Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-1996 Planning Packet/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 1996, 7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Edward J. Callahan, Jr. ATTENDANCE Applicants presenting propossds before the Commission are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced by the Chairman. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS 1.7:00 p.m. #2158 John O' Sullivan/Grice Baptist Church Property, 2380 Shady wood Road - Rezoning - ’Aiblic Hearing 2. 7:30 p.m 3. 7:45 p.m #2155 Nancy Krause -uid Dan Handlin, 3860 North Shore Drive and City of Orono - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing #2156 Michael and Theresa Eastman, 4520 West Branch Road and Lakeview Golf Course, 405 North Arm Drive - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement (Registered land Survey) - Public Hearing ACTION ITEMS - Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 4. #2151 John and Janice Hurd, 2795 Casco Point Road - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing 5. #2159 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road - Variances - Public Hearing 6. #2160 David Dotzenroth, 3225 Casco Circle - Variances - Public Hearing 7. #2161 James and Melissa Easley, 4105 Highwood Road - Variances - Public Hearing 8. #2163 I.arry and Sharon Gehl, 1825 Concordia Street - Variances - Public Hearing 9. #2164 Douglas J. Olson, 2601 West Lafayette Road - Variances - Public Hearing 10. #2166 Janet Kieman, 1491 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Public Hearing 11. #2167 Allen and Judy Schefers, "2540" Casco Point Road - Variances - Public Hearing Public A ttendance Meeting D afe □ □ Council Planning Commission Park Commission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER ^^X-6 ^ L ii-l 6. 7. ‘kjoJiLh :7^-7t[A.laLM(U>)?C |a .- k i o ..c<.__________>4 \ 6zz^ Cv V jO) 6.V d<;,XO ^ 1ft. ^ ((2^f^^/vuA,TC/ 11, ^ ^ -^/.4£ j\ V r 7 f\T K^~\ 'W^MU---------------------U-------------------------------------------12. 13. 14. 15. mm-* n i - nw ^ atM o »si o fir a §i 3* ff I 0^s ?I <fi!s 88 S’ ss5 to g; £ s* gI r ? I ? n«s 0 5T § 1 ^*n c* ST ‘<i I Xr»R |- K» ONUi r3(•a Io3 ?g; W 5> g S I % ^Ki rsi £ i 1 ?S a ^ ? 2 3— § F CM M X o5=r« I < 8;w ? O’ B 2I V«J M ViM oso o fr <s;? I ? 2 B Xs I vO Sr I «i g. I V 3n 1 S’ 2 I < 8? I B X K1 II t| s Xc I'J § ? i' ii 5 55 f I n gn TJ 1s 2 ?*: 23 «IC £ ■gcr B- ■*k Ul 1 = -4 n a 5 ^2.? §. Jg I I o3a| S' n Sfi- 5 3 3 ? »» -■2 ^ ^ D b-n? 8 T3 a I o Ii11 • o is p 8 2 S Q I 00o (/) g*O.'< O H o “0sr5 n» s 7i 7 Cl odr 3 O 5 > H O /s a no5nP § K.(/) M i5>3 m Cfc n 3s |oo n?^0-5 Ui oS3 5m •A To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Conunission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:August 14, 1996 Subject:#2158 John O'Sullivan/Former Grace Baptist Church Propert}’, 2380 Shad>’\vood Road - Rezoning - Public Hearing Current Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 Acre Proposed Zoning District: B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District Summary' of Request Applicant John O’Sullivan has an option to purchase the 1.7 acre Grace Baptist Church property. He proposes the rezoning of that property and the adjacent portions of Navarre Lane from LR-IC to B-5, for the purpose of constructing a light retail/office building on the propert]- which conceptually may include a bank, drive-up auto tellers, and two-story retail/officc building. The conceptual proposal wou’d include parking areas, a stormwater holding pond and request for vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane. The purpose of the rezoning application is, however, to consider just the proposed rezoning, not the specifics of the conceptual site plan. List of Exhibits A - Application B C D E F G H 1 J K L Plat Map Property Ov^ners List (600* Distance) Navarre Cmrent Zoning Map Existing Neighborhood/Building Locations Proposed Development Superimposed B-5 Zoning Code Standards Comprehensive Plan Excerpts Mabusth Memo 6/20/96 7/2/96 Letter of Request for Expedited Review 7/2/96 Letter from Property Owner (North Central CBA) 1" = 100' Plat Map M - Phase I and 11 Proposed Site Plan and Development Narratives N - O - Elevation Views Public Comments Received General Issues for Discussion 1.Does the proposed rezoning fit with Orono's Comprehensive Plan for the Navarre business district? 2. If not, should the City consider a rezoning request absent a comprehensive zoning "needs" review of the Navarre area? 1 « • Zoning File #2158 August 2, 1996 Page 2 3. Is B-5 the appropriate district for the proposed uses? 4.Are the proposed uses appropriate for this location, adjacent to an exisiing single family neighborhood? 5.If the property is rezoned and if the parcel is ultimately sold to another developer, are all of the allowed uses in the B-5 zone appropriate for this location? Background The last rezoning in the Navarre commercial area occurred in 1983, when the Keaveny parcels (Orono Liquor Store, Keaveny Drugs, etc.) were rezoned from B-3 to B-1. In 1989, the City undertook a planning study of the Navarre commercial area using Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc. as consultants. That study resulted in no conclusions about redevelopment of Navarre, and no rezoning occurred at that time. In 1995, the City considered two proposals in Navarre which contemplated the possibility of rezoning: Ron Rantz ’s informal proposal to rezone the rear of his property from LR-1B to B-4. possibly in conjunction with a future comprehensive review of the B-4 district boundaries west of Shadywood Road Hessburg request that City consider options for allowing a domestic abuse shelter on the Grace Baptist Church site, either by amending the LR-IC conditional use section or creating a conditional use under B-4 with a rezoning from LR-IC to B-4. Neither of these recent requests took the form of a formal application for rezoning. However, during the Rantz discussions, some members of Council indicated a reluctance to consider any rezonings in Navarre on a parcel-by-parcel basis, preferring to review the zoning in Navarre on a comprehensive basis. The City has not undertaken a comprehensive review of the Navarre commercial area zoning. Nevertheless, Mr. O’Sullivan has formally applied for a rezoning, and has requested that your recommendation be placed on the August 26 Council agenda. Site Location and Zoning The site is located between County Road 19 (Shadywood Road) and Olive Avenue, just north of a portion of Navarre Lane which is not open to traffic. The site is appro.ximately 1.7 acres in area, and is currently zoned LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, ‘/t acre minimum lot size, as is the residential neighborhood to the north (see Exhibit G). The church use which previously existed on the site was permitted as a conditional use in the LR-IC residential zone. J Zoning File #2158 August 2, 1996 Page 3 Existing Uses & Zoning of Adjacent & Nearby Properties The residential neighborhood (Zoned LR-IC ) abutting the subject property consists of single family homes on small lots generally gaining access from Olive Avenue, and those further north from Bayview Place. Directly to the east of the site, the wetland outlot (Zoned LR-IB) is not a buildable parcel, and the Lafayette Ridge neighborhood is some 600’ distant. The adjacent parcel directly to the southeast is zoned B*l, Retail Sales Business District and will be the site of a restaurant/convenience store/gas station/car wash complex. To the immediate south of County Road 15 is an existing convenience store operation, zoned B-1. Southwest of the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19 is Rick's Super Valu, which is zoned B-3, Shopping Center Business District. Directl) across Shad> wood Road from the site, in the northwest quadrant of Co. Rds. 15/19, is an Amoco serv ice station as well as a professional office building and a single family residence, all zoned B-1. Just to the north of Lyric Avenue on the west side of 19 is a City playground. B-5 District Proposed Applicant proposes a rezoning to B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District. The B-5 standards were created in 1976 and exist today as originally adopted. The purpose of the B-5 District is defined in the Zoning Code as follows: "The B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the su.Tounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The District may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The District shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location of the B-5 District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre in the City of Orono, the uses are limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that property in that use district since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre." Planning Commission should carefully consider whether all of the permitted uses in the B-5 zone as listed below are appropriate for the property in question. Remember that this list was created 20 years ago, and the nature of certain businesses on the list may have changed in Zoning File »2\5% August 2, 1996 Page 4 some respects. The Planning Commission should consider whether any of the listed permitted (or conditional) uses might be inappropriate for this property. Permitted and conditional uses under proposed and current zoning: B-5 Limited Neighborb.,od Business District Permitted Uses: Municipal Buildings Offices Clinics Art and school supply store Book and magazine store Office supply store Banks, loan company, insurance company, real estate office Barbershop, beauty shop Camera and photograph supply store Locksmith Hobby shop Gift store Glassware and pottery Antique store Jew Iry store Watch repair Library Museum Record shop Music store Tobacco shop Galleries Pet shop Conditional Uses: Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store Dry cleaning store Tailor shop Pressing and shoe shine shop Laundry and cleaning pickup station Home and garden equipment rental Veterinary clinic Kennels Off-street parking Public service structures LR'IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District Permitted Uses: One-family detached dwellings Public owned parks and playgrounds Municipal buildings i Conditional Uses; Schools Churches Clubs, camps, etc. Public service structures Greenhouses Recreation areas Guest houses & non-rental guest apartments Planned Residential Development (PRD) Duplex (within 200' of Comm'l) Apiaries Antenna structure Farms Animals Stables and Bams-Private Stables and Bams-Public Riding Academy Zf ng File #2158 August 2, 1996 Page 5 Potential Uses of Site Under Current LR-IC Zoning The site has contained a vacant church building for a number of years, and the current owners, the North Central Conservative Baptist Association, have been attempting to sell the property for some time. Under the LR-IC zoning, single family residential development is the primary permitted use. Because the property is within 200' of a commercial district, it would qualify for duplex use, and with 1.7 acres in a half-acre zone, might accommodate as many as 6 dwelling units in three duplex structures. The other permitted LR-IC uses are 'public owned parks and playgrounds', and 'municipal buildings'. The City has a park on the west side of Shadywood Road near the property, and has no plans at this time to expand or relocate that park. Further, the City has no plan or intent to locate new municipal buildings in Navarre. The location so near one of Lake Minnetonka's busiest intersections makes the southerly portions of the site less than ideal for single family development. Duplex or townhouse type units which might be allowed if the site was rezoned to LR-lC-1, might be a more attractive residential option than single family. Rczoning this site to commercial may eliminate an opportunity for developing additional types of residential housing. B-5 Correct 'Fit' For Proposed Uses Applicants have indicated that the B-S district provides the best "fit" for their proposed uses. Both 'banks' and 'offices' are permitted uses in the B-5 zone as well as certain types of retail businesses, although some retail uses would require a conditional use permit. Related to other zoning districts: The B-1 Retail Sales Business District would permit the bank and retail uses but would require a conditional use permit for office. The B-3 Shopping Center Business District would similarly require a conditional use permit for office, but also requires a minimum lot size of two acres which the property doesn't meet. The B-4 Office and Professional Business District would permit bank and office uses but would not allow the retail uses contemplated by applicant. Staff agrees that for the uses proposed by the applicant, the B-5 district is the best zoning "fit". Zoning File #2158 August 2, 1996 Page 6 Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission should consider more than merely whether the B-5 rezoning meets the applicants needs, but whether it meets the needs and goals of the City for development of Navarre. The Comprehensive Plan says very little about long-term plans for Navarre, although it does include a list of 13 'Urban Land Use Policies' (Exhibit L) of which a number have direct relation to commercial development: "2. Limited Commercial Areas Will Be Provided for Neighborhood Service Businesses . The primary function of Orono's commercial areas will be to provide those retail, commercial and service businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono's urban and rural residents..." "4. The City Will Encourage Private Unification and Coordination of the Existing Commercial Areas. Unplanned strip commercial developments will be discouraged. Coordinated projects designed to aesthetically enhance, unify and identify the business areas will be encouraged." "6. Commercial and Industrial Development Will Not Be Permitted to Adversely Affect Neighboring Residential Property. The location and scale of commercial and industrial development will be controlled so as not to encroach upon the primary residential land uses in Orono. Wherever possible, natural land forms or buffers will be required between different land uses." "11. A Significant Amount of Natural Woodlands and Open Space Will Be Retained on Each Property. Retention of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property." On page CMP 4-26 of the Land Use Plan, it is indicated that the Navarre area "will provide sufficient opportunity for neighborhood retail and service businesses, plus adequate professional offices, to serve the needs of most Orono residents. Accessory functions such as offices and owner-occupied living units or limited multi-family developments will be considered appropriate in or near the Navarre commercial area." Map 7 of the Orono Comprehensive Plan is a depiction of the Land Use Plan. It defines the Navarre area as commercial in nature, but the scale of the map was not intended to identify whether individual properties are included or excluded from the commercial area. Therefore, it is unclear whether the site of the proposed rezoning is 'planned' for commercial use. zoning File ^2158 August 2, 1996 Page 7 Staff Recommendation 1 . It would be most appropriate from a long-range planning perspective to comprehensively study zoning and land use in the Navarre area, before arbitrarily rezoning a parcel at the request of a developer. Analysis of the current situation and future needs of this part of Orono might then result in a more informed decision on whether zoning changes are prudent aiid desirable. 2. Since such a study has not been initiated by Council, and given the applicant ’s intent to move quickly forward to the August 26 Council meeting for final action on this rezoning application. Planning Commission is requested to make a recommendation to council as to whether the requested rezoning is appropriate, or if not, then under what circumstances or conditions it might be appropriate, if any. As a minimum, consideration should be given to whether there is a need for additional commercial land in Navarre, as well as the impacts of commercial expansion on the adjacent neighborhood. Is this additional commercial land needed to provide for the various uses which might be beneficial to the Navarre area, or can these uses be accomodated by the redevelopment or re-use of existing commercially-zoned property? Or is this land needed for additional residential use? Options For Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval for rezoning to B-5. Recommend approval subject to specific conditions or circumstances. Conditions might include: a) That the B-5 standards be amended to add or delete specific permitted or conditional uses. b) That conceptual approval only should be granted by Council until a comprehensive zoning study of Navarre has been completed. Recommend that the rezoning request be denied. Please identify specific reasons. Table for further information. Identify specific additional information required. Other »!V;r » , / ‘■j . -9 V '• -I t *■ ^•. • -•» ^• -- • 4/ %•• - •\ i CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application # Date Received " '1 11-\ l‘^Z Amount Paid '^^O- • Xr - . A PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address V ^ , W C>-'u- r: •> /)/• w A r >1 c-u c /li Type of Application to be Filed n r. Z/' /v /a ' -^- Propert>' Identification Number (P.I.D.) applicant , ,Phone (home) •■/ 'J-K ' '> I Sa L I /r.Name_ AHHre<;s ^-1 ■ S >(/> b ' ;-C i\r> OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ___________________ Phone (work) V 7 / - c Z :•? Citv Zip ^ J .1 Phone (hc*ne) Phone (work)_ Address City Zip. f PTiCix! J Ml-M /•/•TC'Di^Propertv' Acquired_______________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application ' SI75.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) S225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ‘ of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS , , r x $250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $300.00 Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ' $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District A--------;-----; Present Use of Property_______ Residential Other (specify). _ (month/year) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS I. 9 J. 4. 9. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Propert>' Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11” X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Ini tials of Clerical Staff;__________________________Date____________ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incuned 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 n ( ^ >-r: OWNER S SIGNATURE Date ki- The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry' onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature _Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN fiATt 07/2A/9A BATCH 506PROP AOOR C»«CR NATC TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 30 17-117-23 43 0001 02195 8AYVIEH PL R P HEYERS A J E MEYERS RICHARD P • JANICE E iSYERS 2195 BAYVIEN PL NAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORKAirON SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST30 17-117-23 43 000202296 SHAOYNOOO RO M P « A N FRANZEN HIKE A ANNA FRANZEN 2296 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PACE 1330 17-117-23 43 000402293 SHAOri ’.'COO ROK H A S A RODLHALOKEVIN H A SHIRLEY A RQOENALO 2293 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AOOR OPMER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OPMER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR 0M4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 30 17-117-23 43 0005 03443 CRYSTAL PL A A L ROOEHALO AOELBERT M KODEMALO 3443 CRYSTAL PUCE NAYZATA MN 55391 30 17-117-23 43 0020 03430 LIVINGSTON AVE LANE N MOORE LAr.'E H MOORE 3430 LIVINGSTON AVC NAYZATA MN 55391 30 17-117-23 43- 0023 03414 LIVINGSTON AVE ROSEMARY P BURMASTER ROSEMARY P BURMASTER 3414 LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0064 03443 LIVINGSTON AVE DCrtaS L HEi^R DENNIS L HEGER 3443 LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 30 17-117-23 43 0018 03452 LIVINGSTON AVT NILLIAH R MAXNELL II A HIFE HILLIAM R MlUaCLL II 3452 LIVINGSTON AVE NAVARRE MN 55391 58 17-117-23 43 0")21 03436 LIVIIASSTON AVE STANLEY A MOORE OEFtJIS THUECKS 3177 LAKESHORE BLVO MAYZAT MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0062 03433 LIVINGSTON AVE JEFFREY A ALEMAN JEFFREY ALLEN KLEHAN 244 BROAOHAY AVE N NAYZATA m 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0065 03445 LIVINGSTON AVE CAROLYN H TILLOTSON CAROLYN M TILLOTSON 3445 LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA FM 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0019 03444 LIVINGSTON AVE FRAFK H OLSON ETAL FRANK H OLSON 3444 LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA m 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0022 03422 LIVINGSTON AVE D A SERNA I 0 L SHELDCN D A SERNA A 0 L SHELOCN 3422 LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0063 03435 LIVINGSTON AVE 0 V A E N BRUCE DENNIS V A EVELYN N BRUCE 3435 LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0075 03468 LYRIC AVE JAMES F MITTELSTAEOT III JAMES F MITTELSTAEOT 111 3468 LYRIC AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 17-117-23 43 0076 03444 LYRIC AVE F L A S E MITTELSTAEDT MRi4WS FRAIAC L MITTELSTAEOT 3444 LYRIC AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 30 17-117-23 43 0077 03438 LYRIC AVE LOIS M la'OLO'l LOIS MARIE HUOLOH 3438 LYRIC AV HAYZAlA iN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0078 03422 LYRIC AVE DANIEL E SHANSON DANIEL E SNANSON 5422 LYRIC AVE NAYZATA MN 55'91 X WM MTC 07/26/96OATCN 506PROP AOOII ONNER NAME TiO<PAYER HAHE/AOOR PROP AODR OlrtlCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOCMI PROP AOOR (MIER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AODR ONhCR NAHE TAXPAYER HAHE/AOOR PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AODR OI«CR NAHE TAXPAYER HAHE/AOOR COUNTY mOPCRTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OlfCRS LIST58 17-117-25 « 007905MM I.YR1C AVE HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAM} CITY OF ORCNO PARK ♦/15/79 ST OEED 1SA75S 58 17-117-25 45 0032 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO TOHN OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 6« CRYSTAL BAY MN 55359 38 17-117-25 45 C085 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARKING LOT BUFFER 5-22-91 ST DEED NO 174998 58 17-117-25 45 0099 05400 SHORELINE OR DALE S JOIMSON NAVARRE HAROHARE C/0 DALE JOIMSON 5400 SHORELINE OR PO BOX 40 NAVARRE 104 55592 58 17-117-25 45 0154 05405 LIVINGSTON AVE SHERYL A PATTEN SHERYL A PATTEN 5405 LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA Mt4 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0007 02544 SHAOYNOOO RO GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE NORTH CENTRAL CBA 7240 UNIVERSITY AVE N E <110 FRIDLEY FM 55452 58 17-117-25 45 008005408 LYRIC AVE HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/15/79 ST OEED 154755 58 17-117-25 45 0085 00058 ADDRESS UNASSli^ilO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/15/79 ST OEEO 154754 58 17-117-25 45 0084 03445 LYRIC AVE H G A 0 M TIERNEY WILLIAM 6 A DELORES TIERTCY 3465 LYRIC AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 58 17-117-25 43 0141 05475 LIVINGSTON AVE SARAFME H ANDERSON SARANME H AMOERSON 3473 LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0005 C0038 ADDRESS IMASSIGNEO T0Nt4 OF ORONO CITY OF OROt«) PO BOX 64 CRYSTAL BAY m 55559 38 17-117-25 44 0008 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HEM4EPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO CONVEYED 2/8/82 ST DEED 141145 REPOIT NO. P1435401 PAGE 1458 17-117-25 45 008103408 LYRIC AVE HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST OEEO 154755 58 17-117-25 45 0084 00058 ADDRESS UNASSiaCO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAM) CITY OF (MWNO CONVEYED 2/0/82 ST DEED 141147 58 17-117-25 45 0098 03414 SHORELINE DR GERM-TOM PARTNERSHIP GERM-TOrt PARTNERSHIP C/0 COURT MACFARLANE P 0 BOX 1411 HIMETOFKA MN 55545 38 17-117-23 45 0142 05440 SHORELINE OR MAE MUELLER RICHARD M BLOOMQUIST 5440 SHORELINE OR NAYZATA MN 55391 58 17-117-25 44 0004 02380 SHAOYMOOO RO GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE NORTH CENTRAL CBA 7240 UNIVERSITY AVE N E <110 FRIDLEY MN 55432 58 17-117-23 44 0009 02577 SHAOYMOOO RO MARCEL S DITTRICH MARCEL DITTRICH 2577 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA MN 55591 ■ •i h ■n--C.v. j • // 4 RUN DATE 07/Z6/96 BATCH 50APRO^ AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR H€NNEPI?4 COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OKt:ZRS LIST5B 17-117-23 44 OOlS 0005B ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 10/17/80 ST DEED 159148 38 17-117-23 44 0022 03405 CRYSTAL BAY RO ALOHA J DARLING ALOHA J DARLING 3405 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NAYZATA HN 55391 36 17-117-23 44 0027 02225 BAYVIEN PL TERESA ANNE KOCH TERESA KOCH 2225 BAYVIEN PLACE NAYZATA HN 55391 36 17-117-23 44 0030 02265 BAYVIEN PL DAVID N DEAN 2 DIAT^E H DEAN DAVID N i DIANE M DEAN 2265 BAYVIEN PLACE NAYZATA MI4 55391 38 17-117-2S 44 0033 02305 BAYVIEN PL R M STELLIHG ETAL GENE H BLOCK 2305 BAYVIEN PLACE NAYZATA NN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0059 03320 NAVARRE LA PAUL J PASCUZZI PAUL J PASCUZZI 3320 NAVARRE LA NAYZATA HH 55391 38 17-117-23 44 002003393 CRYSTAL EAY RO JEFFREY MARK HAMPER JEFF HAMMER 3393 CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0025 02205 BAYVIEN PL CLEF€NT F BIRCH JR ET AL CLEHEffT F BIRCH JR AND BARBARA J SIPPRELL-BIRCH 2205 BAYVIEN PL NAYZATA MT4 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0028 02245 BAYVIEN PL T J • T P MALLOCK TERRY J HALLOCK TIFFINY POOL HALLOCK 2245 BAYVIEN PL NAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0031 02275 BAYVIEN PL JAMES R ANOERSOTv* JAHEr R ANDERSON 2275 BAYVIEN PLACE NAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0041 02250 BAYVIEN PL CATHY JO TURNER TOM I CATHY TURNER 5537 BARTLETT BLVO HOUND M4 55364 36 17-117-23 44 0060 03324 NAVARRE LA CRETT MALLONQUIST BRETT K HALLONQUIST 3324 NAVARRE LA NAYATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. P14S5401 PAGE 1536 17-117-23 44 002103399 CRYSTAL BAY RO S 6 SOeiENIAK I V MCKINNEY S SOBIENIAK t V HCKimEY 3399 CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0026 02215 BAYVIEN PL RAJ HAZARD ROBERT RAYMOND HAZARD 2215 BAYVIEN PL NAYZATA m 55391 36 17-117-23 44 0029 02253 BAYVIEN PL PATRICIA A BURNEICE PATRICIA A BURNIECE 2253 BAYVIEN PL NAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0032 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO GENE AND SHERYLL BLOCK GENE AND SHERYLL BLOCK 2305 BAYVIEN PLACE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0042 02240 BAYVIEN PL KIWERLY A ERICSON KIMBERLY A ERICS0r4 2240 BAYVIEN PL NAYZATA MN 55391 •5 38 17-117-23 44 0063 02344 OLIVE AVE JAMES S HEITZ JAMES S HEITZ 2344 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 UN DATE 07/2A/9*HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATXON SYSTEM PROPERTY 0»MERS LISTSATCH 50APROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR QttCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NA»S/AOOR PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OIMER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR ONICR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 30 17-U7-25 A4 OOAA02330 OLIVE AVE B A JAKUOIAK A L M JAKUBIAR BRIAN A JAKUBIAR 2330 OLIVE AVE MAYZATA M4 55391 30 17-117-23 44 0047 02314 OLIVE AVE LOUISE B DAY LOUISE B DAY 2314 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA 55391 30 17-117-23 44 0073 02314 SMAOYHOOO RD E A RUQLIN ET AL N/L EST EOiaN A MABEL KUBLIN 2314 SMAOYHOOO ROAO NAYZATA MN 55391 30 17-117-23 44 0074 02334 SMAOYHOOO RD JOMN C A BARBARA E ERICSON JOHN A BARBARA ERICSON 1420 SMAOYHOOO RO NATZATA m 55391 30 17-117-25 44 0079 02341 SMAOYHOOO RD H R GROETSCH A C J 6R0ETSCH LOUISE A SANOELHOFF 2341 SMAOYHOOO RO NAYZATA MN 55391 30 17-117-23 44 0083 02230 BAYVIEM PL J L SCHNECK A P M SCHNECK J L A P M SCHNECK 2230 BAYVIEH PL S NAYZATA W 55391 38 17-117-23 44 004502328 OLIVE ANT J T JACOBSON AID JACOBSON J T JACOBSON A L 0 JACOBSON 2328 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 30 17-117-23 44 0040 02304 OLIVE AVE KAREN E ATOERSCr^l KAREN E ANDERSON 2304 OLIVE AVE ORONO fti 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0074 02324 SMAOYHOOO RO R J HAER4ER A C F HAEFNER RICHATvO J/COLLEEN F HAEFNER 2324 SHAOYHOOO RD NAYZATA m 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0077 03324 NAVARRE LA GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE GRACE BAPTIST CHURCHyTUVARRE 2380 SHADYFCOD RO ORONO MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0080 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGMEO TO«4 OF ORaX) CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 64 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55359 38 17-117-23 44 0084 02350 OLIVE AVE NANCY C RUST NANCY C NELSON 2350 OLIVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1430 17-117-23 44 004402318 OLILT AVE PATRICK M SULLIVAN PATRICK H SULLIVAN 2318 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0049* 02300 OLIVE AVE MARGARET A HOOD MARGARET A MOOD 2300 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0075 02334 SMADYNOOO RO JAB ERICSON JOMN C A BARBARA E ERICSON 1420 SHAOYHOOO RO HAYZATA m 55391 58 17-117-23 44 0078 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED GRACE BAPTIST CHURCHyTUVARRE GRACE BAPTIST CMURCH/NAVARRE 2380 SHAOYHOOO RO ORONO rt4 55391 SB 17-117-23 44 0082 02200 BAYVIEH PL DALE MATSON ETAL DALE MATSON ETAL 2200 BAWIEN PLACE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0085 03340 SHORELINE OR V0YA6EUR SERVICE CENTERS INC VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC P 0 BOX 45 NAVARRE MN 55392 I •Vj.i* V~*>| I V •• * I f'I * in :) RUN DATE 07/2A/94 RATCN 504 PROR AOOR GHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AOOR CMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AOOR QMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR HENNEPIN COUNTY PRCS»ERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LISTsa 17-117-25 44 0090 05285 UFAYETTE RI06E CT SALLY J MCCABE SALLY J MCCABE 5285 UFAYETTE RIDGE CT NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0096 05500 NAVARRE LA RAYMONO N PASCH RAYMOND N PASCH 5500 NAVARRE LA NAYZATA MN 55591 53 17-117-25 44 0101 05540 SHORELINE OR Lie KOEHNEN LEROY i CAROL KOEIOSN 24020 VALLEYNOOO EXCELSIOR MN 55551 58 17-117-25 44 0107 02504 SHAOYHOOD RD CRAIG ALLEN BORCHARDT CRAIt ALLEN BUHCHAROT 2504 SHAOYHOOD RD HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0110 05290 NAVARRE LA CHARALAMPOS MARINOS CHARALAMPOS MARINOS 17400 SUSAN LA MINNETONKA MN 55545 58 20-117-25 11 0017 02455 SHAOYHOOD RD JARIBO INC JARIBO INC PO BOX 95 NAVARRE MN 55592 38 17-117-25 44 0094 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN FORFEITED LA^40 58 17-117-25 44 0099 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO CITY OF ORa«) CITY OF ORQNO PO BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55559 58 17-117-23 44 0102 025B5 SHAOYMOOO RD S M SCHfnOT A S J SCHMIDT STEPHEN H SCHMIDT 2585 SHAOYMOOO RD BOX 15 HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-23 44 0108 C2240 8AYVIEH PL JACQUELYrtI J SCGNER JACQUELYNN J SEGNER 2260 bAYVICH PL NAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 11 0002 02420 SHAOYl^D RD VOYAGEUn SERVICE CENTERS VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS CO RD 15 t 19 NAVAME MN 55592 58 20-117-25 11 0018 02455 SIIAOVNOCD RD P M ENGLUMO ET AL TRUSTEES PAUL M A JEANNE M ENGLUNO PO BOX 95 NAVARRE MN 55592 REPORT NO. PI455401 PAK 1758 17-117-25 44 0094 02500 8AYVIEH PL J A A L 8ELC0URT JASON A 8ELC0URT 2500 8AYV1EH PL HAYZATA m 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0100 05582 SHORELINE OR GLASS XI PARTNERS OaiALD MCCARVILLE 5582 NAPNER LA MOUND MN 55544 V I 58 17-117-25 44 0106 02508 SHADYNOOO RD PHYLLIS HENDERSON PHYLLIS HENDERSON 2508 SHADYNOOO RO HAYZATA MN 55591 38 17-117-23 44 0109 03264 NAVARRE LA GRACE MARIE DAHL GRACE MARIE DAHL P 0 BOX 222 NACQNIA m 55587 38 20-117-23 11 0015 02445 SHAOYHOOD RD 1ST NATL 8ATK OF NAVARRE 1ST NATL BANK OF NAVARRE CO ROAD 15 A CO ROAD 19 NAVARRE m 55592 58 20-117-25 11 0024 05555 SHORELINE DR MGT COMPANY SUPER VALU STORES INC CORPORATE TAX DEPT PO BOX 990 MPLS MN 55440 MM DATE 07/24/94 HCtMEPI.'l COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OltffRS LIST REPORT NO. PX4S5A01 PAGE ISBATCH 504PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SB 20-117-2S 11 OOS2 OOOSa ADDRESS UNASSIO«D 1ST NATL BAM( OF NAVARRE 1ST NATL OATK OF NAVARRE P O ROX I2S NAVARRE FM 55392 Sa 20-117-2S 11 0034 02500 SHAOYNOOO RO FRESNMATER FOUNDATION FRESHNATER FOUNDATION SPRING HILL CENTER 725 SIXTH AVE N HAYZATA FM 55391 30 20-117-23 11 003900030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED FRESHNATER FOUNDATION FRESHNATER FOUNDATION 725 CO RO 4 NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 3a 20-117-23 12 0034 03423 SHORELINE DR RICHARD H REAVENY ETAL RICHARD N REAVENY P O BOX 59 NAVARRE »M 55392 58 20-117-23 12 0055 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO KELLY COVE HMOFMRS ASN/ORONO KELLY COVE HHQWIRS ASN/ORONO C/O KIM GOEBEL 100 S 5TH ST SUITE 2500 MPLS MN 55402 TOTAL BATCH 504 00095 f . 