raised but vsfill not sign the lease until 100% of the funds have been raised. Therefore, Engebretson said the project will require 100% funding before construction would begin. Engebretson said a meeting with the general contractor, Kraus Anderson, is scheduled for Wednesday, .April 17, to establish a guaranteed maximum price, which will include the rubber flooring, landscaping, and ice. He said the costs are expected to be about $50,000 higher than originally planned. A cost of S2.3 million is projected to be spent before doors will open, which is $150,000 higher than originally planned, but noted that the $100,000 soil correction will be paid for by the school. 1.75 million has currently been raised according to Engebretson. A $125,000 Mighty Ducks grant is expected to be awarded on April 22. Engebretson said he expects the fund raising to be on schedule. L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#9 - #2128 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) Engebretson said the entity under which the ice arena will be run is a new non-profit association issued through the IRS The Boosters propose to have 3 of the 5 directors come from their mei ibership with the school appointing 1 and the City 1. A neighboring property ow ner will act as a liaison to represent concern of the neighborhood. Hawn was informed that the liaison would not be a voting member. Regarding issues with the neighbors, Engebretson said two meetings were held with 21 property owners in attendance. A number of changes were made as a result of these meetings. A major change was to redesign the roof The original bowstring design was changed to a flat roof to demass the project. Engebretson said neither the school nor the neighbors liked the exterior design This resulted in a change to pre-cast panels, which will allow for more flexibility. A $29,000 landscaping budget has been set Timm said this was not enough money. Fencing will also be erected to separate the arena from the neighboring homes Engebretson said the parking lot would be phased in with gravel allowed to settle due to the soil conditions Paving and curbing, along with the parking lot landscaping, will be done once the settling has occurred. Lindquist asked where the Boosters were in resolving the issues of concern brought forward by the neighbors. Engebretson said they have responded to the size and height of the building, the exterior, landscaping, and fencing. The neighbors would like the parking lot placed near CoRd 6 with the building moved to the south but Engebretson said this would probably not occur Engebretson said the plan is for a south facing lobby and a close relationslup with the high school to assist with ove.-flow parking. There would be a change to drainage patterns if the building was moved. The main reason to maintain the building location is for aesthetics Engebretson was asked about the elevation of the parking lot. The building itself will be sunk into the hillside and be on a dowTiward slope from the neighborhood. Roseboom said there will be drainage and catch basins within the parking lot. Karin Zeeb said she was concerned with the effect of drainage on their properties and into their septic systems. Roseboom said the drainage will go into a storm water retention area and filter into the swales. Peterson told Zeeb that the City will review the drainage, and it should not have an impact on their properties. Other issues of concern for the neighbors were hours of operation, noise and traffic, lighting, fencing, safety, and CoRd 6. Roger Zeeb said the issues keeps going back to the fact that the arena is too large of a structure for the small lot. He said the setback from the residential lot line, which was originally suggested to be 100', was returned to that allowed in the code at 50'. He noted that the Planning Commission represents all of the residents of Orono and should adhere to the philosophy of open space. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#9 - #2128 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) Peterson commented that the property being school property has a bearing on the location, and some variances will be made to allow a property to be usable to benefit the citizens Peterson said the ice arena would be for the benefit of all citizens. Zeeb asked what would happen if p.oblems occur. Peterson said the problems would be corrected. Peterson noted that the Commission has to rely on the expertise of the engineers. Zeeb asked if the City has ever changed sc many rules for one project before. Engebretson noted that the 50' setback from the residential property is being maintained, not changed. Geiry "^imm said the ice arena would affect her whole life with the wall of the building facir.i- tier home. Peterson asked the neighbors what they had thought would be erected on the property when they purchased their homes. Timm noted it does not matter that she knew an area was to be constructed on the property. Timm said the arena goes against City philosophy and feels it is a "done deal". Karin Zeeb said she was told a hockey rink would be built. Zeeb said nothing was planned for the property when he bought it. Karin Zeeb said the land should be left natural for children to play in. Roger Zeeb said an open rink or baseball field would meet approval but not a