1 I i .i t • A 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 KNONLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE f CITY or OHONO 27S0 K9ll#y Pmkw9% r.O. Box fe Crystal tsy. MN 5S323 rhont C«12) 473-7357 Fax 473-0510 NQTICg Tht Planning CommissKXi w3l hold a public hearind in tha Council Chambors a( 2780 Kaflay Paricway on Monday. August 19.1996 at 7:00 p.m. on tha mattar of Application #2158. John 0*SuHivan*s raquast lOr razonino of tha formar Qraca Baptist Church proparty at 2380 ShadyvKWd Road from LR-iC Single Family Lakashora Rasid^lial to B-5 Umltad Maighbortiood Businass Oisthci Thasubiact proparty is lagaHy dsacrtiad as iolows; Lots 19. 20. 21 and 22. "WUay's Navarra AddNion, Laka Mmnatonka*; and all that part of Lot 51 Block 3. Townsita of' Langdon Park dascribad as lolowsc • i Bagwwtg at jfia northaastarty oqmar of said Lot 5. M^a northwastarty along tha northarly lina of said Lot 5 to tha nortttaastarty ina of tha pubic highway runr^ng across said Lot 5. and known as Minnetonka Lake Park and Mapia Piam Road (now County Road 19) thanca southaaslarty along the northaastady Una of said road to tha aastarty itna of Lot 5. thanca northarly alorw tha aastarty line of saki Lot 5 to tha poirt oif bagxwm g. That portion of Navarra Lana located northwesterly of tha southeasterly 33 feat thereof lying between the northeasterly nght- of-way lina of County Road and thf southaastarly extension of, the southwesterly ina of Ok¥a Avenue. The property proposed for razontnq is mocaiad on 9ia attached map. Ai parsor^ wi^ng to be heard wil appear at this tima. Written comments are soicjtad. Conceptual plana for use of me site are available in the Oty ofUcas.for review, by appomtmant. City of Orono By: Planrong Commisaion Mchael P. Gaftron. Assistant PtarYiing 8 Zoning A^inislrator Pioneer August3, 1996) m ■ c ■ i Affidavit of Publication' — State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound. Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A. ) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B. ) The printed fj fmnlnn icm is anacfrea iwhich is aXiacffbd was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for / successive weeks: It was first published Monday, the day of.Ulinilih 1 and was thereafter prsited and published every Monday, to and including Monday, the.day of___________y 19___ 'Authorized Agent Subscribed and sworn to me on this day, of (ilh By: .............Noraryvublic i<n:STiHOUI NO -22 HueUC - IWWtlOTA MV COMM UVWU l««B0 Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commerc'al users for comparable space: $12.20 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $12.20. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.00 per inch. Each additional successive week: $5.05. AM « . \Vi \^^T”Tf\ J ( (' / 2 ^____ . J < ..i.sdpe. .^.so^f y o o o U^lJ A UL ^__J {x\\ 442. 500 e m 0^ ' ^ \ S 10.43 E, Setback Requir'-*ments. No building shall be nearer than ^5 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet to any rear lot line, 15 feet\to any side lot line, 35 feet to any side lot line adjacent to street; except when abutting or across the street from an "R” District, \io buil'ding shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. \ y F. Pencing. Wherever ,'a "3-4” Office and Professional Business District abuts an "R" District along the side or rear lot line, a fencV^or compact evergreen hedge not less than 50% opaque nor less than^'«ix feet in height (no less than three feet nor* higher than four fe^t adjacent to street) shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. See Section 10.40, Subdivision 6, Subparagraph G. H. Drainage/No lakd^ shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that ^sults in \ater runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits oyadjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans'shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance w.ith the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent/with other applicable regulations'-.^or City Code prov is ions-' and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. / \ I. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2^stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Sect^ion 10.75. SEC. 10.44. B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BOSINBSS DISTRICT Subd. 1. Purpose. The ”B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location of the "B-5" District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre in the City, the uses are limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that property in that use district since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre. ORONO CC 347 (4-1-84) £- S 10.44 Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "3-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the Planning Commission for review. h Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-5" Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council; t-A. B. C. D. r^ • F. Municipal buildings. Offices. Clinics. Art and school supply store. Book and magazine store. Office supply store. estate office. G. Banks, loan company, insurance company, real H. I. J. K. L. Barbership, beauty shop. Camera and photograph supply store. Locksmith. Hobby shop. Gift store. M. N. O. P. Q. R. Glassware and pottery. Antique store. Jewelry store. Watch repair. Library. Museum. S. T. U. V. W. Record shop. Music store. Tobacco shop. Galleries. Pet shop. Subd. 4. Conditional Use. A. Within any "B-5" Limited Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit; 1. Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store. 2. Drycleaning store. Tailor shop. Pressing and shoe shine shop. Laundry and cleaning pick-up stations. Horae and garden equipment rental. Veterinary clinic. Kennels. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ORONO CC 348 (4-1-84) • S 10.44 B. Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in another "B" or "I" District and is in the same ownership as the land in the "3" or "I" District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and other such conditions as found necessary by the Council. C. Public Service Structures. Including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines in buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Garages, Etc. Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces, as regulated in this Chapter. B. Signs. Signs, as regulated in this Chapter. C. Temporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period of not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. D. Landscaping. Decorative landscaping features. E. Fences. Fences, as regulated in this Chapter. F. Incidentals. Any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use, provided that the incidental use shall not exceed 30% of the floor space of the principal building. G. Public Telephone Booths. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements. square feet. feet. feet. A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 B. Lot Width. Tne minimum lot width shall be 100 C. Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 D. Rear Yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet; side yard adjacent to "R” District shall be 15 feet; side yard adjacent to street shall be 10 feet. E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot. line, 15 feet from any side lot line, 35 feet to side lot line adjacent to street; except abutting or across the stteet from an "R" District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. ORONO CC 349 (4-1-84) S 10.44 F. Fencing. Wherever a "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District abuts an "R" District, along the side or rear lot line, 3 fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in height shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards; 1. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: (a) Face brick, or, (b) Natural stone, or, (c) Specially designed precase concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or, (d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above, or glass. (e) Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. 2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. 3. No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings, H. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date; 1-1-75 ORONO CC 350 (4-1-84) F S 10.44 I. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-‘l/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. Source: Ordinance No. 188 Effective Date: 11-22-76 (Sections 10.45 through 10.49, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 351 (4-1-84) g- tAND USE JUNE, 1980 f If the inodvidual development's density increase or impact i\ relatively small, or the layout is not conducivXto public land dedicat ion ^ ^hen in lieu of lands \he developer may be required to contribute funds for the municipal purchase of such lands or th» improvement of such facilities propertionate to the cumulative efrect of such density increase f^pm multiple sc^ll developments. 17. NO LAND WILL BE DEVELCX|^ED l^LESS IT'S LOCATION AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE SUITA&LE FOR THE PROPOSED USE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PLAN. Land t^^e developed must be of such size, character a^\^ocation that it can be safely used for the i^ftend^d purpose without danger to health, w^hout j^il from fire, flood or other occurren<^''^and witho^it undue impact upon neighboring properties. No land will be permitted to be ^subdivided or built upon which is held unsuitable by ^e City for the proposed use because of flood hazarH^, inadequate drainage , -soi 1 formations with severes. limitations for development, severe erosion poten^al , unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage disposal capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. URBAN LAND USE POLICIES 1.THE MAJORITY OF ORONO'S URBAN AREA WILL BE RESERVED FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono's urban residential neighborhoods will provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types and price ranges. Many urban residences will be intimately associated with the lake shoreline and will be subject to density restrictions because of sensitive environmental conditions. Low-density multi-family residential uses will be limited to locations near existing shopping and transportation services, but will not be appropriate within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. CMP 4-16 i j 1 13 i i -J 1 1 J 1 s I l AND USE JUNE, 1980 2. 3. 4. 5. LIMITED COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES. The primary function of Orono’s commercial areas will be to provide those retail, commercial and service businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono's urban and rural residents. Commercial development will be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer and adequate transportation are available. Commercial development of a regional nature which would duplicate existing services in the neighboring town centers will be discouraged. LAKESHORE COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND LIMITED LAKE“USER SERVICES. Orono's residents and other lake users require lake access, fishing supplies, boat service and boat repair facilities which are unique to our location on a recreational development lake. Orono’s Land Use Plan will provide locations for such special-purpose businesses where appropriate from both the land use and the lakeside environmental standpoint. No use or location will be permitted to adversely affect the lake quality or the public's general usage of the lake. All lakeshore commercial is to be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer, and adequate transportation are available. THE CITY WILL ENCOURAGE PRIVATE UNIFICATION AND COORDINATION OF THE EXISTxNG COMMERCIAL AREAS. Unplanned strip commercial developments will be discouraged. Coordinated projects designed to aesthetically enhance, unify and identify the business areas will be encouraged. FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO THE AREA OF THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL PARK. No other location in Orono combines the availability of transportation and public utilities with remoteness from sensitive environmental features. In addition, this land use is entirely consistent with Long Lake's neighboring industrial development. CMP 4-17 I j 1 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 6. 7. 8. 9. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT VJILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. The location and scale of commercial and Industrial development will be controlled so as not to encroach upon the primary residential land uses in Orono. Wherever possible, natural land forms or buffers will be required between different land uses. PUBLIC URBAN SERVICES MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL FUTURE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND URBAN-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Commercial, industrial and urban-density residential uses will be permitted only where municipal sanitary sewer, adequate transportation, police and fire protection services are available. In addition, commercial, industrial and multi-family residential development will be permitted only where a municipal water system is available for adequate water supply and fire protection. URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL UTILIZE THE CAPACITY OF EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES. New land uses and development will be allowed to infill existing vacant properties within the urban service area consistent with environmental limitations and with the existing capacities of water, sewer, drainage transportation and recreational facilities. New development will not be permitted to overburden these services at the expense of the existing users. New urban development will not be permitted if it requires additional unplanned local or regional facilities capacity. THE EXISTING URBAN AREA WILL NOT BE EXPANDED. Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. The urban service area will not be expanded into the rural area and urban services and facilities will not be extended into the rural area for purposes of fostering or allowing increased development in those areas. THE DESIGN AND DENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONTROLLED TO ASSURE PROTECTION OF LIGHT, AIR AND SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. Requirements for minimum lot size, amounts of open space, minimum yard setbacks, and maximum building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values for all urban residents. CMP 4-18 I I 3 1 1 i 4 i 1 D 1 J i J i I i LAND USE JUNE, 1980 11. A SIGNIFICANT WIOUNT OF NATURAL WOODLANDS AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE RETAINED ON EACH PROPERTY. Retention of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. 12.LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot width will space out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage. 13. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with pro­ hibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. RURAL LAND USE PSlLIClES 1.CE AREA WILL BE RESERVED FOR PERMANENT LOW-DENSITYORONO'S RURAL SE RESIDENTIAL LAND USJSv Orono’s rollii^/rural area is not suitable for cohqnercial agr^dlture. Likewise, the delicate Dh«lance of/^orm water nutrient loading vs marshlVnd a;ssimilative capacity preclude expansion of the ur^^ service area without major environmental problems Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, the ideal land/use foX. that portion of Orono located outside cxf the UrbarfSService Area (MUSA) is the planned/iow-density ruXal residential land use. CommercLS^ and industrial uVes will not be permitted in t CMP 4-19 1 LAND ilSE JUNE, 1980 i I . I i » URBAN COMMERCIAL LAND USE Urban commercial development is limited to two areas which are provided with all the necessary urban services and facilities. The major commercial center of Orono will continue to be the crossroads center of Navarre. This area will provide sufficient opportunity for neighborhood retail and service businesses, plus adequate professional offices, to serve the needs of most Orono residents. Accessory functions such as offices and owner- occupied living units or limited multi-family developments will be considered appropriate in or near the Navarre commercial area. /n additional limited commercial area is designated on Highway 12 adjacent to similar land uses in the City of Long Lake. This area has utilities / available from the City of Long Lake and will provide neighborhood services complimentary to those available in that City. J LAKESHORE COMMERCIAL LAND USE Lake access and la)^ user service businesses are appropriate for a lakeside community 2u\d require a lakeshore locat^n. Special performance standards are necessary to assure protection of ythe lake environment and protection of neighboring properties. The primary purpose is toXoermit those functions that are directly necessary to support normal lake-use activ^iies such as boat launching, boat service, boat repairs ^d fishing supplies. Lakeshore commercial areas are not intended for typical retail activities, including boat sales, which could be accomplished away' from the lake. Accessory functions such as parking, winter storage and caretaker facilities will be appropriate in the lakeshore diomm^rcial areas. One lakeshore commercial area is /liydicated on the Land Use Plan along Maxwell Bay where resorts and m^inas have historically existed. Sanitary sewer is available for boat sa/(itati^ purposes. Expansion of the existing facilities is limited howeveiy by surr^nding residential neighborhoods, lack of public transportation, and environmental constraints including a crowded bay. Therefore, ooly the one c(^tiguous area is considered appropriate for dedication to this use. Additional lakeshore commercial facilities lio exist along County Road 15 north of Tanager Lake Bridge. This area has\fewer transportation and environmental problems' than Maxwell Bay, but it is not designated in this Plan for commercial use because ruunicipal seweV and other urban services aie not available. This area would be considered for future lakeshore commercial designation should sanitary sewer become available as projected in the CSPP Facilities Plan. CMP 4-26 y'Ef)-’ rrr-;.) ''/.'•{ 4.) f" i i /?(■'// . X) V I ^ ^ : f f-------- 40 .‘.v.w.v.\%’.s */1 ' \-T*^ »••••»••••*•••••*•«•■•«■••«•«••*•••«•*•••• V *T kW ^ W ^^’•I*I*l*I*I*!*I'**!*I*l*!*!’I’!*I'**I*!*!*l*!'I*I*!'!*!*!*I*I*^"l*I"!*I*I***l*!**** ^*v I %*•*• ft •*4*»*ft**"»*ft*«*ft*.*«*» « •*»*• « »*«***«*•'»*.’•*.*• «*»*• » »*»**• ^ ^ ^ •%*•*«'.*»*•*.*•*«••'•*,•*••*,*•*•***,*•*•**'«••*«***♦*•*•*•*«•**•*•••*•* ** * m ■ M > m % • • i V. 11. » i : 4l ./ •'•"Et V(^H| C-> V ¥ '•«Vi; ('vW- «x .-:lLr,! '• nof<C ^*v1/------ y' ^ ;> ,r“! ii> V. •n! [1)11 H Q m Q [H iMkil M 'ft1 y^r i / il X REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 20, 1996 ITEM NO.: Department Approvsd: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Referral of Development Proposal to the Plaiming Commission for Sketch Plan Review For Property Located at 2380 Shad>-wood Road (former Grace Baptist Church Site) Invohing a Rezoning of Residential Property to Commercial List of Exhibits A - Site Plan B - Comprehensive Plan C - Street Elevation John O’Sullivan and Erwin Smith propose the submittal of conceptual plans for the commercial development of residential propert>' to the immediate north of the former Martin Service Station property. The proposal consists of two structures, single stoiy bank with roofed drive-in teller facilities and two stor>' office building. Review Exhibit C, the applicants propose a mixed office use with limited retail outlets or store fronts at the low ' level. They have suggested retail uses such as a pharmacy, floral shop, card or specialty shops. The only district that lists office uses with retail is the B-5 but the purpose of the B-5 zoning district is to provide businesses that supply commodities or perfom-i a serv ice pririiarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The code notes the district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The code goes on to note that because of the location of the B-5 district only found in Navarre, the uses are limited in order to minimize hardcover and the generation of traffic because of historic traffic problems in Navarre. The proposed intensity of uses may pose a conflict with the B-5 zoning district. Also, the proposal involves two principal structures on one parcel. This requires a planned unit development (P.U.D.) The City code does not include the P.U.D. option for the Navarre area. Applicants have also been advised that the comprehensive vacation of Navarre Lane was not approved by the Council and they advised that they would once again seek to vacate the remainder of Navane Lane as originally proposed and that they would be willing to grant a bike trail/pedestrian walkway easement through the property. In fact they noted that the walkway or bike trail could be located within the landscaped pond area and outlet at the north of the property rather than at the busy 1 intersection. . 1 Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 June 20,1996 Referral of Development Proposal During the review of their previous application (Application #2107), the applicants were advised that any rezoning of areas within Navarre would be done on a comprehensive scale or study. It is the intention of the applicants to move ahead with a rezoning application specific to the parcel at 2380 Shadywood Road. The applicants plan to proceed with informational meetings for surrounding neighbors within 600' of the property. The meetings are scheduled the last week of June to be held on two nights specifically a Tuesday and Wednesday of that week. It was my understanding that Council members as well as Planning Commission members will receive invitations to the informational meetings. Staff has also been advised that the applicants have the support of many of the residents of the surrounding neighborhood. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the referral of the preliminary development proposal for propert>* at 2380 Shadywood Road to the Plaiming Commission for a sketch plan review. 6MtKmC) LAKEMINNETONKA J e?(H ■ J County Roads 15 & 19 • P O Box 65 • Navarre. MN 55392 • (6i2) 471-0725 Navarre Auto Repair • (612) 471-7554 /: ■7 Z- tlir (2 i-rV c - vx r\ CK •I % • A - o\0 /,, /‘? f iC-. Cnt\t^U.Xlf->j:f‘ s .i»0'-^ y^o ^t- C < rut-t^- / > ^ V!/ K. " t'*- - - // /V\ ^■vrTaw>-.«»fii __s--------------------.. ~«T1.^^»......>.-1^«.1J1.». 1 DAN CLAUSEN Raciotuil Executive Director Phone 612-571-7933 Fa\6l2-57l-S0I7 7260 UniverMi) A\ciuic NE Suite 110 FriJIe>. MN 55432 e-mail: nccba(? aol.cc^m ex/J. k North Central CBA :JUL 5 199^} July 2. 1996 Mike GafTron City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Dear Mr. Gafiron: I am writing to inform you that we are joining with John O’Sullivan as applicants in the petition to rezone our property at 2380 Shady-wood Road (Grace Church). If you have any questions, please feel free to call my office at 571-7933. Sincerely, 0UlA Rev. Dan Clausen Regional Executive Director North Central Conserv ative Baptist Association DC:rt cc: John O’Sullivan 'Providing resources for church growth and church planting.' M'/ 33 *y^ Proposed Development at -340 Shoreline Drive, Navarre The purpose of this project is to build a sit down, family restaurant, 4300 square feet, with drive-thru food service. The fresh food and custard menu fits somewhere between a McDonald/Burger King concept and a Perkins/Baker’s Square restaurant. The customer will order the food at one of the register order points The food will be delivered by staff to the table where the customer is seated The restaurant will contain seating for 99 customers We are going to combine this concept in the same building with an O'Sullivan C-Store. The restaurant and C-Store will utilize the same utility/restroom core of the building. Eight fueling points will be available under a full canopy. The brand of gasoline will be the same as the present O'Sullivans across the street. The store will offer a normal C-Store selection of products including coffee, cold drinks, bakery, roller grill products and cold sandwiches. A mini-tunnel service car wash will be built on the site. The equipment will include a conveyor system to pull the car through the ninety (90) foot car wash. Most of the equipment will be touchless spray applicators with a "shaker- curtain" and quarter panel soft cloth rollers. This development exceeds the vehicle parking requirements for the proposed used. The development is Phase I of a two stage development. We will follow this request vety shortly with a plan to develop the property to the adjacent north with a retail and office development. --n I e>u. ^'2- Proposed Development of 2380 Shadywood Rd., Orono, MN We propose building a Light Retail/Office Building on the subject site. The primary tenant would be a full service bank, with drIve-up auto tellers. This will be a single story building with a roof over the auto tellers. The other part of the building will be two story construction with permitted retail allowed under B-5 zoning. A walk/bike path will be constructed around the north perimeter of the property. A storm-water holding pond is being constructed as a part of the O'Sullivan C- Store/Restaurant Development Plan and is designed to incorporate the run-off from this development. Run-off from Olive Avenue has also been included in this design at the request of the City of Orono. We are requesting that the City of Orono vacate the north thirty three (33) feet of Navarre Lane. We will grant utility easements as required. A copy of the development proposal for O'Sullivan's C-Store/Restaurant is attached. We stated at that time we would be submitting this Retail/Office Development proposal. II,.__ i K» If! T3 X‘ U1m /T! / Construe turn, tne fJPfO /Jrofulway / /* O Uox 9G5 Alpxnyitlria, MN 3^iO-7a:i-2D98 \ «• 4 % wm 9m0^ 4 Ci « >« |M» •• • C«t • pp4 4 I? Ci fa ^ * k at M «a it Ml MMwl m ) ttat (Mt If Ct»at ia» r<Mav\ •t a ■«« iiiiifi •• a tt iMii< l| (ySuMvan's UovoliipmonI Convonionco ^:tnro / ftostaurwrt Padiity Navarro. lAnnoaota Pm)orl Niifrtbor ?*;(H 96 “ I Oalo: Haweed: Pmj. Mgr. CAOny: 1‘ - «)■ O' 0\)/7i)/% 06/?//% J{)tI Scpkf rJH (AuloTAn R13) »<«arvr nwT Mtr pim ommc an wrwra m m iM (MS* irr MCI MB IMU I m « atinnian vma» m um a$M U4U ur mmuu Me m ll^(Gagc5: #■ 2.M , 5 . . -n » • i : ,j _ * r.t t r; • te' ,MM iSfim t' , •:■ * ’* rir*‘ • ■■ fe'V'- 4-3‘^-fl ‘ ‘^e^aiL 'C^' '• ^ tvC- j i'i'Tr. - ’Vr V ; ;.’ • ■ ■ •■‘I•■V■ .,;-.5«7v • ■ ,*• - .. ■ .‘. •; !,• •• •••>'.: i*'i r-Tl-v- -L ,’.^-v ‘-r^ .;V v‘G;A\%-^...‘ • ■\ • 4 « »• » •* •i-' • •• ■ i , •* ’■'\ ■ *V<'■■•*'■'* V ■* >'*V'' 'i'** , . • •v.::•i..«^^^•.^• -;'r^ ‘‘A -j’. • ^.\' ~ 'V; ' ••..• ■•• ' "i '.'• •,' v >.'«n, C<..< -X.^^4a^J % ‘ V. ...V* %*^‘- v?L: ;.v:. . 7 ^-'1!^? r M *■ •■'?..■ J,*’ ■ -V ■ -' * - ■» . w V’->.V •• ■ Y, ;• • •.•• •, ■;. .■;■ .^^•»..•H- T,-• •' ^ 'r' V V>-, ’ ; ;;i4 :: .,*•{• a : -* ».H . ‘ I .’.• Vi ./ . ( » V / A ^ ^ .. . •■ S*. ■ • • '• ^. ..'>sCViV.;,--V;;4 V' > : --’.Hi;-' I' .i' ' , ■ • • 'j*-. • •>•« !r^ ■. .•:»>;•■>'* *‘7'r Mt} .^' tl:!- 15 ]l•l v:'■■ ■ ■ . ... mmMi^m f py •‘'"M \i ‘ I* **' ................................................. • ■'- ’ ' A~ — ■ , .. •■ * \VJV •*m\ i,:.v -.v..*';':-.,-■*.' . • -.••... , -j ■•' •• yry-yyy^f$yy^^;y-';, «'■ :. . V‘.„V~:': ;■;•' !.•• ■,• -. •.i: :: •.’^/vy^^ *\'^v-••,.v*f ^ ^yy.:^:0;-yy4:y-^ ’; \(yyi-fyyy ^>y-'f; ;• >j i :>• ■v:7^■'^^:4;‘"■;=^^■■":J, . '-::-'’^4-'-*V;V- '.Vi i/: m t #r — 5 *1 j ;K r '. ■: . ■. •-•.. ■:•■ ::5i:.-.Oy. .'.V,-:^;;;y.-.',\ .' • ;-'-:.y.,syi;-.V:(.;.-:-. : .y,. Vv.vyVf.-*;,'-iV!^'.;-.*:fc i , • • -V • •'.■T' -‘^:^;y . f U 4.•t..- •. . 0'-^ ORONO CITY COUNCIL P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 August 5, 1996 Dear Council Members, We are writing on behalf of the proposed use of land at County Rds IS and 19 in Navarre. We would be attending the meeting of the Planning Commission and Council, but we are going to be out of town. We live at 2525 Kelly Avenue and have for 19 years. Previously, we lived at 2650 Kelly Avenue for 5 years. We are very much SUPPORTIVE of what John 0*Sullivan and Erwin Smith have proposed for that lot. We’ve spoken to them at length about their plans, and feel this would he an improvement to that comer. After living in that neighborhood for 24 years, we have seen little improvement in Navarre. Please do not vote this proposal down. Thu may be our chance to begin to improve the blight in Navarre, and John O’Sullivan has demonstrated that he is a good businessman, interested in the improvement of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Skip and Cathy Troyak 2525 Kelly Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 471-7331 c.c. Orono Planning Commission 1 Wt- O'Z. August 12, 1996 The Orono Planning Commission The City Council of Orono AUG " A Dear Members, I am writing concerning the proposed development project for Grace Baptist Church by John O'Sullivan et al. I believe it would be in the best interests of my neighborhood and the entire community of Orono to grant the variance requested. Navarre is experiencing a renaissance-- new businesses have opened, houses are being refurbished, and neighbors are working hard to make this area a better place to live. Every city needs a thriving business district to help define its character. John O'Sullivan has proven himself to be an able businessman and friend of Navarre. Please allow him to finish the good things he has in store for us. Orono needs what John has to offer. Richard P. Meyers Resident I Susiuess OfOfiBKs PeriTn^o /V A/^ P.01 O'SULUVAN'S CENTER 2380 SHAOYWCXX) ROAD. ORONO. MN. PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU HAVE REVIEWED THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WANT TO SUPPORT THE REZONING AND PLAN APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ORONO NAME riAinjApoR PHONE# Me? ^ ^ VL \ ' i-//cyfc / T —/ - — -^-/oj /0 ‘/o •k)lL\<io -W//.— p.-t-3!^r^Tv-r. I i ('t/\Z*.s/)/♦-'Ng _Phr^l rA /^/ ;L/.9!j(. /^U '~1^/CU.^7bh^j:> / V^bijllLL A6rb /TM. .0 L l LL h^H^^ A/7/- r/c3Q 7/- 5^^ 3 i/if/% lift /y////A. %: ^w 0/ , -r .1 ^ . 77 ' 7 ^ I ZV7 /- C/sS* ^7/v /^ Zc^t;f />tL<,o e7i, ^ -€* /j>:. y.W t / At,/'. ^ap/?(~<,■ ■ - •' •»- ____ ________________________ H7/-07// S//o/‘?t' •L.^.T^rr' '! //.r A-;J^y ' ■i-A///.-.- ^7^ 77''^’'"^'"'^'- -->^-■■■ ''l f>yM//6:S /V^wv-t^^s ?A/ - ^ j H / ’' - -/ /iL-:{2'u^f / /,“ /7 ^ .7 7/ // ':S-’£n-ir>t^ t ^^a(^-iA£- X<*"»T i^ccfu-y^ iy.vt.v.eo /[/(•t t-T* I Ct ^ ^ (t^XL'yX-dr^ ^i rivt-^ .P' -l- • 'TXXc ;4 Ai ^H-fci « ft ''^^'*y“^' ^ f ^1 ^ r%-r r. %x t >'*L4l<.'- U? >'-r..c Q <f 1*^ C' ,')^^/rn uv.t > (-'(-Cr. .'»* * f\ cj/^^'’'' '•* ' '• ' CtrU^ rii'cL y(£i!L ^ j{\'A P'JL^^-^ C Cjl !y r^'“‘^ x Cac. I ^< ‘' “^ajKi X' tV f\X i' ■ '/ j1 .• (V/ :|'.A‘/''y, . t *> •*.. ^ ■ '• ' 'i- ' ‘ ! <: *1 > \ Ir h CENTC^ npvtf below if you have reviewed this “ -------------------------------------------- ADDRPQC "*'*"'^"■■■^■■■**1 DATE name ___r&>^tR.A-T "'k ' ma±^ f ^=tLbii^^ )UiJ__^ £fTdr^ 5?:^y ?'■/, . ^/?/f/C- £j !< >> ,7^. Ul t //. —;—UU^z£<^y^ c;;? ^ oc t'6 * \Z-Z_2. ((^ r 7;^ r O'SULLIVAN'S CENTER 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD, OBONO, MN. PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU HAVE REVIEWED THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WANT TO SUPPORT THE REZONING AND PLAN APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ORONO. DATE 7/:^ NAME ADDRESS PHONE # / ^ ' i ( ' c ’ /It t Til/:7Z • A » ) //. ,< V / / /'_______________________________ y/i?' ' u .^F// ^rzhd^C-. JL^i I f * /<s 6>o d'- ^'7/-v/^// V7;? ~ A-n\' (^\xi l2 -Uj J- <- i I ( 'to^ 7 /X/i.. /A ^ 1 f fpa^tL 'EHZ^ o/fto CJ <-/7X-Y‘,'X9' Zhtfu-tJI:Sj^i^7f/yZ^ (YtfTtt y^g-;z/Yo •?/-??Lx /Lcj2 y,,.Ak'h-&J J .u V7:^-?7rC i/AV P IL'y^^ A /'I ^ ^ . Qy\y -----------j-ij '^'Y v-^ ' ^ v^\xi f ^ ^ y t I'Xr i/?J2 (A'^ u 1 O Hn O.u (VL^j^ iVl l/ /^C Hi/- 1 AiLo\<-d ^c^-Co/|c ^cA \Jzi rSutna 1-------------------------------------------------- ^(coQ Sl\tr<2'^-‘^ 2)/*-^‘-t-h -cii^i ALtzATiz.rr77/^c/Q 7l ' CU^<---- %r.^\fi£U^e LAkS^lhOf <fdJ!c£V7<' ///7 rh Js37)1,JA\''li t'-l AhATY»>\ t\/y(yi^4^6^ OOjl.v YW'^ (^r/4-11 - lc>-y^ Kia^ KjAA^iKoO h f\v^ 4"--------M-*-----^^ [ 1 ■6(1'^v_') ^ (c.^ ^ 3"^u - v-7// O'SULLIVAN'S CENTER 2380 SHADYWOOO ROAD, ORONO. MN PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU HAVE REVIEWED THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WANT TO SUPPORT THE REZONING AND PLAN APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ORONO DAT NAME ADDRESS PHONE# 20 >T/V 7--2« 7 72 ^ g-/e, j? Y/-7 s>~(:-, 7 s^ <k ^>y f ^77/ 7^0 Yn IBM \,A ^ c_____/ / " /'C HU 'i^LX 0">6l://r-3f<eie tUo '77 Z -2, 'T/^<'Uh(pp L a.2 \ 01 j~\ ")|7v> \ Co^U laP S/f^ 7 Ir ?^) /lul 1T7 ^ 2 !\)u / j B t i'i -€ - ^7^J ~ VSy > 77y- OL,V/ 77/- 776 C^{ lA *jt Jij 7^ ^ f A/U/>/f 7^; V 3M2 njd, s/t^p, i)!- T-U—H^u^ ^7h 17207, iOi 77SC 7-Z'( ^l"|1 i^XI-Hdicr ')-•^CO led OaL /oua/2^ H'1/-07D^ _ Z'7'S'S /ZsplLt A,^_________H 7\ - 7i..7>Z > r O'SULLIVAN'S CENTER 2380 SHADYWOOO ROAD, OflONO. MN PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU HAVE REVIEWED THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WANT TO SUPPORT THE REZONING AND PLAN APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ORONO S'! I ~ ~7/ii^ 0ivir-^tc>txA](JcS' i.n Pnss "i/ i^ Cr.L 7//Y' lit ^ ^ i- U C| /V ^ 1 f'-' o<v V 9 lf/-^vsz- —--------—j——) ./^d I'-l - -V,L 7oi DA/Apii>-i^ 5SSD lOy PlJ<(,________t/7/ —I L^lflf^tA ^ W rtywy ~mZm4 lAJL ~ rii. A/ ‘5'//<'.rv A/’. / / Zj>Of' /7 Jt r. ,, /a j/> I / C;T rz. /-?/ - o ? ^ ^ O'SULLIVAN'S CENTER 2360 SHADYWOOD ROAD, OBONO, MN. PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU HAVE REVIEWED THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WANT TO SUPPORT THE REZONING AND PLAN APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ORONO. DATE % NAME re Sc. ADDRESS 3?Q5/y|cfcp _____________PHONE # d\ty\^ - / ^ >n ------^hrl___________» ^ «A ^ /AJ ^7c/s i:HuP A-v-tncf H-O hLZ^^^/^/ JJ^to (N l\^ ■L5i?0 ^ I K'^ ^' vji \s)s^-->vN/-----gic ~T^^VC^ ^5=jVn- 'gK <,|r,[> L^l^nn sO/IOin /ri^flft'S T^^'U Ra./ UAj,.i/A~it^rIca Rfty toUdn,l X7 "7^ ~ ;-------------------------------------- 7- !\- ‘O' Tc, Cak- ^^^cr?^o ^L' L' /'2_£v yu / ^ /y?/- r-;/ 0393 —\.,V.fA V.y'^y\^—*k'-(r^ ^ryiNiV/jfcuAA___ r _____________ ^//\t<^ ' ‘yj c' • 0 c -' '^- — •• ^''' ■ " • -j ^\ rN/ ^i.v> i\i 3 nvy \ V/ ^otey 3^^ iV)-S^/Z6- ^ /' x./ /v /^.o^/ )M1-/MA. UV/ y w Zluj-ix. ^-r\-oxi'? p- 7)^ O \ &V,% Ml onu>o O *>• O'SULLIVAN'S CENTER 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD. OflONO, MN PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU HAVE REVIEWED THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WANT TO SUPPORT THE REZONING AND PLAN APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ORONO DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE# 5r> €A V7/- ^ "5X3 L, ^cJ)naciL ^ vV/ 6la^ (^(.^7A ‘f/H'S ^-3^ i( t't eJA 3(D vUx\j '^'//-f/s/^ JS2^ A: /L /<•-< —■■ ■ 1 ---------------------------g. ^ CT "">7y - fC^LLLj /^(J Jr ^ r ^ All-1^3! p(]^7h 961'i ^17 lS'-r<rC (A->OL'^b 3<!:>■>* L.f'.nr^L, B^'r Pc*7; f, ^6*/ I^AfcJi^ ■ ^ f i/’?/.^2Z3 (j^If \is ! T" '---------------^ * f " ‘—* I / / y y/- uftn ’^vh tu^A7l-o^in O'SULLIVAN'S CENTER 2360 SHADYWCX3D ROAD, ORONO, MN PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU HAVE REVIEWED THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WANT TO SUPPORT THE ^ZONING AND PLAN APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ORONO. D^TE jyAME ^7 ADDRESS PHONE # €a.'4^ /yr'^A^ ^//[ .'t t ■-‘j C3PI ipf - ,-------db^HKflL k,;hny ^7;-037^Z) O'SULLIVAN'S CENTER 2360 SHADYWOOD ROAD, ORONO, MN PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU HAVE REVIEWED THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WANT TO SUPPORT THE REZONING AND PLAN APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ORONO. NAME ADDRESS 3(pcyo Si. PHONE# /1/oA.i^s-7./r<. A. 97^ S. /5 3 32^ 1 M.223q t>- zu V CSAVf^X 0»jie Z.S>3^ 0\^ ^«^cvck ^ A~Vr~V55^ U a V *. f . M:"1 \ ■^2W L Ma >1 't / n (I *t i^~(L^ JdAk— ^ |Vl*^'D>ail-*Morr .210 2, \v^/rx^r-.lA.^ Lm . g I . . y ^ y / 3^iyg M^UA/t/tC 4//W A ^--OO 7^^ y . ■ r c^ / f’ ^ 0 ’^/a /j /•//1 aJOCci 4^r)/i /{ vOi ^T' jQA 0^20 SILMIO kiL (n ' i 0 r>^->! A /V7^*-/r7f O'SULLIVAN'S CENTER 2380 SKADYWOOO ROAD, ORONO. MN. PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU HAVE REVIEWED THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WANT TO SUPPORT THE REZONING AND PLAN APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ORONO. DATE ADDRESS _______PHONE# (p JJlan/ ' ^•0^3 '5T/3 ^ ^_____^ ^ 559^ r/ 3S1X ^7/-7C{^/ ±L1L^±1/ l-8S3a /V-f ^/7/ 97^9 *4-9 !'^/ 0>C::> Is ^ ^ ^ ^QD A/ k^ j^jUny 53^ -99 '^~^o—A^'<-'<x^cL^y..-.,t~^ jj A^U’Tt i-iv _____V~>I 0~7 'i 5^ 3^^^ AbK^-r ^0\ A To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Membe’-s Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:August 15, 1996 Subject:#2155 Nancy Krause'Don Handlin and City of Orono, 3860 North Shore Drive - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 Acre Application: Request for approval of a subdivision of City-owned tax forfeit land to allow conveyance of a 2,000 s.f. portion of the City property to the County, for sale to the adjacent pronerty owner. The purpose of this process is to accommodate the applicants' existing driveway. List of Exhibits A - B - Application Plat Map C - Property Owners List D • Survey Ron Moorse Memo 5/13/96 with Survey Council Minutes 5/13/96 G - John Gerhardson Memo 12/18/95 H - Applicants ’ Letter of Request 11/20/95 with Agreement Sketch: Relationship to Sewer Locations Topography E F Background Please review the May 13th "Request for Council Action" memo. Briefly, in 1995 the applicants purchased the property at 3860 North Shore Drive. At the time of the purchase, they were informed by the sellers that the driveway serving the property is non-conforming in that it extends into the adjacent property which is owned by the City. The adjacent City parcel is tax forfeit land acquired by the City for drainage and sanitary sewer purposes. The City parcel includes a wetland and has a sanitary sewer line traversing it. Because the non-conforming driveway created a cloud on the property title, the sellers placed $3,000 in escrow to enable the driveway issue to be resolved, by either allowing applicants to construct a new driveway totally within their property, or finding a way to make the current driveway conforming by acquiring an easement from the City or acquiring land from the City. Zoning File #2155 August 15, 1996 Page 2 Mav 13th Citv Council Review On Mav 13th the Citv Council considered three issues: 1. Should the driveway be allowed to remain in its current location? 2.Should the City help solve the driveway problem by allowing the acquisition of City property? 3.Is the negative impact on applicants' property caused by relocating the driveway substantial enough to merit the City assisting in resolving the driveway nott- conformity? Council considered the hardship statements by the applicants and the possible concerns about setting a precedent of selling City land for private purposes. Council concluded that in this case it would be appropriate to allow applicants to acquire a portion of the City parcel to bring their existing driveway into conformance, subject to four specific conditions: 1.The portion of the parcel to be reconveyed should be minimized (it has been reduced from 25' x 100' to 20' x 100'). 2.The width of the driveway, particularly at its two ends, be reduced as much as possible (applicants will be relocating the driveway slightly further west to eliminate any encroachment outside of the adjusted lot boundary). 3.Applicants will bear the cost of any survey and legal work required related to a division of the City parcel and a lot line rearrangement. 4.Applicant will follow through with a lot line rearrangement process to add the parcel lo his existing parcel. Council voted 5 to 0 to allow the acquisition under these conditions (please review the May 8th memo and the May 13 th Council minutes). Discussion The process for transfer of this 20' x 100' parcel to the applicants includes the City reconveying this portion of the lax forfeit parcel t*"* the County, then the County puts it up for sale to an adjacent property ownei, of which the applicant is the only one. . I Zoning File #2155 August 15, 1996 Page 3 Note that the City has sewer lines along the east boundary of Lot 23, and has a 40* x 40* sewer easement which extends 10’ into the parcel to be transferred. However, that 40* x 40* easement is no longer needed for Lift Station #10 which was relocated some years ago. No additional easements would be necessary for this property. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision of a lot line rearrangement subject to the following conditions: 1.Within 60 days of Council approval, applicants sh.ill reconstruct their driveway so that no portions of it encroach onto the portions of Lot 23 outside of the 20' X 100' parcel. 2. Applicants shall bear the cost of any survey and legal work associated with the division of the City parcel and this lot line rearrangement. Upon approval of the lot line rearrangement, the City will proceed with paperwork necessary to convey the parcel to the County for purchase by the applicants. Options fojT Action 1. Recommend approval as presented. 2.Table for further information. 3. Recommend denial, stating reasons, 4.Other. r.TIM ■«1 Application # ^ ^CW. A O^-flT-Zl 3J ooSJ Date ReceiTcd - - - 9^ Amount Paid ’ QQ' CITY OF OROiSO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION # 21 5// hKsiy „<•!, Site address K‘ei(tTA 'DC_ Property Identification Number (PID) oy - IH -15 33 Qj io Please check one - Propertv'____abstract or _____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name Auaress Cirv^o^^) rAM ZiD‘55’31^ Phone (work) 411 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address Phone (home) Cit\-Zip Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels ^ Development Size Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present use fcheck)Residential; no. of units __ Other fspecifv) Present Zoning District 7 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 City of Orono P.O. Box tfOystal Biy. m 35323 (U2)473-7357 07/08/% 12:43iSl UN) USE APPLICRTION _ I • 350.00KIS Nan^ Krause 1 •0.00 350.OC 0.0C Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per____Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ SUBTOTAL TAX TOTAL SAL£ AECEI\e 350.00 0.00 350.00 350.00 CHANGE CLERK* 03 TRANS* 1889 0.00 MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Pa>'inent of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminaryj>lat information on Certificate of Survey'. Certified Property OwnirsList of owners within SSff (you must obtain this Ikt from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Cen^348-3271). \ 5. As an addeltd^lejhisjigpiication, 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 FLNAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature ______________________________________I^^te--------------------- Totals L APPLICATION FEES (Zoning .administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class 1.11 & 111) $250.00 X Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 Subdivision Application (Class 1 & 11) $350.00 ---------- _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class 111 & all non-rcsidential) _______ _____ Final Plat Application (Class 111) $200.00 ---------- _____ Legal Review and Filing; _____Subdivision only $75.00 ---------- _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) ---------- Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) — Renewal of Class 1 and 11 Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _______ Renewal of Class 111, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application)_______ _____ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) _______ B. Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads $600.00 $.50/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $______ _______ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + S.50'lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 ■ $______ _______ _____ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 ---------- Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 S25/stub . — Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub ---------- Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 ---------- On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x_____new lots ---------- C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) ---------- “ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 ---------- PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit ---------- The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infonnation required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. , /] Applicant's Signature Date DateOwner’s Signatui Applicant must have all submittals into the Cit/office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled -meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUH DATE 04/2S/H HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORNATION SYSTEH PROPERTY CMCRS LISTMTCH SOIPROP ADDR OMNER NAHE TA>9AYER NME/ADDR PROP ADDR Olf€R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP Aocm ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OH^CR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR (RtCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR sa oa-117-ES n oooiOSSEO CHERRY AVE CARL A DECK ETAL HRS CHRISTINA DECK SD20 CHERRY AVE MOUND HN 5SS44 M OD-117-25 ll 0006 000S8 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED R R ENGLUNO ET AL TRUSTEES K M NEVERS 9700 PORTLAND AVE S DLQQHINGTQN MN 55420 SB 08-117-25 33 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED R R ENGLUND ET AL TRUSTEES It M IIFVEM 9700 PORTLAND AVE S 9324 DL00M1N6T0N MN 55420 58 08-117-23 33 r040 03843 CHERRY AVE RODERT J ANDERSON RODERT J ANDERSON 3843 CHERRY AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0045 03883 CHERRY AVE PAUL E ft MARY J TAYLOR PAUL TAYLOR 3883 CHERRY AVE MOUND HN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0050 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D H ENGLUNO ETAL COL ft MRS D M ENGLUNO 5101 SPRING ROCK COURT FAIRFAX VA 22032 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 138 08-117-23 33 000203826 CHERRY AVE R ft E HANSONRICHARD E ft ELIZADETH HANSON 3826 CHERRY AVE MOUND rtl 55364 38 08-117-23 33 000303838 CHERRY AVE MARIA E AMPLATZ MARIA E AMPUTZ 3838 CHERRY AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED R R ENGLUND ET AL TIHJSTEES It M MFVFK 9700 PORTLAND AVE S §324 DL00MIN6TQN m 55420 38 08-117-23 33 0008 03860 CHERRY AVE R R ENGLUNO ET AL TRUSTEES K M NEVERS 9700 PORTLAND AVE S §324 BLOOMINGTON MN 55420 38 08-117-23 33 0038 03833 CHERRY AVE HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156753 38 08-117-23 33 0039 03833 CHERRY AVE HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156753 38 08-117-23 33 0043 03860 CHERRY AVE D H ENGLUNO ETAL COL ft MRS D M ENGLUNO 5101 SPRING ROOC CT FAIRFAX VA 22032 38 08-117-23 33 0044 00038 ADDRESS UNASSimED D M ENGLUNO ETAL COL ft HRS 0 M ENGLUND 5101 SPRING ROCK CT FAIRFAX VA 22032 ;a - 38 08-117-23 33 0048 03898 NORTH SHORE OR ROGER GRANNING ft NIFE ROGER GRANNING 3898 NORTH SHORE OR MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0049 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D M ENGLUND ETAL COL ft MRS D M ENGLUND 5101 SPRING ROCK CT FAIRFAX VA 22032 i "A s V VjJhI-> I 38 08-117-23 33 0053 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156754 38 08-117-23 33 0054 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156754 0 1 MM DATE 04/25/M BATCN 501AOOR OMNER HAHi TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OM«R NAME TAXPAYER MAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TA)»AYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR HEMCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATICN SYSTEM PROPERTY OMNERS LIST58 08-117-25 55 0055 00058 AOORESS UNASS16NED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LANO CITY OF ORONO PARK A/15/7Y ST DEED 154754 58 08-117-25 55 0054 00058 ADDRESS UNASSI6NE0 HErMEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/15/7Y ST DEED 154754 58 08-117-25 55 0059 05820 NORTH SHORE DR DE8RA L CULLEN DEBRA L CULLEN 5820 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55591 58 08-117-25 55 0080 05840 NOITH SHORE DR NANCY E KRAUSE 0 N HANOLIN JR A N E KRAUSE 5840 NORTH SHORE OR MOUND m 55544 58 08-117-25 55 0087 05885 CHERRY AVE PAUL E • MARY J TAYLOR PAUL TAYLOR 5885 CHERRY AVE MOUND MN 55544 58 08-117-25 55 0088 05852 CHERRY AVE ALLAN C « TERRI L LARSON ALLAN C A TERRI L LARSON 5852 CHERRY AVE mound MN 55544 58 08-117-25 55 0090 00058 AOORESS PEND1N6 SAM EN6LUN0 STEVEN A MARGARET EN6LUN0 5420 MINNEHAHA AVE S MPLS ttl 55404 58 08-117-25 54 0040 05018 NORTH SNORE OR E D JOHNSON A P J JOHNSON EUGENE A PAULA JOHNSON 5818 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 22 0001 05845 NORTH SHORE OR LOREN R FRITZ ETAL LOREN FRITZ 5845 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND m 55544 58 17-117-25 22 0002 05845 NORTH SHORE DR M A A M A OOBRATZ MARK A A MARY A OOBRATZ 5845 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND M4 55544 58 17-117-25 22 0004 00058 AOORESS UNASSIGNED LYIM A FAITH CHRISTINE LYMI A FAITH CHRISTINE 5925 NORTH SHORE OR MOUND m 55544 58 17-117-25 22 0012 01455 SHAOYNOOO RO RALPH E HILLER ETAL RALPH E HILLER 1455 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA m 55591 REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 238 08-117-25 55 0057 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NEMCPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/15/79 ST OEED 154754 V Vr*“-> » >v • .V ■> 58 08-117-25 55 0084 05884 CHERRY AVE KENNETH C MEEKS KENNETH C MEEKS 5884 CHERRY AVE mound MN 55544 *1^ *ll J 58 08-117-25 55 0089 05825 CHERRY AVE JEFFREY J JOHNSON JEFFREY J JOHNSON 5825 CHERRY AVE MOUND m 55544 58 17-117-25 21 0001 05805 NORTH SHORE DR JAMES A POMERS JAFCS A POMERS 11220 OAK R1D<% U N HINNETOMCA m 55505 58 17-117-25 22 0005 05895 NORTH SHORE DR DALE F BEROUIST DALE BERQUIST 5895 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND MN 55544 r-' 58 17-117-25 22 0015 01445 SHAOYNOOO RO RALrH HARVEY ETAL RALPH HARVEY 1445 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA m 55591 RUN DATE 0i/2S/H MTCN 501MOP AOM GNNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR IB 17-117-2S ZZ 0019 03905 NORTH SHORE DR HQNARO R ALTON XXI HQHARO R ALTON XXX 1635 CONCORDIA ST ORONO m 55391 HErtCPiN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORHATXON SYSTEH PROPERTY OmERS LIST30 17-117-23 22 009001635 CONCOmiA ST HONARO R ALTON XXX HONARD R ALTON XXX 1635 CONCORDIA ST ORONO ft! 55391 REPORT NO. PX935901 PAGE 3 TOTAL BATCH 501 00030 . ■f f ' r r-” t \t A li I* ^a. - > .“i . ? V-..'} 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HE»tCPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BE!T OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF] DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXyiON* TO T . O i r “ \» \V * > ;■ •V-:; ^ V. •' aV '^v^■ ;* ^vV ^ ^i:' ; V <. ■•■ ■** ’ \ ’• •'! !J'i!”1 l4 0 [i “!# LOCAnON SURVEY PREPIMCD FOR DAN HANDUN y SATHRE-BERGQUIST. INC. 'iy IM) SOUIM IMMnMl • mAi^aIa. mM • Ul2) UM ? f 11 1 COUNCIL MEETINQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION may 15 1996 DATE: Ma)Cftyl5J96RONO ITEM NO; j 3 Department Approval: Name Title Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Item Description: ^ Dan Handlin Request to Acquire City Property to Resolve Non-Conforming Driveway Issue Background In mid-1995 Mr. Dan Handlin and Ms. Nancy Krause purchased the property at 3860 North Shore Drive which is adjacent to a parcel acquired by the city through tax forfeiture. The city parcel includes a wetland area and has a sanitary sewer line running through it. At the time the property at 3860 North Shore Drive was purchased the buyers were advised that the driveway serving the property was non-conforming, in that it extended into the adjacent city parcel. The driveway was installed illegally by a prior owner a number of years ago. The non-conforming driveway created a cloud on the property title. The buyers moved ahead with the purchase without removing the cloud from the title. Rather, $3,000 was placed in escrow to enable the driveway issue to be resolved in one of two ways. Alternative Solutions 1. Find a way to make the current driveway conforming-through either acquiring an easement from the city or acquiring land from the city. 2. Install a new driveway totally on the subject property. Mr. Handlin has indicated he much prefers option one, and has requested the city’s consideration regarding an easement or land acquisition. Because the city property was acquired through tax forfeiture, the city is not able to provide an easement. The only solution to making the driveway conforming is for the city to reconvey a portion of the tax forfeit parcel back to the County for sale to adjacent property owners of which Mr. Handlin is the only eligible buyer. Issues for Consideration In responding to Mr. Handlin’s request there are three issues for the Council to consider. The first is whether the city should allow a driveway that was constructed illegally-partially on an adjacent property--to remain in its current location. The city generally would not allow such a driveway to remain unless the property owner was able to acquire additional property from an adjacent property owner for a lot line rearrangement that would make the driveway conforming. In this case the city is the adjacent property owner. The second issue is whether the city should play a direct role in solving the driveway problem by enabling the acquisition of city property to enable the driveway to be conforming. The city generally does not make city property, obtained for a public purpose available to adjacent property owners to address development related issues. The city currently has numerous parcels, many acquired through tax forfeiture; used for stormwater drainage, utilities, and/or Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 May 8, 1996 Dan Handlin Request to Acquire City Property to Resolve Non-Conforming Driveway Issue open space; that are adjacent to private properties. Staff periodically receives inquiries regarding whether the city would be interested in selling portions of these properties to adjacent property owners for various reasons. Staff regularly discourage these requests. Because the driveway is located on a portion of the parcel that does not affect the wetland or sewer line, it would be possible to assist Mr. Handlin without adversely affecting the various purposes for which the city acquired the parcel. The third issue is whether the negative impact on the Handlin property caused by relocating the driveway is substantial enough to merit the city assisting in resolving the driveway non­ conformity. A feasible option available to Mr. Handlin is to move the driveway so that it is totally on his property. Prior to the driveway being located in its current location the driveway serving the garage structures in the rear yard was located directly adjacent to the east side of the house. This area is now part of the front lawn area. Relocating the driveway to this location is a feasible alternative since this portion of the front yard area is relatively open. It would require the relocation of one large pine tree. Mr. Handlin indicates in his letter that he has substantial concern regarding the disruption this would cause to the natural character of the existing front yard If the Council finds the negative impact of moving the driveway is of such an extent as to me»it the reconveyance of a portion of the city property to Mr. Handlin, staff would recommend four conditions. 1. 2. 3. The portion of the parcel to be reconveyed be minimized. The width of the driveway, particularly at its two ends, be reduced as much as possible. Mr. Handlin bear the cost of any survey and legal work required related to a division of the city parcel and a lot line rearrangement. 4.Mr. Handlin follow through with a lot line rearrangement process to add the parcel to his existing parcel. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve/deny Mr. Handlin’s request to acquire a portion of the city parcel adjacent to his property to bring his existing driveway into conformance. S72i33 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON ^UY 13,1996 (#12) LORD FLETCHERS REQUEST FOR USE OF PUBLIC PARKLNG LOT Moorse reported that the request is to allow Lord Fletchers to use a portion of the public parking lot in Navarre for use by their employees on weekends during the summer months. Shuttle buses will be used to transport the employees between the restaurant and parking lot Moorse said problems that occurred last year have been worked out. The request is similar to that of last year with a number of conditions attached. Lord Fletchers’ representatives said they agree to those conditions. Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, to authorize Lord Hetchers to use the public parking lot in Navarre with conditions #1-8 as listed. Jabbour asked and received no comments from those in attendance at the meeting. He also noted thai lie spoke wah a person who had concerns over the use last year and was told those probi- ns were worked out. Jabbour asked that the distinction be made why Lord Fletchers would be allowed to use the parking lot and not Jack Smith. It was noted that Lord Fletchers has signs posted for patron parking and use of the lot by employees only is a good solution It was also noted that, because it is a public lot, it could be used by Lord Fletchers' customers without specific approval by the City. The agreement to allow employee parking only is a much better arrangement. The use of the parking lot by the Lafayette Club last year was mentioned. Hurr noted that both businesses are located outside of the City of Orono and should be considered on an equal basis. It was noted that the Lafayette Club did not request use of the parking lot and would receive equal consideration if a request was made A maximum use of 60 parking stalls will be permitted. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#13) DAN HANDLES REQUEST TO ACQUIRE CITY PROPERTY TO RESOLVE NON-CONFORMLNG DRIVEWAY ISSUE Moorse reported that the propcily owners of 3860 North Shore Drive have requested to acquire a portion of a City property that was obtained through tax forfeiture in order to resolve a non-conforming driveway due to its partial location on the City-owned lot. Moorse said the former owmer installed the driveway without permits resulting in a cloud on the title when it was sold. The new owners went ahead with the purchase of the property, and .money was escrowed to resolve the problem MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MAY 13. 1996 (#13 - Dan Han'’.lin - Continued) Approval of the request would enable the current driveway to conform Repositioning of the driveway would be the less desired solution Moorse said the driveway could be installed on the side of the house where it w as originally located. This is said to be feasible but would have impacts on the property. Hardships are listed Callahan noted that it is not legal for the City to sell the property. Moorse said the parcel is owned by the City for a specific use only, similar to a lease situation Once the property is used for other purposes, ownership would be reconveyed to the County. The parcel could then be made available to the adjoining property owner at market value. Moorse reported tha* the City owtis lots 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 for use as open space. Lot 23, the lot in question, has sewer lines running thru it as well as a w etland area that extends into lot 24. Kurr said she was concerned with setting a precedent noting that there is an alternate solution of moving the driveway. Hurr inquired about maintaining an easement on the lot. Moorse said the City would do a lot division reconveying only a portion of the lot necessary to remedy the driveway problem back to the County and maintain that portion of the lot containing the wetlands and sewer line. Property owner, Don Handlin, said they purchased the property knowing the problem but still desiring the property. It is their intent to solve the issue in a reasonable fashion. Handlin said the best solution is that which is proposed Changing the driveway would result in the loss of mature trees and landscaping. Handlin said he sees the request as reasonable. He said he is not at fault for the occurrence of the problem but is responsible for resolving it Handlin said he agrees with the conditions 1-4 as listed. He noted that the property would also be placed back on the tax roll. Handlin said, as far as setting a precedent, he asked what precedent that would be. It is his understanding that no precedent would be set by allowing this purchase to occur. Kelley said that the Council was here to try to help people. Hurr noted that the lot would be deemed unbuildable due to the wetlands. Handlin said he would want to protect the wetlands and understands that the lot is unbuildable. Callahan said he agreed with Kelley noting the public use was not being impacted by this request Moorse said the Staff agreed with Council Member Hurr that the City should not generally sell oflf City property, but the circumstances of this request make it a reasonable one. t . . - , .I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO C1T\' COUNCIL MEETLNG HELD ON MAY 13.1996 - Dan Handlin - Continued) Hurr said she did not desire the City to sell off City o^^ned property. It was noted that the driveway was installed after the City gained the tax forfeit property. Kelley asked Staff to suggest the area of the parcel to be divided. The applicant will pay the cost of the division of the lot Kelley also asked that the two lots be combined Callahan moved. Goenen seconded, to approve Mr. Handlin's request to acquire a portion of the City parcel adjacent to his property to bring his existing driveway into conformance. V'ote .Ayes 5, Nays 0. (•14) GOLF COURSE PURCHASE - T MARKERS Gocttcn moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the purchase of tee markers for the Orono Golf Course from Imaginality Incorporated for an amount of $5,304. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (•15) GOLF COURSE PURCHASE - MOWER Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the purchase of one new greens mo wef from North Star Turf for an amount of 53,925.18. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#16) BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FOR 1995 Kelley asked why adjustments are made to match up to expenses. He noted that this does not reflect what actually occurs. Kelley said if residents want to see the budget and what actually occurred in a year, they would see the same result. He questioned why a budget is then done at all. Moorse said it was a matter of reflecting decisions made during a budget year to spend more than the original budget amount. Jabbour said the money brought in is spent but this makes it difficult to ascertain the difference. Callahan moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve the budget adjustments and transfers above for the 1995 General Fund budget. V^ote. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Callahan commented that Staff had provided an investment report for Council review. i TO:Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM:John Gcrhardson, Public Works Director DATE:December 18, 1995 SUBJECT: Driveway Encroachment 3860 North Shore Drive During the summer of 1996,1 received a call from a realtor regarding the driveway location at 3860 North Shore Drive. It seems that over the years there has been encroachment onto adjoining City property for the driveway at the above address. Considerable landscaping has been performed and the new owner is requesting an easement from the City to leave the driveway where it is. In my discussions with the realtor, I indicated that because the City acquired the property through tax forfeiture through Hennepin County, the City is restricted as to what can be done with the property. We do not have the authority to grant an casement becau i the property was acquired to be used as a drainage and conservation area. We have an official request from the new owner to take whatever stops are necessary to grant them an easement. The following are the procedures we would have to follow to allow the driveway to stay where it is; 1. The City must reconvey the property back to Hermepin County by resolution that states the property or part of the property is to be sold to an adjoining property owner. 2.Hennepin County would place a value on the property and if the property owner agreed with the price, it would be a done deal. The other option would be to have the current property owner move the driveway off of City property. An amount was escrowed during the closing to do this in the event an easement or sale could not be accomplished. m i -L ' J' Nancy Krause and Dan Handlin 3S60 North Shore Dr. Mound. MN S3364 NOV 2T 1995 No\'cmbcr 20,1995 John R. Gerhardson Public Works Director City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Dear Mr. Gerhardson; Enclosed is an agreement, made at the time of purchase, bcui'ccn the sellers and us. regarding securing an easement for the driveway that encroaches on city property, next to 3860 North Sliore Dr. Orono. We respectfully request city council assistance in resolving this issue. First, we request a roadway easement, for use of lot 23 (unimproved city property) for the purpose of access to our property via the aforementioned drii eway. If an easement is unobtainable for some reason, (within our budget limits), we will sect to purchase Uie property known as lot 23, block 7, Crystal Bay View. The reason we take this action is that unnecessary hardship would result, if we were forced to move the drivewray. First, the driveway is the only viable access to our garage. Second, if forced to “relocate” the driveway, beautiful and old trees would have to be cut down. Years ago the current driveway entrance tvas built by the city (or county), to service a pumping station on lots 23. 24, and 25. Prev ious owners of our property, used the driveway entrance also It became common access for the city and owners of what is now our property. On lot 22 (our property), should a new driveway have to be constructed, large mature trees, flowering bushes, rock boulder landscaping, and Hower gardens would also have to be destroyed, or uprooted. The cost of doing this, would be more than monetary, for an aliractivc "years in the making ” front yard, w hich is home to various species of birds and squirrels, would be cut up. QuWe frankly, there is no other viable access to our garage, and it is unreasonable to destroy these trees, which arc testimony to how long this driveway access has been in existence. Tlicrc is no longer a pumping station on the properly in question, and wo arc advised that there is no other use for it than dniinagc. This would not change under our proposal. Mir 'f II Wc have since been advised by tin: county trustee of the property in question, that lot 23 has been appraised at $6,000.00. It is also the opinion of tliis individual, that the only uc can procure legal use of this driveway, is to purchase the entire lot, which would require a resolution from the city of Orono to: A approve reconvey ance (in which case they would have to contact the county assessor's office for the proper forms), B approve a lot split of lot 23, block 7, Cry'stal Bay View (according to city procedures), and C. if Orono has a housing and redevelopment authority, approve our request that they sell the lot to us, afler tliey buy it from the county The city council resolution should reflect this process. We intend to add the lot to our homestead lot description, w hich will further ensure that we are not interested in selling off part of the property, or profiting from this process in any other way, than to have legal use of the driveway. Please advise us when wc can meet with the city council in order to resolve this issue. Thank you for your time and attention. SiiKcrety, Nancy Krause and Dan Handlin i .. A. 0C (y r^-^2-<3 —; • » * • 4 ^ , . /id>2e^A<^— /-Se / i^y-rsey^^ ..yLy^g>yyyi^^ASAzAt:^t ^ . / *>r-* • • :>^ ^SC. / x'x>''<y^ '^y.fy'cA’ . .>• t .• •• • # . \t V ? :■ _ ____ ........................................... (S'<5’/;' /''»7 ^♦ 49 c: Zl^ ZZt>c^C't<:i-' C'C^/Ctyc:^ Ca^liycZ-^ /^jy'Z't^^A ^y/>yyS^ 7^/3 J 7'T' <$. ■"■'■'# ' ■' ^ •= ‘ - “-7> - ^SE s ^^l/l' f^ ^'t(^ <^(^-«2-<=' ^ \^>^r-/-<^»» <f’"^7(^ C^Tc7[Ui^t-,^ 2^Vr--?<<«',j(^ ’VH/'^'•''/T’ctTc^'f t-^ zZ^' .i2tE-7*^ I i /^ ' ^ C:^', [ft l' 1 I• • I 4 ....... ^ • • • .. .«4 r*^ • • •* < •I I^ •• • • • • •♦•••• • • !• ^ ___i ;i ;i • •«« •: .1: 5::::_ ".__r::... • ! r. / . /\Aaucs'lJZl, 7o:i ..........*“ ■* .* «• • •» / • t . •• •• 4- ■ . ................................................................................................................. L ■ ■. ".I ■ ;:........... _. ............ /7^5^ _t fiKii I !■*»*••••«f*<iaN*^***‘ ^ \<1 A——D m 938. 9f 8 r I • 0 3- To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Michael P. GafFron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator August 15, 1996 #2156 Michael and Theresa Eastman/Lakeview Golf Course, 4520 West Branch Road/405 North Arm Drive - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement (Registered Land Survey/Metes & Bounds) - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered Application: Lot line rearrangement to allow 7.800 s.f portion of Lakeview Golf Course to be purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Eastman, to accommodate the Eastmans' proposed garage addition and maintain required 50' rear setback. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Letter of Request C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List E - Existing Eastman Property Survey F - Proposed Lot Line Rearrangement G - Topographic Map Summar>’ of Request The Eastmans intend to construct an attached garage addition to the rear of the existing house, but found that their rear lot line is much closer than expected. They have reached an agreement with Lakeview Golf Course to purchase a 7,800 s.f. portion of the golf course to the rear of the property, which will accommodate the proposed garage leaving a 50.9' rear setback. The Eastman propert>’ excluding West Branch Road right-of-way is approximately 1.04 acres. The additional land will increase their acreage to approximately 1.22 acres. The rearrangement as proposed has no impact on the existing golf course use, and is apparently angled to the east to minimize any future impacts on the golf course use. While topography slopes across the lot, there are no defined drainageways in the parcel to be conveyed. No drainage easements would be required. Zoning FUe #2156 August 15, 19% Page 2 RLS vs. Metes and Bounds Subdivision Process The surveyor initially indicated that the Hennepin County Torrens Office t^'ould require this division to be a registered land survey consisting of Tract A (the golf course property) and Tract B (the Eastman property). Ho^^'ever, staff is advised by the Eastmans attorney that the County will accept this as a metes and bounds divisicn/lot line rearrangement. Staff Recommendation The proposed division appears to have no adverse impacts, and solves a problem for the Eastmans. Staff recommends approval. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation. 2. Table for further information (specify). 3. Recommend denial (state reasons). 4.Other Application # ^ j4 Ipate RecdTed O//Cv/^<^ ^Amount Paid ^ • cg> CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATIONILKl 1 ^ I O 1 Site address UV^ >Q/t7»X: A K<s})' ‘1 Property Identification Number (PID) Olo- HI — J93 3*f Please check one - Property ____abs&act or ^ torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Nam e I A. ^ £A&-tor>qn Address <1^^ City A _______Phone (home) j|£22r_t235/ ZipPhone (woric) #.</)-i.aanL OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address Cit\.Zip Phone (home) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) CoiF ( u>*cJUS «U4 X Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites z Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Densitv' Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPUCATION 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 SSO* (y ou mu^ obtain this list from 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 FLNAL 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 Lener of Credit Zoning Official's Signature ___________________________________Date I, application fees (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & 111) $250.00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 Subdivision Application (Class I &. II) $350.00 Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 S25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residentiaO Final Plat Application (Class 111) $200.00 Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdiv ision only $75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 ■%^po _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) ______ Renewal of Clas:-1 and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Final Class 111 Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads $600.00 $.50.Mineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 * $______ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; lin. ft. x .50 •= $ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 On-Site Sy stem. Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00-per lot x_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees Vari'' ce $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision S30.00,T)welling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and ftmher agrees to pay all additional fees established by ....Da, 7-12 ■‘it’ Owner's Signature Date C Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be pr'*sent 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. • • • ' » 6 ADDENDUM 4k ^ WE WOULD LIKE TO PURCHASE 52' DEEP IN PROPERTY FORM LAKEVIEW GOLF COURSE, TO ADD TO OUR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 W. BRANCH RD OUR REASON FOR THIS REQUEST TO PURCHASE IS... WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD A THREE CAR GARAGE ATTACHED TO OUR HOME, AND REMOVE THE ONE CAR GARAGE THAT IS CURRENTLY ATTACHED WE HAD A SURVEY DONE IN AUGUST 1995 AND FOUND THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT AS DEEP AS WE WERE LEAD TO BELIEVE. WE CURRENTLY HAVE 27 NORTH OF THE CURRENT GARAGE. AND WE NEED AN ADDITIONAL 52‘ IN ORDER TO BUILD THE BEST PLAN POSSIBLE DUE TO THE HILLY TERRAIN OF OUR PROPERTY AND IN ORDER TO STAY WITH IN THE CITY 50* SET BACKS. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT TERRY IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT 591 3372 (WORK) OR 472-8734 (HOME) THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING OUR REQUEST. TERRY AND MIKE EASTMAN * V 'V.■rid». V 07/12/96 rn ^ A* ORONO CITY COUNCIL, PLEASE PUT US ON YOUR AGENDA FOR THE AUGUST 26TH MEETING. WE WILL BE DOING A LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT FOR OUR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 W. BRANCH ROAD. THANK YOU, TERRY AND MIKE EASTMAN AOOR 0»«ct HAfC TAXPAYCR MMi/ABra PROP AOOR OltCR NAHi TAMPAYCR NAHC/AOOR PROP AOOR 0»taR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 58 04-U7-2S 52 0002 OOAOS NORTH ARM OR LAREVXCN OOLP OF MTKA INC UREVXEN eOlF OF HTKA INC ass RCO OAR UNE HOUNO m S55AA 58 0A-117>25 54 0001 04580 NEST BRANCH RO A E HA6ER A E HACER A580 N BRANCH ROAO hound m 55544 58 07-117-25 21 0014 04505 NEST BRANCH RO DAVIO LEVY OAVID LEVY 4505 NEST BRANCH RO ORONO 55544-8277 58 07-117-25 22 0014 04425 NEST BRANCH RO S J RUCE I I E SILBER STEVEN RUCE A IRENE SILBER 4425 NEST BRANCH RO hound fM 55344 **»8«P1N COLAfTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMCRS LIST58 04-117-23 33 0007 00038 AOORESS UM^XGNEO LAKEVIEN OOLF OF NTRA INC LAKEVIEH eOLF OF NTRA INC 855 mo OAR LANE H0UR> »0< 55344 58 04-117-23 34 0002 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO LAKEVIEN COLF OF HINNETONKA LAKEVIEN OOLF OF MINNETONU 855 RED OAK LA HOUNO HN 55344 58 07-117-23 21 0015 04455 NEST BRANCH RO JANE E KLINE JANE E KLINE ♦AS5 NEST BRANCH RO HOUNO rt< 55344 REPORT NO. PI43S401PAGE 14 «04-117-25 35 0808 NEST BRANCH RO H L A J F SCHULTE HXCHAEL L SCHULTE 4440 N BRANCH RO HOUNO m 55344 58 04-117-23 34 0003 04520 NEST BRANCH RO H A EASTMAN A T C EASTMAN MICHAEL A/THERCSA C EASTMAN 4520 NEST BRANCH RO hound mi 55344 58 07-117-25 22 0011 00058 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO RICHARD B HAMCINSON RICHARD B HANRIieON 1575 COPELAND RO HAPLE PLAIN m 5535# TOTAL BATCH 504 00010 H > \ OF I!®kIS!1we taxation.^ the best cMSbIbCi ■5 ^ ■ ■: 'Jl DATE TO &ttc0tnixnjO'v. k- -f •• •• •w* ^« «. • •:» * i iy ■ . ‘1 .•% *•• ♦* * V J- . > • j* .•. V y . *i * • • ■ % f.A v. • - .f. •. * 'w • •• . ',••. • , /• • •• ' •. i * V V. * •*. . .’• y: i N . '* ,**• • ’ K‘.- % 9 • • *.. . • <•; . i ti « ^^•306 Certificc^te cF Survey for Terry Eaitman in the SI! 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section ^-117-23 Hennepin County, Minnesota i^vi. e*, Vg8V?V^*i^ fS007 Existing Legal Description The South 303 feet o! the East 150 feet of the West 550 feet of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 6, Township 117 North, Range 23 west of the 5th Principal Meridian. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of the existing house and portable shed thereon, it does net purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. I ^65 I • m • m m m € • • ! S E)n 5 hovS9 -. ..VJ.. . o: denotes iron marker set e: denotes iron marker found Bearings shown are based on an assumed datum. » 7 f,'* i f T f0m4 ID o, O ' I» I • I I I I I I I• I I• I • I t i I5Q.0 5S0M IT I I I J I 5! ’5 -----------\- Q> **Siytwf s«H*f swi. T * t 4iJ ^88'/7/riV iVest- Brewch 150.07 Road t O' fmU f 0.32 Si ft «n ^5. .N 1 . \> <N •H ,« S •, «•» 4 * ' j i CofiiN k Gronberg. Inc. I I SMf.n,<T' S<fc i'Wtttrr. I hereby certify thjt Ihu survr>’ w.is prepared by m»* vr under mv direct suj'cr vision, and that I am a duly registered Civil Engineer .ind l and Surveyor under the laws of the Stale i»f Mmne^ol.i <lv ’ IjI.- M\ m: i~HNi Mark S. Cronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 LMTt Q-22-95 «.*L( • 30’ jiMiMi 95*306 , ■ F-! 'x " .:'*e ' -• •■ • V/-.T < T 1'00 LF OOU^SF 5F SEC. 6-^:117-23 - .V NTy, MMliiSdTA w. Umt «r st'U ^...••rsw)i^ »f ft€. t'tl7 23 •*. ■-’ k. ,...:^:____s ea*i7'i6 ‘'£ A ^ X- • >• V *f" A'^.y ^ i a / / ‘ rf.-'sea*/7i«<-r • ♦ v'*. • ♦ 2 T?r C*''' * • / ' i J E^iftimm a t —...................... ISO N8e'/7‘/^TT—— * BroncA«[>a</ (CoMNklS}) » Vfy- / • • * « « I » PROPOSED REGISTERED LANCf SURVEY AND • I LOT LINE REARRNQEMENT FOR MICHAEL & THERESA EASTMAN AND LAKEVIEW GOLF COURSE IN THE SW V4 OF SEC. 6-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNJV; MINNESOTA'----- • ; A. Nmn? f 4oaif . • : TT 7 * _ » " 1 YC0 i i« j*i '■ t 795 M __________ .NM’I7K-W> ^ tfiru-e tar f.. • - A 2 ...... Jr I "iisopy / (...i .....................ifar.L... « s •........... "TTSiTI•HaftJWi/tsao) j : ~ I I West Branch fiocu/ (OkUMSI) ; » » I 'I % . existnc legal OESCRPTIQNS I tASTMAN : Th« £ott ISO f€»t of the West SSO feet of^tfw South 303 leet of the Sou<»wott Ouortar of the Southvest Quarter ol Section 6. Township t»7 NortK Ron9o 23 West’of the 5IH Principal Meridkin LAKEVCW COtr course : The Southeost Ouorter of the Southwest Owo^ter of Section 6. Township tl7-Norlh, Ronoe 23 West of the Sth Principal Meridian.* EXCEPT the West 400 feet p/,the South 203 feet thereof. ALSO EXCEPT theiEost 150 feet ol the West 550 feet » ^of the South 303 feet. M*rr: , 4 4tt/rr*tff /•>**>€ f • * 9^ r44tr a r44tr S (ftt^****') 4t 4f9****f4. : r • ■ I : • •* ; I I ‘ 1 1 • • • . • caacNB>iT .nvAKWI own ievturiKiN 1 I 1ComN k GRONBERG, INC. I Lf'fil Snnn/i'r’- »/«• /'^ult^ r^ !•'? I mi.H.uk Au >»iu* • LiLi M\ fil2 171 4111 I hatihi << ilili itui lhr\ miiu'I m i« iii-iuiait In e» ids I. ■ mt Jwitl Mi|wt' wwtm. imi ilui I we j July irKtvh'fi>l Cnil I nj;wrrr ^ lj«J1»wofyu»undrf tSr Uw« ihr Suit Ilf Mmnr^ej ______. „ ._________________ M III S 1 iil^ ifi Miiiiw• I 11.. ii.. \ii 11 • ' • WAt I lun sw*e> W?J . H9J . . • I I • « * i I *T1r N TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:August 13,1996 SUBJECT: #2151 John and Janice Hurd, 2795 Casco Point Road - Variances Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR-IC Lot area = 33,127.5 s.f. Adjusted area = 3 1,447.5 s.f. (1 ,680 s.f of Casco Point Road to be excluded from area). Status of Application At the July 15,19% meeting of the Planning Commission, the application was tabled at applicants request. Neighbors in attendance voiced concern with the encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line by a structure that would be increased in mass twofold plus. Planning Commission members advised the applicants to work with the neighbors in developing a plan that would minimize the encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line. It was also noted by some members that there is no guarantee that the Planning Commission would approve a variance to the average lakeshore setback. Applicants have submitted a revised plan. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1.Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B) - Review of lots standards. A. Area Required = 21,780 s.f Existing = 31,447.5 s.f exclusive of road right-of-way B.Lot width Required = 100' At shoreline = 109.8' At 75' setback = 107 section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of strurtural coverage. Total lot area = 31,447.5 s.f Allowed = 4,717 s.f or 15% Propo.-ed = 3, 772.33 s.f or 1 1.9%* No variance required ♦Grade level screen porch 210 s.f; main level deck 408 s.f; house/garage 2,768.33 s.f; boat house 400 s.f Zoning File #2151 August 13, 1996 Page 2 3.ction 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback variance. Allowed = O' Existing = 20' (lot\‘er \\*alkout level with upper level decks) Amended Proposal = 7' for principal structure “13' for enclosed grade level porch with main level deck above at northwest “ 15’ for main level deck at southw est comer of residence 4.Section 10.22, Subd, 2 - Hardcover variances. A. 0-75' setback area = 8,227.5 s.f. Allowed = 0 s.f Existing = 400 s.f or 4.8% B.75-250 ’ setback area = 15,750 s.f Allowed = 3,937.5 s.f or 25% Proposed = 3,292.8 s.f or 20.09% (original proposal 3,943.3 s.f or 25.0367% Adjusted for hardcover in the 0-75 = 3,692.83 s.f. or 23.4% No variance required C.250-500' setback area = 9,150 s.f Adjusted area = 7,470 s.f (minus 1,680 s.f Casco Point Road right-of-way) Allowed = 2,241 s.f. or 30% Original proposal = 3,414 s.f or 45.7% Amended proposal = 2,912.7 s.f or 38.9% (minus 320 s.f of driveway improvement located in Casco Point right-of-way) Variance = 671.7 s.f or 8.9% List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - 1 - Existing Site Plan Amended Site Plan Lakeshore Elevation Four Level Floor Plan Upper Level Floor Plan Main Level Floor Plan Hardcover Inventory Hardcover Site Plan i Zoning File #2151 August 13, 1996 Page 3 Review of Amended Proposal Staff has discussed the amended proposal with both the neighbor to the north, Mrs. Erickson, and the neighbor to the immediate south, Mr. Grundeen. Both have advised that they approve the revised plan as presented to the Planning Commission (Exhibit B). As of this writing, staff has yet to receive their written notification but have promised to submit letters by your meeting date. Mr. Theilmann, the neighbor to the immediate south of the Grundeen property, has received a copy of the amended proposal and was also present at meetings with appliciints and applicants' architect. As of this writing, 1 have yet to receive a phone call or receive written comments from Mr. Theilmann. As already noted in the earlier review, the subject property meets the required area and width standards for the LR-IC zoning district Structural coverage is once again not of issue proposed at 11.9%. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback area does not exceed the allowed 25% with the inclusion of the area of the boat house at 23.4%. The principal structure will encroach the average lakeshore setback line by 7'. The existing principal structure encroaches the average lakeshore setback line by 20' (grade level addition with two floors of upper level decks). Review Exhibits C, D and F, a grade level enclosed porch with main level deck at northw est comer encroaches the average setback line by 13' and the remaining portion of the main level deck at the southwest comer encroaches the line by 15'. Refer to Exhibit A, the area of the lot has been adjusted to reflect the reduction of the right-of-w'ay of Casco Point Road. This reduction in area has had a major impact on the hardcover level within the 250-500' setback area. Hardcover was originally proposed at 45.7% and is now proposed at 38.9%. The area reduction has intensified the hardcover variances requested in this setback zone. Issues for Consideration 1.Will you approve a variance to the average lakeshore setback line? If stmeture at this size is moved further east, this will place more of the principal structure within the 250-500' setback area where excesses already exist. The residence will be located 180'-r from the shoreline per revised plan. The lot averages 350' in depth. If a setback variance is to be granted, is this an acceptable compromise? 2.There is an excess of 8.9% hardcover in the 250-500' setback area as more of the principal structure has been moved into the 250-500' setback area. The property is allowed a total of 6,178.5 s.f (75-250' = 3,937.5 s.f; 250-500' = 2.241 s.f) of hardcover improvements. Applicants propose a total of 6,605.5 s.f of hardcover improvements (includes 400 s.f. of boat house). Should principal structure be reduced in area proposed at 3,176.3 s.f? Can proposed structural or non-structural improvements be reduced or eliminated? Can car walk p.rtrtnmifF.iHt i' I#:*! •riTslliTi ni¥siKt] hnrtnm r»TtTil|Tt1 [•inr«i nniicfi?/(ii ISO imii rt ■ triTsi m iiti rt«.irc ilKtliVXi rtiiiinf M fxo >■ Ti % V . r 0 ( M‘4 t •T • S 9* 0 t • »' 4 •<« • • 0^9 » V % 1 t ^ » ««. _____________l-l. i \ *5I >!N' ilL.; «l'-{ti|| 'll t% 0 0 0' » iV if«b I V » I V4' K I tK| T rmN % V4*V fc V 9 0 I % • m I » 14 4-4 O-3 0 rtiftiiQiifi ^cn*9tUBtnu»»mc i*«i» Mil P.5 5wi_hj 01 MT;iT 9Ci5»r HARDCOVTR calculation WOBKSHeET t'fl.A-'-'!.:■!> T JI Sb) SETBACK Z.O.NE: (CIRCLE O^E) O-tS* PXISTI.XC HARDCOVER IN LONE A House CAa X ^en^th (\A.U~) < ■» ( -V 2S0>i 50<I>1 ( 6^ (. to ^ «Uth C '/». ( \x%X C ) % B Gtft|€ C Dnvcway —o — — o ~X X — o Sidtwalk (i >c ba\ Pauo<£e^ ( 14 < V__woLS x c»^T>V m, \4 X < oo'> F. Landscape ( zai> ) •*( * Underlain Dy Plastic C. Other total hardcover in zone total property area in zone — B IS", ''/aO.^Q X 100 " PBOPOSED HARDCOVER n^LZOME < ) * "^0% A. Hoase_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _* —- - - - - - Ltnfth widm X X X Garage ^2J jsl JL l1-±JLL\ ^ ^ * X y* c *cx 2jI ('. Driveway C 9^- S’ ^ ><») A* ^ \-U g _iJl L ^ 32.y ia-5 ^__ Sidewalk. C gy IT \ ^ X X E. Palio/DecK X X Landscape Underlain By Plasuc X X X 0. Odtcr total hardcover in zone total property area in zone •St S^TiS - B _X 100 • S'!! oo__ S.F. S.F s F S.F — O-S.F *. e —S.F S.F W'lSO S.F. 2hA >00 S F. Z^A-oo S.F. \nu oo s F AAZ.oo S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. 63 S F. im.‘wma ao S.F. RO.O^D7 % a-..S F. - o —_______ S.F. _ S.F. o “ S.F. ‘\‘iS>ou S.F. 1832 00 S.F. \ 00_ S P. \\A 'isr S.F igq-oo S.F — d— — o ^ S.F S F — a— S.F. o— S.F, S.F-o— S.F S.F S.F %r. i3o<^ % 30-CO 4 6'7.*7S 4<1 «KtoaS SA I Bl A B .A B i I *L’ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 19,1996 AGENDA ITEM #2151 JOHN AND JANICE HURD. THE OWNERS OF 2795 CASCO POINT ROAD. TO: Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono PO Box 66 Cr\stal Bay, MN. 55323 Tel. (612) 473-7357 FROM: Ronald and Joy Grundeen 2797 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN. 55391 Tel. (612) 471-9133 SUBJECT: Average lakeshore setback variance. CHANGES: We have reviewed the revised proposal for the new addition submitted by John and Janice Hurd for the new structure at 2795 Casco Point Road. We feel that this is an acceptable proposal and meets with our approval. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. on & Joy Grundeen AUG 13 1996 1 i : i i i a « t* • . • ' . t ' r *• « / V- / ? ?’6 stains ^xiJium 2775 ^aieo ^J^oinl <z^oad ^a^zala, <^inn£U}ta 555p/ '-fyi e- O *5'-»<-—^ , ■ - . - /V xe.<i2.. ^ J ^X— a w3 AUG 1 9 I11I I <1 i; iTa'oo ■t~ / 1f /1 1 ' 11 h^T i / / 11 1 1 / 64 / ._/ / / I / Xi».0 ^• •• '1 / nn.x6 . I 5 TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commis- on Members Ron Moorse. Citv Administrator FROM; DATE; Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admi nis trator August 14, 1996 SUBJECT: #2159 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road - Variances Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakevbore Residential, 2 acres, unsewered. Application: Rer^- iwst for lakeshore setback variance and 0-75' hardcover variances for restoration of existing boat house, grotto and lakeshore stairw ay system. Lut of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Propert) Owners List D - Survey/Site Plan £ - Site Plan Enlargement F - Construction Plans G - Hardcover Calculations H - Photos I - Floodplain and Wetlands Management codes re: nonconformities Summary of Request Directly east of the residence and at the shoreline of this property exist the following amenities: Limestone rock stairway leading down the lakeshore bank; a second, narrower stairway also exists approximately 100' north. - Circa 1930 "boat house", approximately 12'xl2' used for storage only - Retaining wall and underground "grotto" room, approximately 12'xl6' plus 5’x6' entry. Applicants propose to do restoration work on the tw o stairw ays, interior cosmetic remodeling of the grotto, repair of the adjacent retaining wall and major renovation of the boat house. Discussion The stairway directly east of the house is one of four stairw ay systems that provide access to the east shoreline of the property, w hich is approximately 6^0' in length The other stairw ay systems include a stairway to the dock at the southeast comer of the property; p short segment of stairs centrally 1 #2159 - Jundt August 14, 1996 Page 2 located just above the shoreline and about 150' south of the boat house; and a narrow stairway traversing the slope approximately 100' north of the boat house, and which is virtually hidden and unused at this time but also proposed for renovation. The work proposed on the stairways is relatively minor in nature, and includes leveling and resetting the existing stair slabs ^lus replacing the existing metal handrails with a new decorative cast aluminum handrail. The hidden stair vay further north is also proposed to be leveled and reset It appears that w ith some minor work near the shoreline the northerly stair system would connect to the flat terrace area on which the boat house is located (see Exhibit H). Secondly, applicants propose to make major repairs to the existing "boat house”. This structure is in poor condition, likely due to a failing (or lacking) foundation. 7 he f*roposed yvork includes; replacement of existing shingle roof yvith neyv cedar shakes and new eyebroyv yvindoyy - replace and modify virtually all existing yvindoyvs and doors • replumb existing structural frame and reclad with new clapboard siding - pour a new concrete floor add a new concrete step After discussion with the Building Inspections Department, it yvould appear to staff that this structure is being visually rebuilt from the ground up, absent saving the interior framing. This building is actually not a "boat house" in the sense that it would shelter a ooat, but is merely a small storage building. It has no apparent architectural significance. City codes regarding such non-conforming structures limit the degree of alloyvable repairs to 50% of the building's value at the time it became non-conforming (1975 or earlier). In this case the needed structural yyoil. ould appear to substantially exceed its current and former value (old City assessor’s records uo not even list this building, much less establish a value for it). The giotto structure is of a someyvhat different character, hoyvever. It is essentially an underground room, built into the hillside and faced yvith a rock retaining wall. Its function has not been discussed by the applicants but the yvork proposed for it is mainly cosmetic, including: adding stucco interior yvall and ceiling panels adding a decorative light fixture restoration of existing wood doors - restoration of the cxibliiig sioiie iciaining yvall #2159 - Jundt August 14,19% Page 3 Hardcover Appl’cants' hardcover calculation worksheet indicates that the vast majoritv' of hardcoN er in the 0-75 ’ zone (including the east shoreline and west shoreline of the property) is in the public roads euid driveway entrances. The existing stairw ays, boat house, etc. account for less than 1% of the 0-75' zone. The hardcover calculations also include some entries which are confusing, such as showing an additional 250 s.f of driveway, as well as \ar> ing numbers for patio deck, pathways and additional retaining wall. It is not clear from the plans where these hardcover increases are intended to take place. Applicants or ihti representative should clarify the hardcover calculations. Staff has left a message w ith the project manager requesting clarification of the hardcover calculations. Issues for Discussion 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Given that the Shoreland Ordinance docs not sf>ecifically limit the number of 4' wide stairways that can be placed on a prop)erty, but realizing that more than one such stairway per property may constitute excess hardcover, does Planning Commission have a concern about the number of stairway systems serving this property? Since the existing stairways traverse the slope at an angle rather than running directly to the lake, does Planning Commission feel there is any justification to have applicant reroute the stairways more directly to the lake? Or. is the potential visual impact of direct stairways lessened by allowing them to angle through the wooded shoreline? Is there sufficient hardship demonstrated to justify the nearly total reconstruction of the 12'xl2’ boat house, given its deteriorated condition and lack of architectural significance? Are the mainly cosmetic changes to the grotto area and restoration of the adjacent rock retaining wall of any significant visual impact? While applicants have not proposed removal of any vegetation related to this project, what vegetative screening might be appropriate to add, if any, to mitigate the impacts of the retaining wall (or the boat house if proved)? ^^Tlal specific hardcover increases aic proposed? .Are they justified by hardship'’ Is there any hardcover in the 0-75' zone that can be removed to result in no hardcover increase? #2159 - Jundt August 14, 1996 Page 4 Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission finds that the restoration of the stairway above the boat house/grotto and restoration of the stairway to the north are justified by hardship, perhaps for both safety and to provide reasonable access t^ the lakeshore. then a recommendation for approval of the stairway restoration would be appropriate. It is stafl ’s opinion that it would be difficult to make the necessary findings of hardship to justify allowing the existing 12'xl2' "boat house" to be restored. Plejise review the nonconformities section of the Floodplain and Wetlands Management ordinance (E.xhibit 1) which applies to those areas less than 75' from the lake. Section 10.55, Subd. 26(B) states that "no structural alteration or addition to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure shall e.xceed 50% of its value at the time of its becoming a nonconlorming use..." The existing structure has been nonconforming since at least 1975 or before, and the proposed construction will certainly exceed 50% of its former value. Finally, if Planning Commission finds that the cosmetic changes to the grotto and the restoration of :he adjacent retaining wall are supported by adequate hardships, then a recommendation for approval may be appropriate. Planning Commission should address whether hardcover removals are necessa^>^ Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. Recommend approval as proposed, Recommen ! approval w ith conditions. Recommend partial approval. Table for further information 5. Recommend denial, stating reasons 6.Other. AppUcatioo # X ! 6 Date Reccired ~96 - Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - V aRLANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00 ^ (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S220.0Q^\^c.^ Afrer-thc-Fac: Fees (Double application fee) ^^ A PROPERTY INTORVLATION O “7 Propert>' Identification Number fP I D.) 11-117-23-33-00(11 Attach legal description to application if not included on required sur%’ey. Date Property Acquired, March 1992 _______________Xmonth'vear) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propcrt> : ^ residential ___other (specify). Zoning District:_________________________________ APPLICANT Kraus-Anderson Constxuction \,'ame _____Come any, Midwest Division Phone (home). Address:P.O. Box 158 _____ Phone (work) (6121 786-7711 City: Circle Pines_____Zip: OWTsTR (if different than applicant) NJame James and Joann Jundt Phone (homel (6121 473-9524 Phone (work)_______________ Address: 1400 Bracketts Point Road City: Qronc Zip:_Sn33I DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: Restoration woric to existing Boathouse and <ayigi-ing Grotto 6tr.d Stone Retaining Wall (BoafchQus «=^ r^nlt 1930) (Groto B^^'^^ft Pre~19171 (attach additional sheets if necessary) V.ARLANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width X Setback:I font Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual propert>- conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: The existing Boathouse, Grotto and Stone Retaining Wall are in damaged, broken and unsafe condition and n< to be restored and rppairpd. - - - - - - - - (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 REQUIRED SUBMTTT.ALS -v7 >1^ • > All of the following information must be submitted bv the applfcation deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. J. 4. X_ Completed Application Form * Certified Properr.- 0\vrers List of ovvTiers %vithia 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepm Countv- Department of Finance. A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). * Certiticate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and inciude hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/:" .x 11" for .’■eproducticn. * Topographic sur.ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in e.xisting grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘/i" x 11" for reproduction. X Sketches or pians of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11"). * List of the legal na.mes (include .marital stams) of ail persons with an interest in the properr/. Tnis 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 frus application. X_ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. (Photos) ♦THESE ITE:^£ have : BEEii PRE^TOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF ORONO. The Applicant and Prope.Ty Owmer must sign this application. Please remember that 5. 6. 7. 8. variance application is not complete if the above information h-is not been includetL .APPLIC.ANT'S SIGN.ATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide ail Information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant e.xpenses incurred i.n review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true md correct to Lhe lest of his'her knowledge. Applicant's Signature OWNER’S SIGN.-VTURE true ana correct to tne test ot niv Date 7. The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by Cir/ staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation a.nd verification of this request. OvvT.er's Signature Date .Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days betore the Planning Comunission .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 applica.nt is unable to anend a scheduled meeting, please make arransements to have an audiorized agent ar.end in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the .meeting. i CSfEH mss OM TA^IACEX LAKE (> RUI OAU Oe/2t/9S < ^ MTCH 0®«imioiH couiTt rwiirr niromiATioii stsioiP«0«*€BTY 0»««l(S IIST RtPUlir MO. PI<«SS40l PACE IEADOR OmER lUIIE TMVAVER NAHE/AOOR Se H-117-E3 52 OOOP OlAOO BRACKETtS POIMT RD J R JUNDT t MARY J JUNDT JAMES R jurnr •OX 1CRYSTAL BAT ttl 55325 PROP AOOR 0»KR llAt« TAXPAYER •lAIIE/ADOR SS 11-117-25 52 0017 01500 ORACRETTS POIMT 00 CEORCE S PIUCOURY ET AL CEORCC S PIUSOURY AOOO FIRST DAIK PLACE MPLS ttl 55<»02 PROP AOOR OIRICR NAME TAXPAYER MAME/AOOR 50 11-117-25 55 0001 01420 BRACKETTS POINT RO J R JUNOT A M J .RJMOr JAMES R JUffiT OOX 1 CRYSTAL BAY It! 55525 PROP AOOR OlfICR NAME TAXPAYER tlAHE/AODR 50 11-117-25 55 0004 01500 BRACKETTS POINT RO MARTHA S I A LACHLAN REEO MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REED 1500 BRACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA m 555Y1 *• i50 11-117-25 52 001001245 BRACKETTS POIMT RO MICHAEL E LYNN III A MITE MICHAEL A JORJA LYtffI 111 1245 BRACKETTS POIMT HAYZATA T« 55571 58 11-117-25 52 001101<i20 BRACKETTS POINT RB J R JUNOT I M J JUNDT JAMES R JUNOT BOX 1CRYSTAL BAY «1 55523 •4 30 11-117-25 52 0010 01220 DRACKETiS POINT RD ELLA P CROSBY ELLA P CROSBY 1220 BRACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA Ttl 55571 50 11-117-25 52 OOlS 01200 BRACKETTS POINT RO JOItl S PILLSOURY JR ET AL J0I8J ? PILLSOURY JR 4000 TlRjT BANK PLACE MPLS m 55402 58 11-117-25 35 0004 01450 BRACKETTS POINT RO MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REED MAOTHA S A A LACHLAN REED 1500 BRACKETTS POINT HO HAYZATA Ttl 55571 50 11-117-25 55 0005 01400 BRACKETTS POINT RO R A L HEAORirK ROGER L A LYtAI C IICAORICK 1400 DRACKETTS POINT 110 LUYZAIA Ttl 55571 TOTAL BATCH 004 00010 I CERTITY THAT THE TACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OT lurORMATlON AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS or THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARINENT OF PROPERTY TAXATlONf TO THE BEST OF NY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE • # m CO i ;om 3 0^0 5§8 oco O O o§ 1 ? m 5S 1 o ^ X Xo S co <ornxoo:d 3 X—»O m CO m ’ H iii ■ ■' y \ ■V \ \ , \,' ! \ L iir.-----....rr-r=rl*^ CD_ n” m >S zo 8C? 8 O Xi Ui O T»CO z O Z o oxp5 :o opl -< rn X> ^ X mo^Zj ^-hOZ -5|3 R i§ f, S Ai:d / o ^ -hO Z3 —♦ i^OD J- m TOrn rno Om 2:m 7D > 2: O m CO , .* *■*% -n SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) HARDCOVER CAIXULATION WORKSHEET 0-75’ 1 75-250' 25 J-500' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Boat Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway (Public)X X D. Sidewalk (Stone Steps)X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 21.557.5 .. B 130,834 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Boat____________ ^ Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway (Public)X X D. Sidewalk (Stone Steps)X X E. Patio/Deck Pathways X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other Retaining Wall TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 21,939 - B 130,834 X 100 500-1000'• 196 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 20.591 S.F. S.F. 525 S.F. S.F. 245.5 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 21,557.5 SF- 130,834 S.F. 16.47 % 196 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 20,591 S.F. 250 S.F. 525 S.F. S.F. 187 S.F. 160 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 21,939 S.F. 130,834 S.F. 16.76 % A B A B bn- s 10.55 Subd. 26. Non-conforming Uses, A structure or the use df a structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this Section but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this Section may be continued subject to the following conditions; A. No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non-conformity. B. No structural alteration or addition to any non- conforming structure over the life of the structure shall exceed 50 percent of its value at the time of its becoming a non-conforming use, unless the structure is permanently changed to a conforming use or unless the alteration or addition would substantially reduce potential flood damages for the entire structure. C. Any alteration or addition to any non-conforming use which would result in substantially increasing its flood damage potential shall be protected in accordance with Subdivision 14, Subparagraph E of this Section. D. If such use is discontinued for twelve consecutive months, any future use of the building premises shall conform to this Section. The assessor shall notify the Zoning Administrator in writing of instances of non-conforming uses which have been discontinued for a period of twelve months. E. If any non-conforming use is destroyed by any means, including floods, to an extent of 50 percent or more of its assessed value, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this Section. However, the City may issue a conditional use permit for reconstruction if the use is located outside the floodway and, upon the reconstruction, is adequately flood proofed, elevated or otherwise protected in conformity with this Section. F. Uses or adjuncts thereof which are or become nuisances shall not be entitled to continue as non-conforming uses. G. Except as provided in Subparagraph E above, any use which has been permitted as a conditional use shall not be considered as a non-conforming use. H. Non-conforming uses located in the Floodway District shall be eliminated or brought into conformity with the standards contained in this Section within a reasonable period of time as determined by the City, after a hearing for each such non- conforming use. The Council shall make its determination upon the basis of the normal useful life of any improvement upon the premises. In addition, the monetary value of any competitive advantage derived by the operation of such non-conforming use, by reason of the limitation on establishment of competing businesses ORONO CC 375 (4-1-84) I S 10.55 as a result of this Section, shall be considered as a reduction of losses resulting from the requirement of termination of the use under this Section. Subd. 27, Amendments, The flood plain designation on the official maps shall not be removed from flood plain areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in error and that the area is at or above the elevation of the regional flood and is contiguous to lands outside the flood plain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Commissioner of Natural Resources if he determines that, through other measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended use. All amendments to this Section including amendments to the official maps must be submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption. Changes in the official maps also require prior approval by the Federal Insurance Administration. Subd. 28. Interpretation. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this Section shall be held to be minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the City and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by State Statutes. The boundaries of the Flood Plain Districts shall be determined by scaling distances on the official maps. Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the district as shown on the official maps, as for example where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions, the City Engineer shall make the necessary interpretation based on elevations on the regional (100-year) flood profile. The person contesting the location of the district boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case to the City and to submit technical evidence if he so desires. Subd. 29. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. It is not intended by this Section to repeal, abrogate or impair any existing ordinance, regulation, easement, covenants or deed restrictions. Howe/er, where this Section imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this Section shall prevail. Subd. 30. Warning and Disclaimer of Liability. This Section does not imply that areas outside the flood plain districts or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damages. This Section shall not create liability on the part of the City or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this Section or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. Source: Ordinance No. 213 Effective Date: 1-11-79 ORONO CC 376 (4-1-84) 4^ '•>' --^T>•; i >' < *• ' U.,X». rMi Jk' ^ ■ -V* € ■'' S'- • '"V-v I>-^-^^-^ - ':,-5^- fc* * -<''-7'^:i5'> * '> ’ V.v'- ...^ 'V-ff 7- ”ic 7 “ A # • __. V • - - J .<?i=r^4 ''''•■'■ ■■ • '-te * . -••!■: V. " ■ ■ -A ^ ^-s.; V .-- ^ T... • - ■ "• /^• - 'V ' • U :i:: - ^%-."«^ ■ ■ 7-L mm rs**■ ^ ^ 0 r ’ •> i ' ^T* • V '*^'- <*• w»'‘ >l^ir^- ,Vf:' i.< » »>*4j^. -X^*- ' -u * s,l>' , ' . •V' • 5* ; . • , V,- ^ I ji i ^ >/■ ■ ^ ' r^ ■ A -u** . • ! /•M ( ; -S.li ^ X. ^ A ^ . J-% I >* t - \* m _ ^ . -.‘/•^^NC : A ; ‘ H Existing Boathouse - South Elevation (J’jndt Residence - 1996)kT 7' IfeadL''-'" ' i« ' f ii5^'*~riiwmiffi- -1 fi^' ■• ** /. ^ sAi^' i f ■ O', '• /•' j i>' ' *' ^ V* 1. .' V V 'V '‘A’A 4 ■% ^ ■• I g*-^‘' 'i ^ ti-iiStinf (Jundt F y t..-'^1\%y*\ ■v^*S.- ,. ^ylSi * ■ ■' t ‘ V ■y..A, im '. « &^.- ••^ «• ^ ». 't • ' m '•■> ,f:?i V..* A *’f-*A---. ri- s- . V- ^ T- "■ V--n Ti v\v:' w ^rs V • 9^' m '^f ri^ •-?#r!.«.v^ EIxistino Groto (Jundt Residenc 'S\ t ^ • <^ '. ^ JJ ka-N'i-S! 4r V, '*' • ' X ><rJh.y" <- - ^ • » ^T r j^ / V n t; . #>. /• * w -V • • • '•- - • _____ 'i V. •« »• :i‘*>'*'■ . - ai ^ c. ^ssiaiw mw9] f7ST*WZFsj«l . . ... ... vai 'f** sir r ■ ^ « <^-- • .' 19 * if /•. t ? V '•» ' ^ V •>'t :i.'■■ LuCi^ L. kJl iWl. ^X iw MnnHf- R^Q 1 Hl=>nr!P> — 1996) To: From: Date: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator August 15, 1996 Subject: #2160 David Dotzenroth, 3225 Casco Circle - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 Acre, Sewered Application: Request for side setback and street setback variances to construct additions to existing detached garage. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Propert>’ Owners List D - Acknowledgements from Neighboring Property Owners E - Supplemental Letter Including Hardship Statement F - Survey G - Construction Plan H - Hardcover Calculations Submitted by Applicant I - Staff Hardcover Review J - Staff sketch: Driveway concept Pertinent Code Sections 1. 2. 3. 4. Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B): Required = 10', Required front (street) yard = 30' Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (D): "No detached garages or other accessory buildings shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent to a street, accessory buildings located within the street or rear yards of such lots are subject to the setback requirements of Section .... 10.25, Subd. 6 (B) except that detached garages may be located 10’ from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and a turnaround is provided on site " Section 10.03, Subd. 13: "Accessory buildings which are for the storage of automobiles shall have the doors 30' or more from the property line when said doors face on a public alley or street." Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (E): "Accessory structures in excess of 750 s.f footprint but not exceeding 1,000 s.f. footprint area shall be located at least 15' from any lot line." L Zoning File <^2160 August 15, 1996 Page 2 Summary of Request Applicants propose two additions to the existing garage which is located less than 1’ from the street lot line and from 4.4' to 7.4' from the side lot line. The existing garage has doors which face Casco Circle, leaving virtually no room for parking in front of the garage other than within the right-of-way. Currently, additional parking is in a graveled area directly adjacent to the garage. Applicants propose to construct a 24' x 16' addition to the rear of the existing garage, and replace the existing 8:12 pitch roof with a steeper 12:12 pitch roof, enclosing some storage space. Applicant has indicated he does not propose to move the garage stall doors to the side as shown on the construction elevation views, but intends to leave the doors facing the street. The existing garage is non-conforming from the perspective that with doors facing the street it should be 30' from the street lot line and 10' from the side lot line. The proposed garage will in many respects be even more non-conforming because the added size places it into a categoiy (750-1,000 s.f.) which requires a 15' side setback. Discussion Applicant has indicated in his supplementar>' information letter (E.xhibit E) that the existing garage is a sound structure with proper frost footing foundation, and that the costs to tear it down and start over in the location meeting the setback requirements would be cost-prohibitive. Further, he notes that a large 4' diameter maple tree would be lost if the entire structure w'as moved to meet the required setbacks. The garage addition as proposed will be approximately 12' from the base of that tree. The existing garage has an Id' concrete apron between the garage doors and the traveled surface of Casco Circle. While this leaves room to park two full size cars without extending into traffic, all of that parking is within the right-of-way. The reason the City Code requires a 30' street lot line setback for garage doors facing the street, is to allow substantial off-street parking outside of the right-of-way. Given the relatively narrow width of pavement on Casco Circle, it would be in the best interests of the City to decrease parking within the right-of-way. And, technically per Municipal Code Section 8.20, parking vehicles between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. upon any public street (defined as the right-of-way) is prohibited. Obviously, this has not been enforced in most neighborhoods. Further, Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (A) indicates that within residential districts, "All vehicles normally owned or kept by the occupants on the premises must have a garage stall or open parking space on the same lot as the principal use served...". Also, Subd. 4 "Purpose of Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements", states that "regulation of off-street parking and loading spaces in this chapter is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public right-of- way and so to promote the safety and general welfare of the public by establishing minimum Zoning File #2160 August 15, 1996 Page 3 requirements for off-street parking, loading and unloading for motor vehicles in accordance with the utilization of various parcels of land and structures." In staffs opinion, while the proposed garage addition and roof reconstruction will have little impact on neighboring properties, it w ill increase the permanence of the current non-conforming situation. One way to mitigate this would be to require that the garage entrance doors be relocated to the side (as shown in applicant's construction elevations. Exhibit G), and establishment of driveway and parking area directly east of the garage. Then, the magnitude of variance for street setback reduces form 29.8' to 9.8', and a parking non-conformity is resolved. Existing hardcover in the 75-250’ zone is approximately 13.3%. Adding the 16’ x 24’ garage addition and a new 30' x 26' driveway entering the garage on the east side, and removing the 8' X 8' shed results in 75-250' hardcover of 17.1%, still significantly below- the 25% limit. This driveway would require minor changes in landscaping, but would not eliminate an excessive number of trees. Applicants have stated they do not want to lose trees if at all possible. Staff Recommendation Applicants should reduce the size of the addition to approximately 24' x 15.6', so that the entire building stays below- the 1,000’ limit. If Planning Commission concludes that the proposed addition is in an appropriate location, Planning Commission should also consider whether the conversion from a hip roof to a steeper gable roof less than 1' from the street lot line, is justified by sufficient hardship and whether it is appropriate in the context of the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, staff recommends that if the proposed addition and roof conversion is approved, applicants should relocate the existing garage doors to the east side, and construct a new driveway access as shown on Exhibit J, which will reduce the magnitude of the variances needed tgarage will only need a 9.8' variance instead of a 29.8' variance for street setback) and eliminate parkiiig on the right-of-way. In that case, it may be appropriate to request that applicants remove the portions of the existing concrete apron located within the right-of-way. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval as proposed by applicant. Recommend approval with conditions. Table for further information (specify). Recommend denial, stating reasons. Other. (oOApplication # ^ Date Received 7 /!? g / f Amount Paid 'I HC * CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 ''S50.00 per each additional variance) // Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) • ^ 4 V % » *' 0^. A C' . i PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress 3^3-^ (Ic-SCo G.v'cW, \jJc\.<k7^c>Jrc^ ,rr\to Property Identification Number (?.I.D.) <3^- \ <scyX/ (montb/year) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date PrnpytyAcqufred 1^*7^___________________________ I (do) (^o n^ also o\«4i the adjacent parcels of land. Present use"m propert>" residential ___^other (specify)_______u-nl (^'7//)/ Zoning District: r»r'fc'»%o___________________^ ^ APPIJC^T Phone (home) Name Hri i.tN nT 2. ia l-U______ Phone (work)________________ Address:^ “I ^ > r» 1 ^cl ^ City: yju/wy ^A1-A Zip: S'-S OWTVER (if different than applicant) Name ________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:Citv:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: 3 —VCy □on t,osi4^V 00 Cj (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front ^Sid( Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_______________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 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. n Completed Application Form Certified Propert>' Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). ___ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/z" x 11" for reproduction. 