large building. Engebretson noted that the school building is larger Regarding the parking lot, Roseboom said the initial plan was for one large parking lot on the south side. It was then changed to a split lot to accommodate the wetland. The 88-90 stalls will meet a joint use w ith the high school and its parking lot to accommodate the 200 stalls required. The split will allow for more green space. Roseboom also noted that the building being pushed down into the hill will present a lower profile for a maximum 30' height. The exterior materials will present a more corporate look with the use of a Mankato Kasota Stone. The stone will be punctured for a sign on the building an-t for medallion lights. Smith asked if there were maintenance problems associated with a flat roof Roseboom said the preference would be for a pitched roof, which would have a longer guarantee. The flat roof would be given a 15 year warranty. The positive side of the flat roof is the ability to have all of the equipment stored inside. This will eliminate more noise and assist in maintenance. Karin Zeeb inquired about the venting of the equipment. Engebretson said they have requested that there be no outside venting. There will be louvers on the north and south side to vent the air conditioning but will have 12" of insulation. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#9 - #2128 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) Peterson asked about the walkway between the arena and school The path will be setback from Old Crystal Bay Road, 40’ in length, and of bituminous materials. The lease calls for the path to be maintained by the school and replacement costs paid for by the Boosters Karin Zeeh said the students will use the hill inside of the path talcing the shortest route possible. The fencing placement and material, separating the arena from the residential area, will be determined once the building is erected with direction provided from Gerry Timm as to the type. Jim Grabek, 3050 Jamestown Road, said the project has been underway for years, yet the neighbors have only been involved since January. He said the setback was changed to accommodate the project. He feels the lot is inadequate for the number of parking spaces and will create parking problems during major events Grabek said, with the shortcoming of the school budget, he objects to spending $175,000. He said the building placement is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. He noted the plan calls for the promotion of development wnth that of a neighborhood and not in conflict with a neighborhood. He said he is not opposed to the arena but ftels the site is not appropriate to the neighborhood or for the City. Grabek said the arena is inconsistent with the open space plan Grabek reviewed pictures taken of the site with the Commission in relation to CoRd 6. He asked that the Commission consider moving the building to provide more protection for the neighbors Grabek said the soil borings are not conclusive that the building could not be moved to the south Engebretson said he had informed Grabek that if money was the issue, the Boosters would move the arena to the south. He said they reviewed it from an aesthetic and functionality standpoint. Roseboom noted that the building has a corporate look, not that of a building with many loading doors. Roseboom said the preference is not to place a parking lot in front of the door. He noted the receipt of sunlight is the functional factor with a south facing building being the best Grabek asked about an entrance to the east or the southeast side. Roseboom said arenas w ork best with entrances on the ends of the building Grabek suggested entering across the wetland and asked for additional soil borings. Engebretson said there is no reason for additional soil borings as it is not an issue of soils or cost but one of aesthetics and functionality. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#9 - #2128 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) Grabek said the areas of contention need to be discussed Peterson said the Commission takes the engineering standards ana review it. Grabek said engineering and staff are inconsistent. Mabusth noted exhibit F, which stated the engineering comments on the soil borings, paragraph 4, page 2, last sentence, which was read. Grabek said he was told the borings were not conclusive Grabek asked if a shadow print has been done on the building. Mabusth asked the Commission if they would recommend one Peterson said it has not been done in the past. Peterson noted that the Commission looks at the information that they are provided in determining the viability of an application and finalized by the City Staff, Engineer, and applicant's engineer. Grabek noted that the wall would be 20' high, 160' long, and located 50' from CoRd 6. Roseboom said he would be more concerned if the building w as moved to the south as it would affect the southern exposure for the residents Grabek said the arena infringes on the Timms and others and blocks the sun from the Timms. Hawn commented if the building affects the east sun and the view, what else would be learned from a shadow print. Hawn said that all concerned have agreed that the arena will affect the Timm property. Grabek questioned the amount of funding necessary before