4.RjQ Cv-Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. v/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 ‘/:" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance apnlication 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. Sienature^^^^^^Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date t7 ^ 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 DATE 07/M/9A HD«€nM OMfTY PmPCRTY XNFORHATICM SYSTEM PROPERTY CMCRS LIST report no. PXASSAOl PA» 0•ATCH 50APROP AOOR OMCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AINM Sa 20-117>2S AS 0005 OOOS8 AOORcSS UNASSX6NE0 HARY SUSAN SMANSCN NARY SUSAN SMA»6QN S22T CASCO CXR NAYZATA Ml 55391 SO 20-117-2S AS 0015 0S2SS CASCO CXR 0 H SPXLSETM t P 0 SPILSETN DAVID H SPILSETN S2SS CASCO CIRCLE NAYZATA Ml 55S9I SO 20-117-23 AS OOU 0S2S1 CASCO CIR J E COOPER A J E COOPER J E COOPER A J E COOPER S2S1 CASCO CIR NAYZATA Ml 55S91 PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 20-117-23 AS 0017 OOOSa ADDRESS UNASSIGICO 0 C PLAIN A P L PLAIN 0 CHARLES PLAIN 3227 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 A3 0018 03227 CASCO CIR 0 C PLAIN A P L PLAIN 0 CHARLES PLAIN 3227 CASCO CIR NAYZATA Ml 55391 30 20-117-23 AS 0019 03227 CASCO CIR 0 C PUIN A P L PLAIN 0 CHARLES PLAIN 3227 CASCO CIR NAYZATA Ml SSS91 PROP AOOR OMCR NAHE TAWAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 20-117-23 A3 0020 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO 0 C PLAIN A P L PLAIN 0 CHARLES PLAIN 3227 CASCO CIR NAYZATA Ml 55391 30 20-117-23 AS 0021 03225 CASCO CIR OAIVO A OOTZENROTH DAVID A OOTZENROTH 3225 CASCO POINT CIR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 A3 0022 03205 CASCO CIR CONISTON ESTATES INC CONISTON ESTATES INC 7 BROAD ST CHARLESTON K 29A01 % 10 pn» AOM ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 50 20-117-25 45 0051 00055 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO THE CA%0 CO THE CASCO COMPANY ROBERT 0 HACNIE 5155 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55591 I TOTAL BATCH 50A QOOlO c ‘H ‘i S' • • * t I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AM» TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEIJIEPIN COUNTY OEPARTTttNT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KtlOHLEOGE AND BELIEF^ O DATE 1 Ctik ms A In 4 ty/i •. D - / JeaiiTie Mabusth Orono Building and Zoning Administrator 2750 Kelly Parkway PO BOX 66 y Crystal Bay , MN. / i'' Cl 612-»73-7357 4- June 24, 1996 Dear Jeanne: Concerning the Dotzenroth proposed garage addition at 3225 Casco Circle, We the Hawkinson's of the abutting west side of the Dotzenroth ’s lot # 30 have no objection to their proposed addition to extend southward from their existing garage. Thank You -.w V > Adjacent Prcp<rt> O^sers’ Acknowltdgtattat Form *I y I i-A--) teuC<-^S - » *1 mVm.* --JL---- V? frrjt: idircss] hav? rsv-Afi e- plrt3 :>r r.c rr^rcio-i —pr:%tn:«n: or procvscd uso of‘jw pcopctt.v kva.cvi a: fVlscic C.«v^5o ntrcrtco :o is Lxtd I so Arplioraon No I i we^ —f-.i: :r* cxccu'^'tg ’-"us aoxr.owlodgcrr.cr.:. I ix \,arc) no: islvcd to declare irrroval or iisiprrcMl of ’jto proport> or use but morfly to oonlirm tor th< C:t> Council that I .>v-^ .ax' I’.viro of the ;xrro\ex.en: plans and ’-hat tho proposed netjthK'fs T/k*f/^C Date Property O^'ner Date I (v'-e) [print narne(s))[pnnt address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the ptopetK Kx'ated also referred to as Land I'se Applicatiotr No.________• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. I (we) <uu (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to coufirtn tor the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement pLms and that the ptoposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date DateProperty Owner If you have any information that may assist the City in Ute review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Oftice at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. To : Mike Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Citv of Orono From David & Jennifer Dotzenroth Ref.: Garage Addition/\^ariance Application ^ 2160 3225 Casco Circle Wavzata. MN. 55391 Dear Mr. Gaffron: e<ff. t 3 .M 'r Thank You for your facsimile and letter with the information mentioned in your preliminary review of our application. We hope that the enclosed information will assist you in granting our request. 1. Please find amendment in survey to show setback measurements from the side lot line at both front and rear corners. 2. Accurate length and w idth dimensions of the proposed garage will be: Width = 24’ X Length = 41.7 ’ (sec survey) 1000 sq. feet total. 3.& 4. Existing garage doors w ill remain only. Moving doors to eastern side of structure was an idea given by Ms. Mabusth, however this plan would necessitate more driveway. Existing garage doors and existing driveway provide necessary access to structure, thus eliminating any additional hardcover. 5. The undue hardship and or practical difnculty’ as well as unusual property conditions which prevent us from complying with Zoning Code requirements arc as follows: A) The existing garage is a good sound structure with the proper frost footing foundation. B) Adding on to the existing garage would be the most cost efTective. Costs of tearing dow n exbting structure, electric’s, driveway and foundation etc. coupled with the cost of reconstructing same in zone setback requirements would estimate to be an additional $17,000.00 or more. C) Moving addition to zone setback requirements w ould require removal of a 4’ diameter maple tree, which is our largest shade tree. D) Keeping the structure where it currently e.iists is an environmentally positive thing eliminating much waste to the city dump, and saving a beautiful tree. W'e hope this clears up any questions you may have with regards to our application. Thank you for allowing us to complete the incomplete. If you have any other questions please feel free to give us a call or fa.\. Regards, David & Jennifer Dotzenroth f^ec/Cf^ \ %“‘Judt*cA*£ /Tl0*JuMgr4u7' /erAtiffi-4/. fifS err. Bi~ fife A -T^U^OifT. Ct'ACfi^e^-. (,S.8 S<?/7T ^^^^>!r*AS '- /0,o S(}/2i fAempeAtii’ 7/5T«'J^^ fAr.aA*AArf- AHjsefK e^hthh. ffoi^^rp/l(€- -^575“ 11 •,-V All that part of Lot 20, Spring Park, lying vestal ly of a line described as follows: Commencing at a point on the northerly line of said Lot 20, distant ii5.5 feet southwesterly, measured along said northerly line from the northeasterly corner of said Lot 23 which corner is marked by a Judicial landmark; thence southerly along a straight line to the sliore of Lake Minnetonka, said straiglit line passing through a point, marked by a Judicial landmark, which is 9 feet westerly, measured at right angles, with the easterly line of said Lot 20, from a point in said easterly line of said Lot 20, distant 262.5 feet southerly from the northeasterly cor­ ner of said Lot 20; also all of Lots 29 and 30, together with and includ­ ing that part of Lake Shore Avenue, vacated, lying in said Lots 29 and 30 and in that part of said Lot 20 hereinbefore described, all in Spring Park, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, and the Northwesterly corner of Lot 30 having been marked with a Judicial land mark, and a further Judicial land mark having been located on the west­ erly line of Lot 30 at a point which is 2U9.2 feet southerly from the ^ r L SCHOBORQ >NO SURVEYING INC. 172-3121 m. t. Boi 308 0«lano. MN 85328 1 hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnes^. p JOB* ^45t6 Book - Page naio- y 3T Registration No. 14700 SC8i0 / -a 'lidillliv 1 “ 1 r r 1 \\ » \IM liM IM»M l«f UM • i» MU rnasir t \iwm.f* MiiM iiit'M. tiUMiX M nuw la-ai rut m tJMM M nun 0 •• M'H mm mm 1 ^; :r.r ) ■ ) n’r •1 iRDCOVTR CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-250' 250-500’ . M 500-1000* FXTSTING HARDCOVTR IN ZONE A. House __________S.F. •poCcir* B- Garage Length Width X X X 7 L^. 5 s.F. I K O S.F. ^ ^^ S.F. S.iF. C. Driveway \ V X X - a n - S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk T ■■»-.! To ^ E. Patio/Deck jT. *. ■ ;•■ » C X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G.Other 7 X it ll TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE V '' ‘1^-' ^ 1 7,. ‘ + B 9'. S'flO X 100 PROPO.SED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X X To A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •4 i 4-^' ■ -5- B •'X 100 S.F. L S.F.. S.F, . S.F.'. I SF.,.., S.F. ^ S.F. 4 . ° s.F. l7' F i.F. 4 J \i ho2 % ~ % > S.F. iliJL S.F. ' a s.F. -4 - ' *r s.F. ) •'•‘'O ' S.F. •f < C.T* O (Lff> C. Drivewav -o —X ( o ,S<D O •s.F. X =S.F. D. Sidewalk X ss S.F. X =S.F. F. Patio/Deck X - o ^S.F. X rs - o -S.F. F. Landscaoc X - c S.F. Underlain X as - O S.F. Bv Plastic X =:- o -S.F. G. Other .. yO 7 .X U T7 S.F. o o • / v / ~> ^ A B r.1 TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaftron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:August 15, 1996 SUBJECT: #2161 Melissa and James Easley, 4105 Highwood Road - Variances Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB. Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 1 acre minimum, sewered. Application: Request for 75-250’ hardcover, lot coverage by structures, street setback and side setback variances to construct a new garage to replace the existing deteriorated garage. A height variance may also be required, pending confirmation of the existing house height. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Adjacent Owner Acknowledgements E - Letter of Request F - Existing Survey G - Proposed Site Plan and Grading Plan H - Future Conceptual Site Plan I - Hardcover Calculations J - Staff Hardcover/Lot Coverage Review K - Cross Section L - Height Analysis Pertinent Code Sections 1. 2. 3. 4. Section 10.22, Subd. 2/Section 10.55, Subd. 16(L): 75-250’ zone hardcover limited to 25%. Section 10.24, Subd. 5; Required side setback = 10', required street setback = 30'. Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot coverage by strueturec limited to 15% of lot area, Section 10.02 Def. 13: Building Height measurement; and 10.03 Subd. 9(B): Height of accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal structure. 1 #2161 - Easley Page 2 Pertinent Facts Applicants propose to replace their existing 18'x20’ garage located 3.4’ from the road, with a new 27.5'x22' garage located an average of 28’ from the road. The new garage will face the street as does the existing garage. Applicants propose a side seibark for the new garage of approximately 3’, to accomplish two purposes; A.Use new garage wall and extended retaining wall for channeling drainage along propert) boundarv past applicant's house. The neighboring property is higher and portions of it drain toward applicants' property. B. To protect two mature maple trees located along east .side of pfoperty. Applicants have provided a conceptual diagram (Exhibit H) indicating the location of a future house to replace their existing house, which is mostly in the 0-75' zone. The concept plan shows the new house meeting the 75' setback as well as the required 10’ side setbacks. This construction w ould be the subject of a future variance however, since iq)plicants are not proposing that construction in the immediate future, and have not finalized those plans. The proposed garage and drivevva\ to accommodate offstreet parking will result in a slight hardcover increase of approximately 128 s.f in the 75-250’ zone, or an increase from 38.1% to 40.8%. A retaining wall system will also be needed east of the driveway. No sidewalk access is proposed alongside the garage. The requested variances are summarized as follows: Existing Proposed Allowed/ Rsouiisd Variance Garage Street Setback 3.4’24’-31’30'6' Garage Side Setback 2.5'(E)ym 10’T Lot Coverage 16.8% 1,401 s.f. 19.7% 1,646 s.f. 15% 1,500 s.f. (4.7%) 146 s.f. 0-75' Hardcover 23.3%No change 0%No change 75-250’ Hardcover 38.1%40.8%25%15.8% Acc. Struc. Height 12’? , V' 23’<House 9 #2161 -Easlev Page 3 Neighborhood Drainage The City Engineer was again asked to review the neighborhood drainage situation in relation to this project. As the neighborhood has redeveloped over the last 10-20 years, the magnitude of hardcover has continued to increase, and storm water problems tend to be exacerbated rather than resolved because there is no comprehensive storm sewer plan, i.e. a lack of curbs, gutters, and catch basins, and no formal storm sewer system but merely some rather informal individual piping to solve individual problems. The grading plan approved for the Applebaums, located immediately west of the applicants' property, was to direct drainage from his remodeled house and driveway downhill within his property boundaries. I lowever, topographically that is a challenge, and applicants ’ proposal to establish a wall system extending southward from the west side of the garage, would help that to occur and help that drainage move past applicants' house location. The City Engineer has vistited the site and feels this will be acceptable. Garage Height Issue While the proposed garage meets the 30' building height limitation (by definition it is only 23' in height measured from the grade at the high side to the av erage height of the gable above the vaulted ceiling), the height of the existing house has not been established. Applicants architect has been asked to confirm this height and will have that infomiation prior to the meeting, to verify whether a height variance is required. Zoning Code Section 10.02, Def. 13 defines how building heights are measured and 10.03 Subd. 9(B) disallows an accessory building from exceeding the height of the principal building. The proposed garage, if attached to a future house as indicated in the concept plan, would result in the need for a height variance of approximately 8 feet. If the need for a height variance is show n, one option is to eliminate the story above the garage... Issues for Discussion Is the proposed placement of the new detached garage (w ith possible future attachment) at a distance 24' to 31' from the street, sufficiently justified by hardships and other property constraints? Moving it closer to the street would reduce hardcover but also reduce the off- street parking potential... Is resolution of a drainage problem and preservation of two mature trees sufficient hardship to justify granting a side setback variance to allow the garage to be 3' from the side lot line, with a 2' overhang being just T from the lot line? A 5' setback might be more appropriate. #2161 - Easle>‘ Page 4 but might not accomplish the same goals. This will at least place the drip line and its immediate impacts within applicants ’ property . The setback to the neighbor’s new garage to the west will be approximately 11.5 feet. 3.Please recall that all properties regardless of lot size are allowed up to 1,500 s.f. of lot coverage by structures to include the house and garage. Placement of the garage will bring applicants' property to 1,646 s.f (19.7%). an increase from 1.401 s.f existing (16.8%). Note that their concept plan for the future would also end up at about 19.7%. Is there sufficient justification for an increase abc>ve the 1.500 s.f lot coverage limit? 4.Is the 2.7% increase in 75-250' hardcov er justified? Does it make sense to reduce the size of the driveway in order to minimize the increa.se? How does the positive impact of the future concept plan afl'ect Planning Commission’s view of this property? 5.Is the proposed garage reconstruction consistent with other approvals granted recently in this neighborhood? Note that it will contain a lower level shop and upper level office. As a detached structure, this space is cannot contain living space, i.e. cannot have plumbing and cannot have a kitchen area (neither are proposed). Staff Recommendation The existing garage needs to be replaced and the proposed street setback yields offstrcct parking which is definitely necessarv’ in this neighborhood. The drainage and tree preservation goals of the minimal side setback should be weighed against the visual impact as well as the impact on neighboring properties. The lot coverage variance is relative to the small size of the lot, less than 1/5 acre in area. The hardcover increase should be considered both in the "interim" context as well as the concept plan context. The height issue should be consisted in the context of the existing house as well as in the context of a future attached dwelling. If Plaiming Commission concludes that each of the variances proposed are justified, a recommendation for approval, or conditional approval, would be in order. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval as proposed. Recommend approval with specific conditions. Table for further information (specify) Recommend denial (state reasons). Other Application # / Date Receired Amount Paid •7n vi CITY OF ORONO - VARLANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal V'ariance Fee SI20.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S220. After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) i ^ j .. .i t /f/ PROPERTY INFORxALATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.). ‘4io‘^ hii 5I cn K wOc - Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propert^Acquired_______/Vv^ rc K _______________ I (do)((^~n^ also o%vn the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) Present use of property; )C residential Zoning District: other (specify) APPLICA^ a |. Name —/ _S£JA^^' AddressTV/f^ t a a It Phone (home)41>7/f *“CitvT Phone(wnric) F/*/*/ C^fnno Zip: OWTVER (if different than applicant) Name ___________________ Phone (homeX Phone (work)_ Address;Citv:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail; ___ Estimated Constmction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width .X Hardcover \ Lot Coverage Setback: Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:______________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 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. J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 Completed Application Form Certified ProperU’ Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Countv- Depanment of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SYi" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (e.xisting and proposed elevations) if any changes in e.xisting grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x H" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x H"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplieoHs^rueTind correct to thq^ best his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date ^ ^3 5*^/ OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property ^y City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purpts&cs 9f investigation qnd verification of this request. OwTter’s Signature Date Applicant must have all submittalds-^to 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. RUN DATE 07/2S/9^MENTCPIN COUNPr PROPERTY XNfCRHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY CHTXRS LISTMTCN SZlPROP AOOR OMER KAHE TAXPAYER HAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR CMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AQOR SS 07-117-ES 4^ 0010 0407Y HlCftEXX) RO JOHN T SANBORN ETAL J T SANBORN 4070 NIGHNOOD RO HOUNO m 55344 36 07-117*23 44 0013 04101 NIGHNOOD RO EVA THEOBALD EVA A THEOBALD 4101 NIGHNOOD ROAD MOUND MN 55344 36 07-117-23 44 0031 04132 NIGHNOOD RO SCOTT G t CATHERINE ANOERSOH SCOTT G A CATHERINE ANDERSON 4132 HIGHMOOO ROAD MOUND MN 55344 36 07-117-23 44 0004 04104 NIGHNOOD RO GLEN « BEVERLY SAUER GLEN A BEVERLY SAUER 4104 HIGHPKXX) RD MOUND MN 55344 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 6838 07-117-23 44 001104091 HIGHHOOO RO F L JOHNSON A 0 L FOSS FREDERIC JQIRISON 4091 i.IGHNOOD RO MOUND m 55344 36 07-117-23 4404099 NIGHNOOD O L A R NELSON ALONZO B SERAN III 4099 HIGNNOOO RO MOUND MN 55344 0012RO 36 07-117-23 44 0014 04105 HIGHHOOO RO J B A M J EASLEY JANES B A MELISSA J EASLEY 4105 MISMFIOOD RO MOUND m 55344 36 07-117-23 44 0015 04109 NIGHNOOD RO GEORGE N APPLEBAUH GEORGE APPLEBAUH 4109 HIGHHOOO RO HOUND MN 55344 ■ » I 36 07-117-23 04106 HIGtPA JAS0i4 M HfEIS JASON THE IS 4106 HIGH^C€D 0033 RO MOUr» MN 55344 36 37-117-23 44 0064 04125 HIGHHOOO RO JOHN H A ROBERTA J HENRICH JOHN H A ROBERTA J HENRICH 4125 HIGHHOOO RO ORONO MN 55344 36 07-117-23 44 0067 04114 HIG1BXX)D RO PHILLIP M OTTO PHILLIP OTTO 4114 HIGIMXK) RD MOUm m 55344 ^ % TOTAL BATCH 523 00011 I ■ •/. < %. -4 * V *•< I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESErfTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE KEIMEPIN COUNTY DEPARTTKNT OF PROPERTY TAXAriON» TO THE BEST OF MY FJKRtLEOGE AND BELIEF DATE (Tc1 ■4 V W o<-M . • z % » I (we) Adjacent Property- Owners’ Acknowledgement Fo^jg^i /% J' Cfklc^t' I^U^K l^O oJ [print addres^ e, -f ^^cc^onti. print name(s)] have reviewed the plans for the proposed impro\ement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Applicar^on No. I (we) understand that in e.xecuting this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (w*e) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbors pcdject or use,^«l5ur9E5^Council approval. Property- Owner Date 1 ^operty Owner /- 3 ^7 - Date 4i 4i 41 4t «**#**************************************************************''"'‘**** I (we) ^''' rive 0 krv IJ of ‘^/Ol print name(s)][print address]5 have reviewed the plans for the proposed -mprovement or proposed use of the property located at Hioi' tJ also referred to as Land Use Application No. —• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aw-are of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. Property- (Dwner I c ic Date Property- Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Buildmg & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 07/26/199& 10:00 6123790001 rtS;.M iiP-IHlTECTS PU-3E o: ^ e f MULFINGER, SUSANKA & MAHADY ARCHITECTS, INC. 43 Mom Siren SE.Su.tf 4 10 Mirn<!>orml.'. 55 *14 Tetep^O''*? <4.12) J'^V-303'' Fax i^l 3i }79-OOfi1 ftmcIpAli: Dale Mglf.ni|€f Su^«nka M-rhadd AdiocUtM: Paul Buum Kathprine A Caftrecte Kftty R Dav<» Timothy FuUet Robert Ce«1ot^ |ovrt>bG luly 26, 199b Mikf Goffron, ,As5 slant Planning and Zoning Administr.uot Cilv of Orono 2^50 Kellt^y Pciikw,-iy P.O.Box 66 Cry-Slal Bay. MN S5.12J Dear Mik<»: At the reqoexl of my cl*ent>. llm and Mel 155.3 Easley, I have helptxl them to assemble flat.’i fo support their ft*CjU€st tor variancr^^ ir*! allow them to build a new garage structure lhi< yf*ar, and to build a new home in the future, on their property at 4105 Highw'ood Road. you know, all thf lotx in th.5 ar<ra .Kt- significantly smaller than the staiHlard lot Km which the Zoning (Ordinance was written, and thus almost all new construction, •additions and remodelings lequire at leasi one and usually mo'e than one variance. The Easley's lot is no exception. Currently they have the following problems: a. An exKfing garage that is unsafe, and. according to a stiuctural engineer tliey retained to ^Movide a report on its soundness, may not lost through the coming winter. b. A retaining wall supporting the wooden stairway connecting the house with the garage that vvas installed impro|>erly, (probably without the required frost footings , and needs to be replaced. c. ^ slope within the buildable area of the lot that is close to and fXissibly greater than 25%. (This will be determined with topographic data lieing collected over the coming week). d. Run off from the westerly neighhot’s pio|?erty onto the Easley s property, causing erosion along .in unretamed bank l>etw.iNin the two properties. e. An existing house which is Currently situated entirely within the area between the lake and the 75' lakeshore set back, so that even if they were to add on to any part of the existing house, a variance would be required. f. Twdjfl" diameter, m.iture. healthy and beautiful maples located along the east property line that would preclude any construcrion within at least 10 ami preferably 20 teet of their trunks. After reviewing the situation with the Easleys, I made the following recommendations. a. That we propose to locale the new garage striK ture as close to the westerly property line as the City will allow, SO that we can use the side wall of the gaigae to serve as a rr t.iming wall foi the cunently' eroding bank, and so that we can r0contijs^ur€‘ the run off frou^ neighbors property tO si^y on th^t properly rather 07/2S/1336 10:00 ■it; v.jp T.^ I L 6123730001 ^■<>IITECTS PA'3E 0 3 ihon rcHitiniie to run jrross reii?hbonng projxrties. This w.ll also provule the ere^fest protection tor the root SV5tPms of the two maples keepmg the new parage foundation walls approximately 20 ♦eet avsay tron^ the tree trunks. b To extend the westerly svall ot the parage as required, to to^m a continuation of thw retaining wall between propeities, W tne same purprise as item a' alxwe. C. Tt* increase the distance Isetween the street and the garage face to allow for to pull off the street completely when parked m trvmt oi iht gaiape. but not to pull it t^vond ihis point. that we can reduo* the amount of engineered till requifed to 4^cconipli5h the new structure. d To appiv tor the r^fCe^^sary \ariancf> to accomplish this work quickly possible as it is important from a safely standpoint that the parage and new steps l^tween the house afsd the garace be installed before winter weather arrives The Easleys have two small rhildien 'dnd 0»e condition of the existing garage, retaining wail, and stairs provide a very real safety hazard with the onset of winter, and the additional frost heave that c an be c.sf^icCted as a result. For this work to Ije acccwnplished then, they vs ill need the following vanances: 1. Hard cover variance 2. Lot coverage variance 3. Side setback variance 4. Street setback variance In addition, the Faslevs have asked me to help them think through their options on either remodeling the oxistii'g home oi building new on the same sitir. ' though ;npy would not be doing this work for the rtext COUptc of years, they want * * < - .*ft how any such work might affect their decisionmaking about the garage f)iac» nafttti and form. Their preference would be to build new . but this will of course depend to some extcOl upon the granting of the variances they would need for such work, arul on dollais available. The Site Plan and Section already submitted prior to receipt ot this letter, indicate the general location and size of house they envision. The ttxitpnnt ot the house diagrammed here is 70’ x 4H*. or StbO sf. Because Ot the cxlrt*me stupe of (he site, the desired disinlviition of lOoms would be as follows; .1 I ocatc mam living areas at the same elevation as the garage parking suiface b. I oc ate l>edrooms on (he level l»elow this. C. Locate storage and bavert'ent of the level below titis. The Easley's would prefer not to h.ive another living level above the main level, and tn my professional opinion this certainly preferable to making the house structure any taller However if they were unable to get approximately 1,0C0 St oi main level living 07/26/1-596 10:00 6123790001 MSyM APl>^ITE':TS P*v3E 04 nt ^ /o .r ■ j I .m ' * * *• sp^co. they vsoi'.W either rf^niocicl the exi<^fing house or increase the height of the proposed ne\% home to include another story. Thus, it appears they would nred to obtain th^ t'otlowing variance* tot th« proposed new house: 1. Lake side set back variance--to allow them to butld up to the 75' seiL'ack rather than the average ol the setbacks ot the t.vo adjacent properties. 2. I or coverage variance 3. Hard cover variance AlthcKigh the decisions rega.'’ding whether to remodel or add on do not appear to affect any decisionmaking related to the new garage, we are interested in hearing the City's attitiHies alioijt the liktlihcKjd of such variances for the house being granted, to help the Casleys as they plan for the tutuie. Any assistance advice or comment in this matter would be gieatly appreciated We do understand, though, that such variances will be evaluated and deinded upon only once a complete proposal has been submitted. Supporting data for the variances currently being applied tor will be forthcoming. Thank vou .tgam for your asviiUnce, Mike, in helping US to understand the Zoning • *• ’ Ordinances that apply to this situatiori. iincerely. Sarah Susanka, AlA aw<H ‘1. ♦ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JAMES k MELISSA EASLEY OF LOT 16, HIGHWOOD LAKE MINNETONKA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Lot 16. HIGHWOOD LAKE MINNETONKA This survty intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of on existing house and existing garage, and OH visible "hordcover” thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. denotes iron morker found o : denotes iron marker set VOV^® ^voo®. . Corns & Gkusblro , Inc . I hereby certify that th*s survey was prepared by me or under my direct super­ vision, and that I am a duly registeanl Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the Slate of Minnesota. Mark S. Cronberg Minnesota License Numl<^ 1275S 1^ is • i DATE S’3’96 SCALE r * 20* lOBNO 96-H6 03/14/199S 09:57 6123790001 «7?-a439 MS6W a PCH ITECTS :3<f-lN € 3»:iN®£s»3 PA-3E 0 j as €4JI.€Y _ HA1U>C0V1R CALCULATIOM WORKSHUT tx- SfTBACK lONtt <cmCLI OT«D rnmtrtHA m TOHt A. hi % X % B. Giru« C Drtvtwiy X X D. Si^twtlk 3xX % t E Piti()2J^ A r. iMdaeap* Wndarlain ByFliMlc Orrtbrk X X X O. Otb«r total hardcover ir: zone TOTAL PROPERTY ARIA IN ZONE A __1X2 — " » HABaCdVlRIM IQKl A. Hawi - - ^ Lmi« * X B. Carift X • C. Ortviway X X D. SMiwtlk X X P.'Lan4*eip< UnderUin By Plutic Or Fabric X* X X O. 0*ar TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROFIRTY AREA IN ZONE A _____:----------- " * L^T COVflgAgg; 603 6Y Woooe.: * 5^3 ss»= PfiCK. ; ZOO ISO-ftO'SM IQM* 5*21 RF. SJ. B.F. SP. SJT S.F. 7 IF. S.F IF^ IF, S.F IF. S# 5.F 7S9I... X IOC - A B S.F. V.A1) 'S.F.T • ••i.p S.F. S.F S.F. • I ^SF. IP. S.F. i • • • • I r t.F. • •• I.F. $P SF X 100 • B.P. I.F. _H • • • • • • A II •4 0 • J * — • • t# *1 J635 5335 H \ d ^ O I0S/14/1938 09:57 00/12/1990 16:16 6123790001 473-«n MSSM ARCHITECTS PA.5E 02 Cm r fija €4JL if tfh/, HARDCOVER CALCULATIQM WORKSHEET setback ZONIt (aUCLBONC) emrriwc HAKngnvgn t>i thnc A. Hmm • • • ■ MS’aiQ-SQO'so«'iuor X X a B. Cirt^ C. Dfiwwty JJt % X D. Skl0»«lk 3.