construction Engebretson citerated that the City adopted a zoning code calling for 80% of hinds raised prior to construction but the lease will not be signed without 100% of the funds raised. Grabek commented tnat the "push down, push in" of the building would have the same effect if the building would be moved 150' south. Grabek asked if there would be absolutely no noise from the louvers. Engebretson said there would be some noise from the louvers Grabek commented that whether the Timms moved to this particular location should not make any difference, and the City should not have free rein to place it where they want. Engebretson said he objected to this statement. He said it is not neighborly to say the residents should not have moved there or if they knew w hat would be going into the area. He said the Boosters owe the residents a top job on how it is constructed. He reiterated that the code was always 50' setback from the residential lot line and was proposed at the 100'. Grabek said the 50' setback was passed to accommodate the building. Engebretson said it was maintained to keep the setback the same as for a school. Hawn said Grabek was incorrect She noted there was no vehicle by which to deal with the building. With the school setback at 50', the ordinance clarified the school uses and its use by a non-profit organization. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#9 - #2128 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) Grabek commented on the amount allowed for landscaping Hawn said the Boosters are committed to creating a design and meeting the cost Peterson noted the amount of landscaping money can go a long ways under a 5013C plan Grabek asked if the Commission had any opposition or objection to moving the building. Hawn said it can be looked at but the parking lot is to be located to the south to allow easy access of the children between the buildings Hawn said she would think the neighbors would prefer a building to the noise of a parking lot. Peterson said he objected to the parking lot at County Road 6. He said he would not approve the project without accessibility to more parking. Grabek asked the Commission to revisit the issue. He noted there was only 160' of walking distance from the school. Lindquist said he objected to moving the building to the south as he wants the building to face south and provide access with the parking lot to use for student parking. Berg agreed Grabek asked for a copy of the tape of the meeting. Smith asked Grabek if he w as representing his ow n view point or that of a group. Grabek said he was representing himself Karin Zeeb asked if any other sites were considered She was informed that the baseball field site to the east had been considered but viewed unfavoiably by the City. Engebretson said the Boosters preferred this site as the purpose is driven by the youth and high school use. Engebretson said the Mound Pond was also considered but it was not a priority of the school district. A joint venture with VVayzata was also considered. Karin Zeeb said her main concern was safety. She noted the dangerous hill by Jamestown and fast traffic. Zeeb said there will be a problem with congestion from cars entering the parking areas and the baseball fields She was concerned with children walking home from school. She noted the large number of accidents The possibility of turn lanes was brought up. Zeeb also noted the bike route. Peterson said he agreed that CoRd 6 was a problem but changes were made at the County level. He noted that the original application to the east called for access from CoRd 6 but was rejected. Roger Zeeb asked the City to lower the speed limit. Peterson said the City does not make this determination He noted when review of speed limits are done, car tiowage is measured and speed limits may actually rise. NfINLlTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 {ft9 - #2128 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) It was noted that a bike'hike trail will be installed along the east side of Old Crystal Bay Road. Karin Zeeb asked if an environmental impact statement was done It was noted that this was not required. Zeeb said the MPCA said one could be requested to monitor noise and pollution and could cause a 2-3 month delay Engebretson noted that timing of the project was critical. Peterson asked about signage Roseboom said there would be no monolithic free-standing signage but a 4' window on the facade with the words, "Orono Ice Arena", imprinted in the precast concrete on the north side It was noted that the application does not propose any signage, which needs to be part of the package Engebretson said the administration, campuS'Wide, has no signage He was informed that the community would need directions into the facility Engebretson said the school intends on having a program-style plan and coordinate this signage with the ice arena in order to use the same design. Lighting of the facility was discussed Roseboom said there will be four 25-30’ lights designed not to impact the residential area by being shielded dowTiward. It was noted that the lighting must meet City code Karin Zeeb questioned the inability of high school children to walk across campus when the nearby day care walks across the street. Peterson said there is a safety issue on Old Crystal Bay