*f % % E raUo/Bt«k g>^t. Si0riLr II I F. L iMmip* UndvWn By FKitie OrPtMe « « a 0. Othir C^* 5<AB C*Z) TOTAL HAKDCOVCK IM ECNf TOTAL FROWATY ARBA IN ZONE I B UARngOVgfc IN T-rtNt A. Hojw ______________ LMf* X K X R.. Otf«M C. Drivoway Zl.6 X X O. $!4<wilk W»»4 wftlk ^TWpV#ftlAB A X E. Fatlo/Dtck gf>g;A:^ F. Lm^apc Un4«rUln By Ftatiig OrPibrie X X K O. 0<1>»T TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONI TOTAL FROFIRTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ __ * ® An WM* S.F. m SF. ••r*• ' ••• «•^S.F-* • • /r 7io _:iF. if. •■1 -IF. ^.5___f ^ 5^ •yjrf 8.F. • •■' • yy • ■_1.F. t »- m ♦* •• • •• *^RF. m -ST. ■B _»T. m • • • • • «?« » M -S.r. •# • •• • _*»A m V7V2 a 100 m VTVZ fF. Ti.O# H a • I 311 -ST. wiaih m • ST. m -ST. m _I.F. 22.- 695 • •« -ST. ,A3A -ST.(’ •_S.F. 75 .26 -s.f: m ■ ^4 -ST. • • • •S.F. •-ST. -ST. ■S.F. •* •-S.F,# • m «•• • • » •S.r.A ■i.F.11 a 100 m ■4V5.A H V •* 14 W a « 1 • O^. z::%if}ficr L • •» * £ Z’lriiLu giv '-.C /n ? ^ *• * NI? ~ f* ^(36./ !)'..> ^ ^ ■ » •• • • e- U t S-.r- / r^,<v. ,J1{J)C^^^ (f73.*2 r r ’/ ('*/3.S ?<> s.f 3-7 ^33 /• ^ t/2V!=^i -r (•52.4 •/.'i 3-4.5>*:i ( •■ > * • n vr ’i^i *. ^7p. C:_ i^r ' 35^3 Hl^Z' 633 «> ^2f. - £ / — __ •k^ k Icn-CCJ^'< ^B V 3."^ * '.'»"' i-' ''*.p;'_ - •*'- 3 U /■ T>ect S»53 -:::( (^or 30«> /^'/£ • S'’ /*?.~7.',y ■/ f* . 3 c ---------------- .o'-*"L' /o feoK). t.lNfc-50 i.^<' ’’(^ iKPj^IUP/jA "/ - I^aTT- UU£a^. C c.- 1 10 - - f-^^f' . I (oO %a^j> '-L. A'V 1 '/' I To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaflron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Bate:August 15, 1996 Subject: #2163 Larry and Sharon Gehl, 1825 Concordia Street • Variance - Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshorc Residential, Sewered Application: Request for lakeshore setback and a\erage lakeshore setback variances to construct a second stoiy deck addition within 75' of Lake Minnetonka. List of Exhibits A - Application & Letter of Request w/ Hardcover Removal Statement Plat Map Property Owners List Neighbor Comments Survey Site Plan with Staff Notes Topographic Map Hardcover Calculations & Notes Photos Construction Plans Request for E.xpedited Review B C D E F G H I J K Summary of Request Applicants are "squaring off' the southeast comer of the existing house, and constructing a 30' X 26' second story. This addition is outside the 0-75' zone and was granted a building permit in July. However, applicants also propose to construct a second story deck above the existing one story screen porch which encroaches 12’ into the 0-75' setback where no constmetion is normally allowed. This second stor>’ deck involves changing the roof pitch of the porch to essentially flat, and placement of a deck and railing which would functionally serve the second storv. Also encroaching the 0-75' zone is an existing 12' x 16' deck approximately 1.5' above the ground. The plans indicate there will be no changes to this open grade level deck. Applicants request a lakeshore setback and an average lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of the proposed deck addition. Zoning File #2163 August 15, 1996 Page 2 Ducussion A. Average Setback. B. C. The proposed revision from a slightly pitched roof to ? deck with railing would appear to have minimal impact on either neighboia.^ property owner. To the south, dense e.\isting vegetation will screen the deck from the neighbor during the summer months. Also, that neighboring house is significantly higher in ele\ation and its views likely would not be impacted by the deck. The adjacent neighbor to the north would have virtuall)’ no views impacted by this addition. Based on applicants' submitted sur\ey, the degree of actual average setback encroachment may be inaccurately defined because only the nearest p^rrtions of the adjacent houses are shown. Relying on the topographic maps of the City, however, it would appear that there may in fact be no axerage setback variance required, since our policy is to measure from the points o. each of the adjacent houses, that is closest to the lake (see Exhibit ). There is too much vegetation at this time to accurately determine the location of the neighboring house comer visually. Lake Setback The proposed deck encroaches 12' past the 75' lakeshore setback line. This constitutes new construction in the 0-75' zone, and therefore requires a variance. Ihe impact of mis construction however may be relatively minor, in that it merely revises an existing pitched roof into a flat roof with deck above, llie point at which the pitched roof abuts the existing house is appro.^' r> »:ely the same height above floor level as the top rail of the deck railing would be. t would appear that the greater visual impact from the lake will be the additions happening outside the 0-75' zone. It appears from the plans that new windows will be installed in the existing porch, but the existing ceiling joists and foundation will remain. Hardcover Technically, while there will be new stmeture in the 0-75' zone, there already is a one story porch in the area proposed for the new second stor> deck encroachment, hence no new hardcover areas will be added to the property. Also note that the 0-75' zone contains a 9' x 30' landscaped area constituting 270 s.f of hardcover which should be Zoning File #2163 August 15, 1996 Page 3 removed. The area referred to is the plastic lying under the shrubs just north of the low deck. Finally, note that because the 75-250’ zone proposal met the 25% hardcover limit and because there is no additional hardcover proposed in the 0-75' zone, the Building Inspector felt justified in granting a permit for the work in the 75-250' zone, which is underway. Existing hardcover in the 0-75' per staff calculation is 9.3% (note that applicants' submittal indicated a 7,500' 0-75' zone area, but staff calculates it at 8,336 s.f). This includes the 315 s.f existing porch, a 192 s.f grade level deck, and 270 s.f of landscape underlain by plastic. Based on the City's standard policy, the 270 s.f of landscape area must be converted to non-hardcover, and that should be e condition of any approval granted for this application. The remaining question then is whether there is any other existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone (or in the 75-250' zone, for that matter) that could be removed to mitigate the overage in the 0-75' zone. Note that applicants just this spring removed a sidewalk in the 0-75' zone, which was probably the only extraneous hardcover on the site other than the large driveway parking area. Issues for Discussion 1.Are there adequate hardships to support the average lakeshore setback variance, if in fact one is needed? Will the proposed railing have a negative impact on neighboring properties' views of the lake? Does the replacement of a pitched roof with a deck and railing in the 0-75' zone have any impact on the bulk of the structure as viewed from the lake? Does the conversion from a pitched roof to a deck with railing constitute an intensification of structure in the 0-75' zone? Is the lakeshore setback variance supported by adequate hardships? 3.Is this change in the nature of the hardcover an intensification of hardcover? Given that no hardcover will be added to the 0-75' zone, what additional hardcover mitigation should be required of the applicant in the 0-75' zone, if any? In the 7J-250' zone? 4.Does conversion of the existing porch structure add to the "permanence" of this non- conforming portion of the existing residence? 1 ; low and :h is Zoning File #2163 August 15. 1996 Page 4 Staff Recommendation to a deck above the eS^ng conversion of the pitched roof and lack of impact on neighboring properties then supported by findings of hardship appropriate. ^ Properties, then a recommendation for approval would be Options for Action I- Approval with no hardcover removals. 2. Approval with specified hardcover removals (define). !■ Table for further information. Denial (state reasons). • Other. r Application # ___ Date Received^ '7/.>^L^ Amount Paid -k ___ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 ^ (S50.00 per each additional varian^'e) r /C-? Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) jf ^ Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) •t •i! * « N PROPERTY INFOR>LATION _ Site Address I *-V2.N tsic OP-Di/ft j______________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) I T - N 7 - 7-7> • 001 ^rrupcnv luciuiii^^aiiuu V* / ’ *____i------— ■"■ ' .... Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_____L> / / *T *7 ___________________________(month/year) I (do) ^o "nq i)> also own the aajaceni parceis of land. Present use of propert>*: residential ___other (specify)_______________________ Zoning District:----------------------------------------------------------—--------------------------— applicant Phone Hiome) V7/ - “VW ________________________Phone fwork) W ’ _ Address: Citv: --------------Zip:_5 5* ? 7./. Name Lac JH-I <- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name I' A t_____________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:Cit>:Zip: description of REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ♦/***».'*<r> Describe request in detail: U^y-I T\rr Arc l^JrTH Vte t< — (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width 0 ./Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear y v'' Average Lakeshore /■ / ■'~i iOther (specify) J. / / jo L** -d.» ^. HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficnlt>' or nniKual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Tf __Yi——6£^—u<£>/— ivifjc, A.vV t>!9TlAi(r> t^fjC, tJcT —"Vi.CijTiL -Tx .?c. T/Vg' rlff.CHT^•ryit (attach additional sheets if necessary) A Application # f(.- Date Received^ '7 Amount Paid A ' CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 ^ ^ ($50.00 per each additional variance) Rene\\'al Variance Fee $120.00 v '-‘^ (no change from original application) / jf Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-thc-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ^.4 ^4 1 to- -■ .4 . / PROPERTY INFORALATION SiteAddress I j^co P^Ot/=- ------------------------- Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 1 *? - f 17 / S~rivjpwliy ------------------------^ ■ ■' -------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required sur\ey. Date Propert>' Acquired _____i *i ^ ^__________________________________(month'year) 1 (do) ^o^q J> also own the aojacent parcels oi land. Present use of property: 'X' residential ___other (specify) Zoning Disuici:----------------------------------------------------------- Phone (home ) V7/ ~ ~7VV 3 _______ Phone (work ) *?yV • 5*y 6 L Address: ^T. City:_/Z££lhlfl---------------Zip: 5r?7 ,/ APPLICANT Name OWNER (if different than applicant) Name j A 6_____________ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address;Citv;Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estiniated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail; &fiST/»jt»—f*££—|-ti£c»»(L , T^trr tunM Pt-vK ^ ---------------------------------------— (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width / Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback;Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore - * Other (specify) J. i I H i / H a RDSHIP/DESCRIPHON of unusual property CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: r<> —A——tdJDLJ^'^ Oru. > Z/aJ C. :------• 1—---------~ - ’ - ~ r---------------------------------------------------------------- _ .?f- T/Vf' Oflt 77-F: Hlf/MTm __121L —^^ #< .rc/L.tf AUi:<.^Cj A./ A flAiUlOis.--- -ro rui 6X/st?/o C- ^Li'PeO _______________^-------- f S y -------------------------------- -r.o TU( (attach additional sheets if necessary) AUG 1 5 * August 12, 1996 To; The Orono City Council and The Planning: Commission Mike Gaftron, Asst Planning &. Zoning Administrator From: Larry and Sharon Gehl Dear Council and Commission Members: My husband and 1 purchased a home on Lake Minnetotika at 1825 Concordia Street two years ago. The main portion of our home comes right up to the 75 foot setback from the lake, but there is an existing porch and a small wooden deck area which extend closer to the lake. We are currently remodeling the home and would like to have some additional deck on the lakeside of the house. Because of your setback requirements, w e knew it would be H^fTicult to get approval to increase the size of our w ooden deck. Instead of doing that. We have requested permission to flatten the roof of our existing porch and make a sundeck with a railing above the porch. This would allow us more lakeshore exposure without increasing ground cover. Our neighbors on both sides of our property have written letters stating their approval of our proposed sundeck. Because of positioning of their homes in respect to ours and trees between our property, they are unable to see this area from their homes and would not be adversely affected by this change in our home. We are aw are of your desire to reduce the amount of hardcover close to the lake. Since we purchased our home, we have taken some steps to accomplish this. We have removed a concrete w alkway w hich went from the lake to approximately 150 feet back on the south side of our lot and replaced that w ith sod and flowers. We have also removed 50 - 60% of the plastic from landscaped areas around our house. We hope you w ill grant the variance which will allow’ us to build our proposed sundeck above our porch. We feel it will enhance both the appearanc ; and the functioning of our property w ithout adding to the amount of hardcover near the lake. Thank ’ ou for your consideration of this matter. Larr>' and Sharon Gehl I PROPERH MAINTENANCE Chuck Schatz 59S< Woodland Circle Minnetonka. MN 59945 <6 IS) 994-8056 STATEMENT 6.,u\ rs^. /NAvi. J MM DATE 07/22/M BATCH 501P9Xm AOOR ONNEB HAIC TAXPATEB HAHE/AOOB 50 17-117-2S 22 001501025 CONCOOOIA ST L F A S L GEML UntV < SHAWM GEHL 1025 CONCOROZA ST NATZATA »tl 55591 KDKPZN CaMTY FROFCRTV INFORMATION SYSTEM FRQFERTY OMCRS LISTSO 17-117-25 2? 0015 01705 CONCORDIA ST K T OULIN « B 6 OULIN KEVIN OlltIN 5 BARBARA OULIN 1705 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA m 55391 REPORT NO. PI535501 PAGE 150 17-117-25 22 001701751 CONCOmiA ST NARCANET L ANTOINE OAVIO a MARGARET NOISTE 1751 CONCOROIA ST NAYZATA m 55591 PROP AOOR CMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR 0»»IER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 50 17-117-25 22 0025 01000 CONCOROIA ST P 0 a K J NATCEN PAUL a KAREN HANSEN 1000 CONCOROIA ST NAYZATA rtl 55591 50 17-117-25 22 0030 01055 CONCORDIA ST V a V ANDERSON VINCENT a VIRGINIA ANDERSON loss CONCOROIA ST NAYZATA Hi 55591 TOTAL BATCH 501 00009 58 17-117-25 22 0025 01700 CONCOROIA ST THE VILLAGE OF ORONO THE VILLAGE OF ORONO P O BOX 55 CRYSTAL BAY m 55325 30 17-117-25 23 0023 01650 COrcOROZA ST STEVEN 0 TOHLE ETAL STEPHEN 0 TONLE 5115 PltMACLE OR 0LD91AR FL 54577 30 17-117-25 22 0033 01815 EAGERNESS POINT RO A a J RITCHIE ALAN J RITCHIE 1815 FASEWCSS POINT S NAYZATA MN 55391 581 17-117-23 23 0032 01865 CONCOROIA ST J J TNIDNELL ANA TNIDNELL JEFFRY J a NA’CY A THIOtCLL 1055 CONCOROIA ST NAYZATA W 55391 ' • •'A C/ ,1 ^ } ■ ■ ■■') im^ ^ I A . t J ''U/<r/ ^ I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS U.TE<NH% 0 Z>-/ .'f* - •? Adjacent Propern' Owners ’ Acknowledgement Form of n X(c,'r\ (c'f-di. 'a~ ^rt^L CI iCtcn hat DO-t A .^ut«n [print name(s)][print address have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at y>;iD Ctif^ftTrAn^iJr also referred to as Land Use Application No.-------------• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm tor the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbors project use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date (j -r l^l^c Property Owner Date ♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦■d******************************************************************* I („e) r t:f, AiihiiT'^ its-rmm-r^ [print name(s)] [pnnt address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located jjj I iQ. also referred to as Land Use Application No.-------------• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm tor the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbors project or use requires Couia-il approval. / Date Date 7-^ ^ ^ 0 If vou have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least ays prior to the scheduled meeting date. n •iii f- ■ ■ - MM m ^ V.-I .r :f: Ks . .*. ».•*•'■ ■ ■’ -i f • ■^.-^- wfcv-T'- , ' X>'Z r ^ S'-'"^ WWNB&9. S f ■*«? %J .*- m ^‘ .• f.« •• ?*.• r ^l yv .V V- 1 . *“* • .•■•»■ ■:■> • rrf •V^'-‘'*sr ,>?r'vn-•vJ b?**■r-r ^Xii Ct ^'tc?u^ ^ i^-;' _%'W« ;r.'V ■;■ H r- ■ • ^ ■>'A ^-^;"!?4>ii''■'‘ jf I ■ ■ ' 7’’ . Z^Lc^. -:-i f-r A;1 V- .Ul^- * Me/. pL^~i '~/t,^i/~t yXt '£ <_. ^ 4i^z-Ct:u. Xt> fy-C-l. 'ypZ^.rfljC'^ti* Jf // ( <tr- ^ / fo-'- '■“s-tei P»3 • >*.'!«>»N» c«%»-- .•W»1»«» . BasMi^~Mtr Cj :5vvfc{ v»Vau»,! I • -m- .1.: • ■T^ i^: ^5. ; # .,^ N . util c •*• . I JST;vV .? w plUfX'‘-pt .:tXi( , I r y f f .;* i:.i c *Y^ { ov t:*-!: »-j t r'Jir \♦' I • ^ .• «' 1 *r , # • .' (KP»yis 1 V: •Tiorts *f>l 0 I V> '(j< r: ' •.f I m-^Hi5 Cemcor^^ j ^ V ^t5d p * ■ • ■;*r. ■n ,,'54 %> A.?\/ V A * ♦. i.»- t ie*i / *5 ,• i-- • J U -yhtjf * - ^ ^ ’ .. • V ‘ \ to) " ^ H. ^ - . T 4* V % * .i .»-■ ^ '. V. *.>:i .•'J^ • y -♦ j ,i^-■' " * r I - . iiUr.?- FRANK R. CARDARELLE (612) 941-3031 Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 • -I Survey For Larrv Gehl Book 348 Page 8 File 1825 Concordia Street Orono, MN 55391 / .‘‘z / House Garage Sidewalk B.T. Drive 2012 sq.ft. 792.8 sq.ft. 390 sq.ft. 2791 sq.ft. Total Lot Area I haraby eanif/ that (hit It a Irua ana eenact rapra»»> *»-»o of a turvay of lha boundrlti of LOt 8. Cof fee jv^^AddltlOl 36,995 sq.ft. IShadywood Surveyed by me on this.4th .day of June Honnopin County. Mir^nttole end the locelion of efl thereon, ep^visible en|roechmen(t. if any on tatd land. ,9 96 ^ Rev. 7/29/96 Frank R. Cardarelle State Reg. No. 6508 I }■ ^ Survey For Larrv Gehl1825 Concordia Street Orono, MN 55391 Book 348 Page 8 File / -7 y yS^S" Cf'JCxjiZOiA,Si PC HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ff-l 75-250'250-500'500-1000* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____ISL,______-LC.. Length Width X X % B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck /X X X llz^ F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic I X X X 56 G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ^ TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE *7"7 ‘t______ -T B IS'yio X 100 1-7 ■? * ‘ ' lJP<rtr raOPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House______________* Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ B X 100 = S.F. S.R S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % •- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B A B |/(6«SC> &y /(flfWCAWrs $«iLfcerJ. JlL^< HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET S/e^L^ H'Z SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 250-500*500-1000’ pyiCTINO HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___________ Lcngih 1>5' Owf^lLy '2'S X X X B. Cange C. Driveway '7,1 X X < D. Sidewalk «rc X X E. Patio/Deck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other =S.F. Width ■^e>- r s /flt7 • f<=>S.F. t(.rs yt S.F. Z'i-8 <ToG S.F. 7 /s \ 9 S.F. yo fyyo S F. ^ y s 100^S F. 7'c? 8 / 6 3 S.F. =/S.F. 1*2,jg.S.F. «S.F. -7 -5’'7C> 59'^S.F. a S.F. =s S.F. 8 S.F. E ’.?» S.F. ZONE -7.^^ 1 w. •Sc.'' S.F. A pp^pncrn HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ^_____ -r B *2 ^ ~ X 100 » f ■ < Lcn**'*' X X X Width 5^ •2.7. B. Garage C. Driveway 7 Z/ -z-1 X X D. Sidewalk 7< X X E. Patio/Deck iru A X lU. ' o F. Landfcapc Uoderlain By Plastic 5^/X X X 1 G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in zone ^7^ 5 -V B 1 ; c, ■X 100 = /0C.-7 ~>o S.F. 79^S.F. a 5" O ^S.F. s S.F. •S/9 _S.F. /y-iS S.F. S too -3 S.F. ^oc:> fu 1 S.F. s:h S.F. /4.A S.F. a S.F. s >79 •S.F. a S.F. a S.F. s S.F. S.F. Z P ^ 1 kr *S.F. 8 % A B A B •*•'* ^* • V-*. • • *.4» «. •« .!« . . . . «. ft-C. /UC>TVS //^------ > ««N / ------------------------------------------------ .—_____________ . a 15*75 ...... ' ___ I'X J )r ' pCCli- ‘ilv/V ’ - ----------- • ________________________________ ____X /s-c.__________ -.Ify 4 v>y • - —/— .-_ias.A?5.tri......._/ S'fex , rg . "Z-ft 5^6'50 V_ O 2 > 1 ^__“Zo » 3«? C,t\HAU___.7 _____I*! 7 _ __________________________ C •" -1*: • • «» Ai 12 S » 7 • •••• ^ • «•«»* ______ -4//J5CA0b. ■-••-» ^* ■•• ■ • •■ • <•'■ • • ^ •.••« ». «i»«> M « • w ^------yvtj?.--------/tr.if?... ..5y.3jr ____________________ V* 1------- j: .,?i m &y W m\‘: •' > -' ' Q • r ' c. J V,£-l -n-4: V U-W^ ^ Y'.m^f^- ''V »;J».' '^4^* '•¥ V R vS . ,^ ■t i ' . V SjfV • • -x ] T>C»^ A6cM£ &*^TIUG, ■pDiZr^H % <s' I 2?v ^ # %r^0^•; '- ••' id'LS' (U>^)o0r2J0i^' i^r /S' /i/i/O y/c^^ ^oX 3^ r, Str / Hrc_u j^ith Dtfw/^t fro t:. eT uj-e t ^/ • 0*1 \] f\/ ft,<^ H LOT I 0^ }J(Kru D Lc.. • V ^ ; . .. . / t-• i < •., #• *•• :.* • • • • •'• • .» ' •‘-.'•iV.-' .• V* * . ■ • •* *>•.*.'* ;/** ' • ' •#’. 1^** •. • . . . . u- . ;• y. ••- ^ ♦ .-••/' *r*- ■ • **.• , •' • .*••• * • • V* *-,V»'.^ s •••:••:. •:.y-T^ /•“;•■' •• •.*. •* ••• •>"• '.:■’•.?'■■■.» ■' ■ *• • * . ■ ■ '. • ■,■.••••• . . •• •■ •*' . ■ ' ^ *W . .M •• . j • • .• ^ . • / • .*• . •.«. * • . .. . ■•V-;* ■■* ■•._______L '•'>'•••■ •.' * •••• • : . - . .V . ... .L,. ...,.•.; ,, ««% V ,. % ••''.Am •• • W. ...V 7:ji- ....... r ... p "t • . .. • V*?: . •• ••Fi>^ • * •• 9 • 9^ mm* .• — «v^*—•—^ • - •* ’ .......................... • ' • • .* •f--’* •. fc *- • • . . • ’ •-. t . • •^•:-.*• • *. • *• ■. **\ • # .. V - * V. * •* V-** ••r--" 1 . • :- • . 1 • * •• • • • * * .• •/• • •■w: c • ••■ ’• *.: j # •. • -^1 , • • f ' . ^ . •• :: * \* • ■• • • •.' i •• r .•■*** * 1 t.*.. . I- V . •!. % . . • - • ■ ::-/..y ••■ : I »'•■•' ■ v »• • >.'.J i ' iJ- •rl ;i II • I * -r-f »•• t I Vi • • «• . •• • •««.* .*f 'I •* % 4» .. . .L _ • • • 4 i I . I [••• •«»«>• •* . «r *V.«» • ^ ^ I r H .t *-,* • -.• .'i - . •.«'*. -..w ^■n TTI f -u rrj? Tt ..!i :»;ii: - ii- 6» *S • 4 rn N. I I J •I ’t lU 1 — •.:>t * t + x*--■• .»• ; •. • I;. • • , * •. •< yk . • • .*^ V • • f • * »''' - 10x4*1 l“r EW ■ • ^ ^ - 4 • • I 5® ; tI ! I ir I I 4 { i I It I-r- l! >. #' ----------4 I i i. ., I !, i^r i- •• 1/ rr=; a 1 — 1 I Oi j;f 8g ■ ■.»■T ... MTS • - . «« •2'.»- *5.1'^ u- A}TS N •1 • • • €, . •.*!* >' k .•» . . r ^. .* * • ■ • •• • , » "f l 41*. • • • •*.* • •. * • • . ^ . 4* • • • ' • r f • .• \ • •• ••*1 * •> t ^ •-*:* ■* •’ •.'■ w' :'/'. ' . '.. '■ 4 ’* ’■ '•»' '*• . *-\ •. --^ * ^* "*"'* '*• *• *'••*• * * ! •- •• ‘ • “ - • * ^ ^ *’ • V * *•' j ' •«“ ^ ^ »■ r* . m ^ _____________«~ ■ ' ■ ^ ■■■ ■ ■♦. -V .' ■ .V' ' *’ ' ’ * '* ■4*w ^ **r .u .;•: • ^ •' • ■ . fu • •■■ 'I ‘ • ':••' ;,.-r: - i . I *•' • ' ■ VI- , - {, f v>. .; I;' • *v~ • •». . • . . . * • » * T ••' *perfBy»4%:41«AMtwJ 6i^ ’•4 ^' . '• -'T »J ' 1. . ^ ■ • •■ ■ ■• > VI;:; ♦• .# • . 1 1 *.• < -• s" V . '' • i . > < • xjfid 4o»-i»r ^VU •o.ff- * *r. •• ' ..r • ; ', • V- •*. V-..>.v: ► • >•...........................- ..t ■'• ■. .*, ' .. ’.' ., ■•• •...• :r" *■ ; -v-^ ~ • ■ '•••■■ ^ . ■ “.. ■ - •■ : >.',-• ■ * .• . V • . ‘ •• • • — . 1* •.. •. *• ■■ f. 4 , <5-fe^4 V ♦ r . ; - ■ ■ ■ ■ . bw - • • . • • . * ‘ ^ • • • . • . • . ^ . • V"*' * y / ' * ** < . > . ‘‘k **• > . > .. V •«i‘. •»:• ••.-‘•.yv t i • % » • • •• 1 Hamo n Homolech lnc«7920K«ftarBM PO Ben lOOt OwirfiMMelBi. SS317 IC August 8.1996 CityOfOrono P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay. Mn 55323 Dear Mike Gaffron We are requesting the variance for Larry & Sharon Gehl on 1825 Concordia St. if |>assed be herd the 2^ of Augtot order to condude this process before they go out of tom Sincerely, Steve Hansen Hansen Hometech AVJG 1 2 nail afr t rnw * '■iiia CAM ur unui'tu i 07’/25/96 oo:46 CP :0A/10 N0:6; i I* r Adjacent Properly Owners’ Acknowledgement Form I (we)b.fiL (print nam Im [prim address] 0,0 have at eviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the properr/ located Shtv^(i^ also referred to os Land Use Application No. 4 . I (we) understand that in= executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (arc) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. & F Property Owmer Date Property Owner Date 44*4 I (we) COtClME' of J‘fpo ht?A£keTTS lib (prim name(s)) ' [print address) * have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at referred to as*Land Use Application No. d?/4r^ I I (w'c) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, 1 (wc) am (arc) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City. Council that I (wc) am (arc) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires^ Council approval. Date // 9/1^ Date If you have any infomtation that may assist the City in the review of this La.nd Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM;Michael P. Gaf&on, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:August 14,1996 SUBJECT: #2164 Douglas J. Olson, 2607 West Lafayette Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre, sewered. Application: Request for 0-75 ’ and 75-250' hardcover variances, lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback variances for construction of additions to the e.xisting residence. Lbt of E&hibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Neighbor Acknowledgments E - Survey F - Existing Site Plan/Hardcover G - Proposed Site Plan/Hardcovcr H - Construction Plans I - Elevation Views J - Hardcover Calculations K - Lot Coverage Calculations L - Contact List Summary of Request Applicant proposes to construct a second story addition above the central portion of the house, and revised the existing 3/12 pitch roof to a 12/12 pitch roof system over the entire house. The project also involves expansion of the footprint of the house, mainly on the side of the house away from the lake. A portion of the existing house is located in the 0-75' setback zone. Further, the entire house is located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line, as drawn between the two adjacent residences. Hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback zone is 9.1%, and no hardcover changes are proposed in that zone. Note that extraneous hardcover in the 0-75' zone was removed as a condition of a previous variancj which allowed reconstruction of the pool area. Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone is 31.0%, and with the proposed additions and proposed driveway area hardcover removals, 75-250' hardcover will be reduced by approximately 217 s.f., to 30.25%. #2164 -Olson Page 2 Discussion The proposed remodeling of the existing structure will result in additional living space and an updated look for this home. Staff has reviewed the proposed defined height of the structure and finds it meets the 30' maximum height requirement by definition. The portion of the existing house located less than 75' from the lake is not intended to have a second story, but will increase in height due to the change in roof pitch. The adjacent residence to the southeast is on somewhat higher ground, and may currently enjoy minimal views over the existing residence, which may be reduced or eliminated by the revised roof system. However, the main views of the lake from that house are to the east and not affected. Existing vegetation will also act to limit neighbors' views hence it is unlikely that average setback is a significant issue for this property. No neighbors have indicate^ a problem to staff as of this writing. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is primarily due to the pool and paved area surrounding it, which was addressed in a previous variance application. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is primarily attributable to the house footprint and e.xtensive driveway area, which has existed for some time. While the additions add approximately 840 s.f. to the footprint of the house, a portion of these additions are over existing driveway or walkway hardcover, and applicant proposes to create a nonhardcover island in the center of the large driveway apron, leaving a loop driveway for access purposes but resulting in hardcover decrease more than offsetting the additions. Lot coverage by structures currently is approximately 7.7%, and will increase to 8.8%, well within the 15% limitation. Issues for Discussion 1.Is the location of the existing house sufficient hardship to justify granting a lake setback variance for construction of a higher pitched roof above the existing portion of house in the 0-75' zone? 2.Are any neighbors' views of the lake negatively impacted by construction of the additions and higher pitched roof? Is the shape of the shoreline sufficient hardship to justify the granting of an average lakeshore setback variance? 3.Given the fact that lot coverage by structures is not an issue with this project, is the proposed reduction of hardcover in the 75-250' zone from 31.0% to 30.25% adequate? Are there other hardcover items in either the 0-75’ or 75-250' zones that could be further removed in order to reduce the percentage of hardcover? 1 1 #2164 -Olson Page 3 Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission concludes that adequate hardships have been shown to justify the granting of the average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback and hardcover variances, then a recommendation for approval may be appropriate. The shape of the lot and the curve of the shoreline, as well as the fact that lake exists on both the north and east sides of the property, are hardships noted by the applicant. Planning Commission should consider whether the hardcover removals proposed are sufficient. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval as proposed. 2. Recommend approval with specific conditions. 3. Table for further information. 4. 5. Recommend denial. Other. Application # C-‘/ E^te Receired -:^C- 9^ Amount Paid i CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renev^al Variance Fee $120.00 / / (no change from original application) ^ Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 j ^ After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) t ^ /n i- ‘ *: a-*.*‘k •/ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 2.^£>/ UJ. Propertv Identification Number (P.l.D.) Attach legal description lO ^plication if not included on required survey. Date Propert> Acquired ^_____________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also o^^^l the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ___other (specify) Zoning District:__________________________________— applicant , Name Q/VJ^LA^ J. Address: bJ, LAffkYBrf"f^ nwne (home ) Ltl'' ^2^ Phone (work) ^2/y • Mil Zip: OWNTR (if different than applicant) Name ______________ Address:_____________________ Phone (home) _ Phone (work)_ City:Zip: Estiinaied Construction Cost $DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST _____________ Describe request in detail: ^A4?PgL hb^fiuC pdlLblfJ^ . Umtu 0)£Z 7^* hfje. AUt KfbJAr£ur l4ofA£ ^erhhcJC<>_J^u£^ (J^lODE (attach additional sheets if necessary) fhuJT._________ _ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ____ Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage ^ Setback:Front Side Rear yC 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: bff StZ£ 1^ Su&^rAUTUtC, Uf Ae£ pE^AU7£h y'HE ^APg rag jHE Lar ,—— Zy>r /< ifj 7>/g__<0*- 71?