Road. Zeeb asked to be on record that the arena will be a "disaster waiting to happen". Timm asked why any variances would be allowed She was informed that there were two variances being requested and a conditional use permit Peterson noted that the Plaiming Commission would make a recommendation to the Council. Any legally binding decisions are only made by the Council. The conditional use permit allows the ice arena use as being an appropriate use for the school campus Peterson review ed the application He noted in addition to approval of variances and CUP, the sewer issue must be resolved and the lease in place with adequate funds raised. A light plan will be reviewed with the City Engineer It has been determined that the ventilation equipment being located inside the building as being the best location. The County will be involved with the traffic issues. The Engineer must approve any drainage plans, and the site must maintain storm water runoff. The applicant will work with Staff on the landscaping plan Peterson noted that the roof height of 30' does not exceed that allowed in residential zoning and is of a non-intrusive design. MINTJTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#9 - #2128 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) Engebretson said the hours of operation during non-ice times have not been set. He suggested the hours of 7:00 a m to 9 00 p m. He said the purpose of the building during this time will be for daytime sports, recreation, and meetings Engebretson said the non ice time will be between March 15 and September 15 with the possibility of year-around ice in the future. Prime time ice hours will run from 5:30 a m to 11:30 p m. Engebretson reported that there will be no hazardous material used when asked about pollution problems. Mabusth noted that a calculation of signage will need to be done The allowable siftage is 12 s.f, and the application will require an area signage variance When asked how the sign imprinted into the concrete will be viewed at night, Roseboom said an indirect light will be on the sign. There will also be a 4'x4' medallion window with lighting Engebretson said arenas usually do not operate with lighted signs during the evening hours. Roger Zeeb asked about access from Old Crystal Bay Road Peterson said the bond referendum, which was turned down, had addressed issues of correcting parking and access. Peterson said the school was considering to restrict and reconfigure Old Crystal Bay Road between CoRd 6 and Hwy 12 and make it part of the school campus. This would have involved an internal roadway. Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to appro’ »* Acplication #2128 with Staff recommendations 1-7. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0 Grabek inquired if the shadow imprint and additional soil borings were part of the motion. Peterson informed him that the Council will make the determining decision It was noted that the application will go to the Council on April 22 regarding the variance to the Highway 12 moratorium. (#10) #2129 JOHN PENDLETON, 350 NORTH ARM LANE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING The application was withdrawn at the request of the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#11) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION There were no additional issues discussed MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15. 1996 ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#12) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MARCH IS, 1996 MEETING Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 18, 1996. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1 (#13) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE MAY 13, 1996 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL No representative was chosen. ADJOURNMENT Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 11 ;05 p.m. Stephen Peterson, Chair Person KWT^rr^-^y^r ,y=?’- I 1‘-. li m ■'^- d V* ':-5’'-:V:.; A .: -■• .■■: ■ > pjar)/),^ /^ . ^ V, -, A'^JZo,,„(, V';:" ^ " v/S's-* A- ::i|''■.■■ ^ ■■ ,/ -;•'■/ :''-v'::' r^/.' Aa. ;;, #2133 1/ etaf ^ N tito4S’ 00'' c A.' ' :a 'll' ■'■^i ■ "—I--•■, ■;^-''-'i- •-! /•;■>,, '.'I'* •■ H /*" ' ■>• ''•, ■•, • *. •■ - ■ f ■• •'. • .' , .- . ... .->'.rv; ■ r-l'' ; :f. » ■li; ’ .. ‘' ‘t PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR HILLOWAY CORPORATION IN THE WEST 1/2, NW 1/4, NW 1/4, SECTION 6-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA OWNER &DEVELOPER: HILLOWAY CORPORATION 1551 HUNTER DRIVE WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 / ENGINEER k SURVEYOR: COFFIN k GRONBERG, INC. 482 TAMARACK AVENUE LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA 55356 : ‘'V3i . '.‘T •' ■ •> r if^iAi ■■{^,C«1l-'!*ON ’*«• c* the Noe»h«#«i >jor**i gf •»*« Nortn#*«i» o* Strt or 6. *o«r*»^-c ■* ' NoTM., «-y»9e dJ *«»! <»♦ th* 5th Me» <>oh. tiCfP' that o» We*’ / 4 • frt M-0 We«t *xjlt o» o» the KiO»t«»e*t Xtylef eh.c*- e* So«H o* the No*th S8a-X 'eet o» »o<J West ^ of She Nofthwest i>ior«e' ■:• the Nortre«*t 'Juarier. otk* «h<ch •«* Sor’h .y the boiith 545 34 *eet of m>< *e*i Mgff o* <•«« Northwest >jcyie* of tv Northeest g>«tr<a* i ■ i’ ivi?:.!-’*? ;. ■’ ■■■■ - - •> . ' V V,-- ^ J’ VJ ' ^ ■ ’■• ,--- ' '-r , e4 ' i ^*4 A ■ *■■'’• •y " ' ■-;1 ■..;.f ■■''W IM .1. <lt.Cl.