* fierfifirCX»---------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1 CITY OF ORONO © 6124730510 07/23/96 10:12 (5 :02/03 N0:621 .. ' • —V r- jt* <1 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of thg following information mu«t be fubmitttd bv the application dgadlint date in ordtr for vour Mpplication to be considered complete; 1. y Completed Application Form 2. V Certified Property OWiCrs List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finonce. A-603, Govi Center, 348-3271). 3. y Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8'/i" x IP for reproduction. 4. _X_ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8'/i" x 11” for reproduction. 5. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/j” x 11"). 6. List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. Tliis would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not cunent owncr(s). 7. X As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. X Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour vrlancf application ii 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/lter knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date 7 OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property' by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signamre I mvestigation ana vem V \ 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 y *RU4 DATE 0A/27/4S BATCH BOS HEtfCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFOmATZON SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNCRS LISTPROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SB 21-117-23 21 0001 O2A0A NEST LAFAYETTE RO LAURA C PIOSKE LAURA C PIOSKE 2A04 NEST LAFAYETTE R3 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SB 21-117-23 21 0007 02*05 NEST LAFAYETTE RO BRADFORD L BLANKENSHIP BRADFORD A DEBRA BLAIKENSHIP 2*05 NEST LAFAYETTE RO . EXCELSIOR NN 55331 PROP AOOR OIPIER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR TOTAL BATCH 503 00006 REPORT NO. PXASS401 PAGE Y30 21-117-23 21 000202*00 NEST LAFAYETTE ATM MATTHENS ANN MATT:4EHS 2*00 NEST LAFAYETTE RO EXCELSIOR im 55331 3B 21-117-23 21 0003 02*01 NEST UFAYETTE RO D J OLSON A B J BONERS DOUGLAS J OLSON 2*01 NEST LAFAYETTE RO EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - r 'i- - i ? 38 21-117-23 24 C043 02610 HEST LAFAYETTE CYNTHIA N ENGQUIST CYNTHIA N ENGQUIST 2610 LAFAYETTE RD H EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0044 02615 NEST LAFAYETTE RO VICTORIA L GAGNE VICTORIA L GAGNE 2615 LAFAYETTE RO H EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ^-i ■ 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AM) TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HErMEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF.V'ti UdtjLi V ru 7^ 4 iO CITY OF ORONO ® 612A730510 07/23/96 10:12 0 :03/03 N0:621 \ A *-• \\ IS ) * VC" Tki » --rr .. exK I (we) Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form A[print name(s)][print addres have reviewed-the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the propcit)* located at IkAl also referred to as Land Use Application No._______. ^esh I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (w*e) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date [print name(s)] / I (we)|^ [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the fm>petty located tsZ60/ lO. referred to as Land Use Application No._______. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confinn for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting dale. 4^ ‘ ^ I tllSO-OOl m-9m PREPARED FOR: DR. DOUGLAS OLSON I I ! .* ^ OLSON./BOWERS RESIDENCE 2601 V». LAFAVriTE ROAD ORONO. MINNESOTA 55391 UStfl i'1S?5 KNVlIoN m shoreline Apr-1 Sor'‘^t,S 2 o . 3. Ares mJ'V. 1^', " » -I*. • / Shoreline April l%ms '«■■ ■' iS'-iX' I sr-Ji ''*‘7(' : ".- ^/•Conc.U,/|^(g) •c/ Oot< 6r/cfe «vinc 24-C*^ •0<rch i6p5::»r^nT~-^ \ ©‘© © ®i «%.% __________ ' ' ^ •S6*floSSWO<xJ •tS'' sa*oot SmtTifD •Se.tP*^<=f-0 / 0 s \ \ .—^ »\iw DESCRIPTION- ■ V,.Tract C and F, Ra .*< *GENERAL NOTES 1 *'1. • - Oenota 2. o . Denote 3. Areas: t k c.: .* t •• ♦ .>*• -f - - -4— H-l -V i ‘-^ •• * ^ V. ♦r T -Y ^ •♦.*• « t<- ' \-'i- ■ 1 •!> ' »l ? I — .'i*t;t'i l 3=?r » (H I ., 4 :*. r - •* I« k% -^. . .*,... —---—> ?1 . i: - ” *^ #f ' . /* ■ *• ’V » ■» r ♦ • M». •• D f •: :] OLSON/BOWERS RESIDENCE MOI W. LAFAYETTE ROAD ORONO. MINNESOTA S5J9I ••• 9 /W|i«v#r'4‘ I % .•it^'- J.'. # • .is- ? I i ;; I I • <■ .—^ . •* >- \ '• > • W -• *• ... 5' >- ..-■4 .’^- n .*.%• 'll V^v:'-\#"'-44v i ^. ,.i.,: jpr ..... ...................-I ♦ iK ^ - -T------> iLdl^-r^r. ">1:^ 1! .VV '<55.. ^ C* \ mmi Ac•>« *> -'^►' .. .O' > • £*dr ■1 •’4:.r - ^ . ., . ♦ * : >♦ r V if ^ - ,1 *.-r/p. .-l'I))- '>5~ "r . * l ! * I i t-4- r * V “-■^u irT'' •' ? "^-rt J- ><t-5 --i ?-H- ,i -^■' llM ■* • .-♦ ■♦< «»4 -• I *' . -i —.,’ r r ’ j ll 14-.■r 4. ..... -o I M’ l--^..;-}aa^ 1 I u —r ^ • - ■- »*«fc -1 cans \ \* * ^ I ^ ; . I >1 .1 :i ». . ■•., < ..J B r:' : l”- . 1, i: ■,:. ;s^iv2^r-5j;..;r'-\ i i r *g - -t -^.T- I •■ « i ’ N. -----------.^- 7* v> i* 1 1r• • • •% V « I ' f * A ' M I p . * [ ------------ ’* " * : I !__ ■— V f !! • -• r - • t i Tim M—i.^v ■ .m 1 —ri~p—i. — I) *wr» ’.I /5 .•» * .* kCii- ’,..• •.>, •/.I f vf- OLSON/BOWERS RESIDENCE 2601 W. LAFAYETTE EOAO •'> ORONO, MINNESOTA SS39I eMSn «»w—iw wvm —»%nwwm< w4< h, !>;<». m hi .XI Wt^l.mm ■; ■' *. ■ *. . : ^ ■•. ’ !'•.,. _ . ..y-'-ap-fi ;■■• ••^ '• ;■•■<".. ••fe-..::-••• ■• • v'i%-; • ■••■/• Vlii' ." iom. ^3. -M U iM- m^i ■k:.- A '3^, I#"' '*--j ' ^ . k e?cM. ^'i .If i , V" -.r^- ^ *i ■ ,i -JC-I • .;V t.' .:. ,r.- k‘ ' ■^f ^ ,-?^.J«5;.*5SSW '•* .. f t . • f fi ' I f -I %‘'T. i; 4: :'-,.•wi^ V .1 ’ I t • t .**v i r :. *•• .*. 4*Vl- . .✓ . .^1 ■» ■ k • OLSON/BOWERS RESIDENCE MOI W. LAFAYETTE ROAD ORONO, MINNESOTA SSJ9I sMbr cV4 exit. X-f ’■■4»^*-’ ’ »•'V* ^ > !i •.................. I £ n i,‘ ^ II - -- V7li k.- rf, ---------- » '!.. -U1 V - - *- • >____ : .-v,-™|!'' ■ j. ^v F § } :_____ \ . 1 * . V . Z' I -.; 5i N5 ' - S-T-'t ] j I ,9 K f « r J!• ' • ‘"t i ' *■■••t^%p < • i,;mUr* •1 i r ’ ' 1 •i i rri ' *'tt M 4 *< ———*H»r*• i ' f _ \ ; . ^ v sr j . • it*. • tt JOW »«*<» »- I p^* *-i * -* >1 «; • ‘TSBSJi • : • I I ----‘ii 1’^,* • ^'i —;•!.. ! ‘; V • I ------# / iV •^ - ir- • ♦ 4 ' I i. .rvt-^ r—t f i\’m ■* > -- .X. ‘ * : A X:-. . I • -•' •. vy • t i- . -1 I • I CD i ,™y • fJ' I ‘ m •»-* i / V \ > “ -r l^. V. ; \/ . i ^0 • “t % . Ip • r" -f ’■•y H* • •*•• •• •% r.— % * ^ ^W I ] 4 /% -'L s ,V I OLSON/BOWERS RESIDENCE MOI W. LAFAYETTE ROAD ORONO. MINNESOTA 55)91 . •«fi) '%J. ♦--------------------f ♦ » iV4 ^ ^.*A. 1- i» . i "ff, . W-< * . f t ■*' ’‘‘.O .*j. i..i'^:! i I ‘ ! : ! I i i r-2:r ♦ I i r. I ;• «r I : . t *! ^ j I r. - f» '•* • P / J y ? .V V ...!, '■r~is-^ ♦ I I 1 1 f I :r 4^5 I •■ — 4 1^ , firrrr-: ,• ■' i J^.i*• p\ \ . r';- r r* ‘ * 1V ''• ------------- \ " ^0 / / / /-p y / .''y'l i ■■••li " .'' i ‘ ■ U-" ®f i ‘ ....... :r.-.::i!ifF^\j ‘ .U..-:T. ; . |i- -n— _ ^ ^ ♦ » 5 i ; * * • ^V ■ J :"~-rry A I & • * -~i •—.i~- /1 ^ I ^ ■*» *T .... . .-.♦< .1 ; . -i - L^/-; .. traJ »«' !•.) ' • -y . A - • / / !j •i P -^1 J' i tn.. r • rrr « * 4 • • . V .4* 1 - • \ // it rt~ "t! ----iijt t------ -4 n RMbr mMwi Mil »Mtf« «:«<:«• ME n: 41 ■ V t^km ■ .^7 “^^ *"*»' A HI Wi-_rj-^..- -K _____ *' 5f*5^ m > --V r-v -S .2 f*' - w .Y ' a ‘"‘ f(^Vlr.-*'' CQ =t|5 lOUi t^ww n>r •ai-rwOM %d^mmmr^rnmu^ \' 'J!. :;^TT^. tm^m^ IjJ f. 4^S^Q>—^ <•04^ . V tr«cc<«Mciyt •99M. e-% e*^J^r9^ ^an \-i..\ f^r —? t «« I "'* \ •^^4. \ ,.' *5cr ..::r^ ■ "• ••. ^s«i. ;v?vi •‘t ««‘.j 11 IttI ■ •— TT^I vcrr j: •- 1 ^si.'Sfc; e*3?<nf« HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET m. ‘ J SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) O-TS* nciSTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE 2SQ-S00'soB-iifr A. House Lmfih Waidi 17^ X X 1 1£ 22 J-2.6 B. Garage C. Driveway o5.3 35 D. Sidewalk n E. Patio/Deck 6 iandsfipo 5 G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE *' 154 ■ t>' + B y,^. 661. ^nPOSFD HARDCOVER IN ZONE House Wid^ X X X B. Garage C. Dnveway ^6 X X _____^ D. Sidewalk n a X 3 E. Patio/Deck z' % X Tv—fcandso^ UoderUki- ■By-Plastic X X X t> G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B 2^.‘7^1. X 100 X 100 - Af:. no BZ7.6 1464 '2^ 6(^ ^5/ 31.a 4704 d6 S.F. AI S.F. sr.-v’-v* .' S.F. A: ‘f S.F. /. 4 ^ 3 J S.F. 5' f\ 1 S.F. C\ S.F. CZ S.F. b4 ^7 S.F. £)5 ’ _ S.F. 23 V • ).) S.F. I S.F.J37 S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. % A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. a. 7/ »£E S.F. 5-fcC'6. S.F. js.f. ^3 S.F. D4 S.F. £4 ' ' S.F. bl S.F. S.F. S.F. ___________S.F. ___________S.F. 30.2,5 % A B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)0 7S>2Sr 2SQ-SW Set-IMT EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Z^' _____ X Lmgrti Wi^ B. Caxage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk n£L •^6 E. Patio/Deck F. Laodscape Uoderlain By Plastic Z.‘*, CA -*2. G. Other -r TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY VREA IN ZONE + B fPOPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _______ s 2A±Z Lci)|ih Wi«h X X X B. Garagr C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk n6 32 E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic /.5 I ; ' G. Other \0 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ?>■ 27:5 + B 55.‘74i X 100 - X 100 32 5 S.F. A6 •B S.F. S.F. < > ■B S.F. 1 IB eK S.F. IB S.F. C'-- B S.F. S.F. Of ‘‘■■■V B -:s «_5.f. D3 B \tu>o S.F. B( 1 B S.F. tZ B Z-!S.F. f' ' B SF. B S.F. S.F. Q B « 2 z-ra S.F. A •/S.F. B B -7.% 3 2.6 S.F. a6 S.F. B S.F. B S.F. SF. S.F. B S.F. a3>0 S.F. 0! B 7'^-S.F. rz 6 f. ->3 S.F. B S.F. S.F. ft B S.F. B S.F. S.F. C,\ m 3.Z-73 • S.F. A •S.F. B B % V : milKlN • Job 1128 Harmon Place, Suite 308, Minneapolis, Minne^na 55403, 612-332-8000, FAX 332-7504 Kl: lihi:* MEMO TO: Olson/Bowere Remodeling i-ile FROM: Bill Michels, Project Architect DATE: May 24, 1996 SUBJECT: Lot Area Lot Area: Total Driveway Easement (110’ x 20 + 166’ x 20): Lot Area Less Drivewav Easement: Lot Area (Less Driveway Easement): 0-75 75 - 250 (less easement) 250- Allovvable Lot Area Coverage: 78.055 X 15% = Existing Lot Area Coverage: House and Garden Pool and Patio 6,027.89 / 78,055 x 100 = ^ ■ K f - • 83,575.00 sq.ft. 5.520.00 sq.ft. 78,055.00 sq.ft. 78,055.00 sq.ft. 35.961.00 sq.ft. 29.551.00 sq.ft. 12.543.00 sq.ft. 11,708,25 sq.ft. 3,401.89 sq.ft. 1,860.00 sq.ft. 616.00 sq.ft. 150.00 sq.ft 6,027.89 sq.ft. 7.72 % lI28HannonPlace,Stiite308, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403, 612-332-8000, FAX 332-7504 ?- .} • I . • *3 Kl> *1 l-'fv Memo Re: Lot Area - continued Proposed Lot Area Cov erage: House and Garden Pool and Patio 6,868.00 / 78,055 x 100 = 4.242.00 sq.ft. 1.860.00 sq.ft. 616.00 sq.ft. 150.00 sq.ft. 6,868.00 sq.ft. 8.80 % Page 2 of2 1128 Harmon Place, Suite 308, Minneapolis, Mitmesota 55403, 612-332'8000, FAX 332-7504 I Kl. ' J I'.V . u OLSON/BOWERS REMODELING CONTACT LIST BRUCE KNUTSON ARC HITECTS. INC. 1128 Hannon Place, Suite 308 Minneapolis, MN 55403 (612)332-8000 i ^4-f. 7t \... V? 1 LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS 339 Second Street Excelsior, MN 55331 (612)474-7121 CONCEPT LANDSCAPING. LNC. 3153 Priest Lane Mound, MN 55364 (612)472-4118 1128 Harmon Place, Suite 308, Minneapolis, Minnesota 5540), 612-332'8000, FAX 332*7504 e^- M i TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator /G. FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:August 14, 19% SUBJECT: #2166 Janet Kieman, 1491 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acres, unsewered. Application: Request for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, side setback, and 0-75’/75- 250* hardcover variances for construction of additions to the existing residence, and a street setback variance for expansion of the existing detached garage. The application also includes relocation of the existing driveway access to the property. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Proposed Site Plan, Floor Plan F - Existing Floor Plans and Cross Sections G - Proposed Elevation Views, 2nd Floor Remodel Plan H - Hardcover Calculations, Existing and Proposed I - Septic System Review Information J - Topography K - Note from Survey re: Unknown Parcel Summary of Request Applicant proposes to remodel and construct major additions to the existing residence. WTtile the primary addition to the house will be outside the 0-75’ zone, that addition does encroach the average lakeshore setback. Additionally, both first floor and second flror remodeling of the existing house, including a proposed terrace on the lake side, is located in the 0-75* zone. A portion of the remodeling work involves new roof and deck cons'jnction less than the required 30* side setback. Additionally, applicant proposes to relocate the dri\eway access to Shoreline Drive, reconfigure the driveway, and extend the existing detached gv, ge further north. That garage will then be 1,000 s.f. in area, requiring a 15* setback from Shoren.\» /e, but proposed at a setback of 10.7*. A proposed gaxebo appearing on the site plan appears to encroach the septic system drainfield. 4 Applicant notes that this gazebo is conceptual in nature and can certainly be located elsewhere on the site. A summary’ of the requ red variances follows: Allowed Existing PropQSgd or Required Variapcfi 0-75' Hardcov’cr 842 s.f 788 s.f 0 s.f 788 s.f (Area= 13,960 s.f.)(6.0%)(5.6%)(0%)(5.6%) 75-250' Hardcover 7,727 s.f 7,749 s.f 7,030 s.f 519 s.f (Area = 28,120 s.f.)(27.5%)(27.6%)(25.0%)(1.8%) , 250-500 ’ Hardcover (This very small area contains only Co. Rd.15 pavement) (Area= 150 s.f) Average Lakeshore Setback ON26'±O'26'± Side Setback 14.5'14.5'30 ’15.5 ’ Lake Setback: House 66'66 ’75'9' Terrace —53 ’75 ’22’ Street Setback (Gar.)21'10.7 ’±15 ’4.3 ’ Hardcover In the 0-75' zone, applicant proposes to remove the existing fireplace pit and adjacent patio and landscape areas, remove an additional stone landscape area and eliminate walkways near the house, and construct a stoop and grade level semi-circular terrace adjacent to the house. The met result is a proposed hardcover decrease of 54 s.f or a reduction from 6.0% to 5.6%. The terrace is an amenity that, while in keeping w ith the character of the house, could be reduced in square footage. Another option would be to relocate it further north near the guest bedroom and living room outside the 0-75' zone, but that might not fit the scheme of the floor plan. In the 75-250' zone, significant reduction of driveway surface will allow the proposed house addition and garage addition to be constructed while proposing to reduce hardcover by approximately 178 i #2166 - Janet Kieman August 14, 19% Page 3 s.f, a reduction from 27.5% to 26.8%. However, this reduction is partially achieved by use of a grass paver system at the north end of the driveway leading to the main entrance. Applicant's architect has taken a 40% reduction in the area of hardcover because the grass pavers are 40% open. The City position in the past has been that areas which are driven on or used for parking, regardless of their surfacing, are considered hardcover. In staffs opinion, this is actually 498 s.f. not 298 s.f., and the result is a minimal hardcover increase from 7,727 to 7,749 s.f, or a 0.1% hardcover increase. The plan could easily be revised to result in no hardcover increase if that is Planning Commission's recommendation. Average Lakeshore Setback The existing house as well as the proposed additions encroach approximately 26’ past the average lakeshore setback line. Due to the site topography and existing site lines, the proposed additions wnuld appear to have e.xtremely minimal or no impact on view s of the lake enjoyed by neighboring property owners. Side Setback The existing house is located 14.5' from the south side lot line. The LR-1A zone requires a 30' side setback. The need for a variance is a result of the remodeling which changes the roof lines on portions of the house less than 30' from the side lot line, but does not add major amounts of structure nor bring any new walls nearer the lot line. Note also that the adjacent house to the south is approximately 40-50' from the lot line, and offset slightly so that the houses are separated by approximately 70'. Lakeshore Setback The existing southeast hou^c cuincr ir. 66' from the shoreline. The major changes to the existing house in this area again are to the roof lines. A very minimal portion of overhang above llic new living room may encroach ver> slightly into the 0-75' zone. The majority of the house additions, however, have been placed to meet the 75' setback. It should be noted that there is an existing pump house underground adjacent to the lake. Applicant has no plans to change the nature of this structure. The proposed grade level terrace constitutes hardcover in the 0-75' zone, and the steps leading to it are an additional encroachment of structure in the 0-75' zone. The terrace itself would not be considered structure, but is considered hardcover. The steps, like the comer of the house, at their closest point are 66 ’ from the lake. #2166 - Janet Kieman August 14, 1996 Page 4 Garage Addition The proposed addition to the garage results in a structure that, on the plans, has a 49’x20.4' footprint or 999.6 s.f. Applicant's hardco\er calculations indicate the garage at 1,029 s.f. The garage must be kept less than 1,000 s.f. to not be considered an oversized accessory structure. Above 1.000 s.f, it is subject to a 50' street setback and a 30' side setback, neither of which it could meet. Assuming the garage is under 1.000 s.f, it still needs to meet a 15' south side setback (side setback as proposed is approximately 18') and a 15' street setback. The existing garage is 21.0' from the street, but extending its west wall northward, the garage extends near the right-of-wav. and would be 10.7' from the street lot line at its northw est comer. This places the nothwest comer of the garage nearly to the edge of the perceived shoulder of Co. Rd. 15. In order to meet the required 15' setback, the garage addition would have to be offset to the east, or could be reduced to one additional stall instead of tw o. Note: The entire existing/proposed garage is within property noted on County plat maps as "unknown parcel". The surveyor indicates that the propert)^ owner likely needs to proceed with some t>pe of judicial action to have this parcel added to the legal description. Until this occurs, the city has no assurance that the existing/proposed garage is within applicants property. Dennis Hill at the Hennepin County Property Descriptions Office has indicated they have no record of such action pending. Septic System Analysis This house is part of the Bracketts Point "hotspot" neighborhood which has petitioned for installation of municipal sew er as soon as possible. Assuming the City is successful in its currently proposed MUSA boundarv amendment, it is not impossible that municipal sewer could be provided to this property through a project that could occur in 1997. However, such project has not yet been ordered nor designed, and municipal sewer is therefore not yet "guaranteed" to this property. The existing septic system was reconstructed in 1982 and consists of a lift station discharging to two septic tanks and a 600 s.f drainfield located uphill north of the house. The drainfield was sized in 1982 by guesstimating a 1-15 minute per inch perc rate based on the soil textures encountered at the site. Technically, this would require a drainfield sized at a range of 0.83 to 1.27 s.f of drainfield bottom area per gallon per day. At an average requirement of 1.05 s.f per gallon per day, the system likely can handle no more than 570 gallons per day and may be slightly undersized for a four bedroom house. On the other hand, if actual perc rate is in the 1-5 mpi range, requiring only 0.83 s.f of trench per gallon per day, the system might handle up to 722 gpd or almost a 5 bedroom home. #2166 - Janet Kieman August 14, 1996 Page 5 The existing house contains three bedrooms on the second floor not including the sleeping porch, one bedroom on the main floor (called a study.^droom but has closet and bath) and there is a room in the basement that is defined as rec room but has a closet, and therefore would be considered a bedroom for septic system design purposes. However, applicant notes that this room has not and likely would not be used as a bedroom. The proposed house suggests no changes to that basement room, has a guest bedroom on the main floor and three bedrooms on the second floor, i.e. resulting in the same bedroom situation as currently exists. It appears, then, that there is no increase in the number of bedrooms with this addition. It is unknown whether the existing septic system is sized adequately to serve the existing and proposed residence. While it may be feasible to add one additional drainfield line on the downhill side of the existing trenches, (no testing work has been done to confirm this), the e.xisting system has not exhibited any signs of failure and with sew'er pending, it may be unnecessary to add to the system unless a failure occurs under the usage of this new owner. It should be noted for the record that the previous owners ’ family size may have not taxed the system to its limit. The difference between this situation and that on Long Lake Blvd. which the Planning Commission struggled with, is that technically there are no additional bedrooms in this proposal. However, some of the same risks are borne by this property owner in that if the system fails and sewer does not become available, only a limited degree of system expansion is possible before a holding tank w ould be a final option. Bluff Not an Issue Staff has confirmed that the locations on the site w here construction is proposed do not constitute a bluff, although the next property to the north may in fact be subject to the bluF impact zone protective requirements. Drainage Drainage from this property' appears to all flow to the southw est comer of the property south of the garage. This will not change under the new site plan, but this area will also now be taken up by the relocated driveway. This may force more runoff onto the adjacent property or into the neighbor's unique serpentine wall. Applicant should be required to provide a gardine and drainage plan for the site showing how runoff w ill be addressed under the new site plan. #2166 - Janet Kieman August 14, 1996 Page 6 Issues for Discussion 1.Is the 0-75’ hardcover reduction from 6.0% to 5.6% justification to allow a good share of the hardcover to be reconstructed as terrace located 55' to 70' from the lake? Given the City’s policy to not allow a hardcover reduction for grass pavers, there is a 0.1% hardcover increase proposed. Is this increase Justified, or should applicant remove additional hardcover to result in no net increase, or even some net decrease, in 75-250' hardcover? 3.Is the minimal impact on neighboring propert> ’s views of the lake, sulficient justification for the average lakeshore setback? 4.Is the magnitude of roof changes above the existing south and east walls of the house so minimal as to not create significant side setback or lake setback concerns? 5.Given the proposed garage expansion from two stalls to four stalls, is there any justification to grant a setback variance if that garage exceeds 1,000 s.f. footprint area and by definition becomes an oversized accessory structure required to meet 50’ street and 30' side setbacks? Is it more appropriate to limit that garage to no more than 1,000 s.f., and grant a variance from the required 15' street setback to allow it at lO.T? Or, is there insufficient justification to grant the street setback variance? If this is the case, then the garage could likely be expanded to just a three stall capacity, of footprint area approximately 800 s.f. and stiP meet the required 15 ’ setback. An alternative would be to offset a 2-stall addition to meet the required 15' setback. 6. Does Planning Commission have specific concerns regarding the septic sy.stcm? Staff Recommendation A. Planning Commission must determine whether the proposed hardcover additions/reductions/revisions are appropriate as indicated. B. Planning Commission should likewise determine whether the impacts of the average lakfcjhore setback encroachment by the new addition and revisions to the existing house are of concern. C. Planning Commission should determine whether the roof changes for portions of the existing house that encroach the lake setback and side setback are appropriate. D. Planning Commission should reach a conclusion whether a street setback variance is appropriate for expansion of the existing garage, or whether the garage addition should be reduced in size or offset. #2166 - Janet Kicraan August 14,19% Page 7 E. The applicant should be advised to confirm with Hennepin County Department of Transportation that the proposed relocated driveway access is acceptable (it aprears to give a much better site distance than the current location). F. Planning Commission should consider what limitations if any are imposed by the exn ing septic system and th«* vir nt unavailability of sewer. Staff would recommend that the exis ting house be limited by a»vcnant to no more than four bedrooms until municipal scwtt bs.comes available. A further step to consider would be removal of the partitioning that technicail) l-oads staff to the conclusion that a rec room could sene as a defined bedroom. Note that there is no shower existing or proposed for the basement, hence the likely use of the rec room as a bedroom is decreased. G. Applicant must provide drainage and grading plans to address possible impacts on the neighboring property. H. Applicant must provide evidence of ownership of the 'unknown parcel'. > Options for Action 1. Recommend approval as presented, applicant to provide information noted in staff recomir><.nuation. 2. Recommend approval or partial approval with additional conditions 3. 5. Table for further information. 4. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Other. 1 CITY 0^ ORONO 6124730510 07/23/96 06146 [J :02/10 NO:652 1 ^ -^C.cc* CITY OF ORONO - V ARIANCE APPI ICATIO!i ♦nitial AppIi:ation Fee $220.00 (550.00 per each additional variance) Renewal V'ariance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming strucnires $220.00 After-the-Faci Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address I V 3^39/ Propcrt>' Identification Number fP.I.D.) j 11( 7 tblb^_____________________ Attach legal description to applicatio.t if not included on required suA'cy. Date Property Acquired f ________________________________(month/year) I (do) C^ojipt) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propery; residential ___pother (specify)_____________ Zoning District: -UV_____________________ __________________________ applicant Name rTAk} t=:T Address: <9* OVVNER (if different than applicant) Name *___________________ Phone (home) _____ Phone (work)________ City: tn rKA •______Z\v>:' £^3CS Phone (homc)_ PBone (work) ‘ Address:Citv Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQllEST Estimated Construction Cost S 3<c>6^2)C>0. 4>o Describe requestin detail: a je£2//^iJ 7P rt^£- 7r/*^f*(ev€^/n^T Tn TTVjg /^fl/**£7gyy To ^ AZ>J> ck) 7a £^/5r7/UC A/cecS€ ~3k sAff /tCC,tss'n> (TTy.^./s (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^9Cer/b€ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover ___Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear •Average Lakeshorc _ Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Desenbe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: d^hcHje. Ut^(~ %_a aj Soccr-H Sfoe. ■7/Q of Ncuse.cu>r- 0 ~c3) ^Xi^r/AJg. H^use. /s. AJQAy tCKtFC^^AX fiki Ax/6 3) /S' s'):f.vOi‘A*J /y)oi4^bs oAi aJ o^j 9 ^^jersrrKJcrnVB ^ ^fH 0^" (attach additional sheets if necessary) iM)TH- e AAih X" /? JLa tlTT Of ORONO ■■» @ ou:^fjU3iu w//c3/yo ooi^o |_> :uo/ lu NO:63i i V. - REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information mmt be submitted hy the appIlotioB deadline date ini order for vour application to he contidered compltt»; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form J^Ce^ifled Propcrt>- Ovt-ners List of cwmers \^ithin 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Cour.r>- Depaitment of finance. A-603, Govt Center, 3-48-3271). ji* Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed sun-eyon and include hardcover ‘ 'calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/*" x 11” for reproduction. __ Topographic surv’cy (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘/j” x H" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of Hoor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/V x II”). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This vvould include namc(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum this application, please attach a separate Usi 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 Uiat vour variance apnlicatlon is not complete if the above information has hot been included. APPLICANTS SIGNATURE The applicant licreby 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, an^ certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/Tier kno.vleJge Applicant's Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and furth^er authorizes laisonablc entry onto the property by City staft, consultxnts, agents. Commission members, and Cour.'il members for purposes of investigation and v erification of this request. Owner's Signature Date y M Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Pla.nning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of (he 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 t’ne meeting. 8 IhM OATf 07/2«/96 BATCH SOSBROB AOM OMCR NMC TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR OMCR NAHE TAXPAYER MAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OMCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAIC/AOOR PROP ACOR OMCR NAHE TA>9AYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AODR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INnSMATION SYSTEH PRtreRTY OMCRS LISTSB 11-117-2S 2S 0002 01475 SliORELINE OR 0 H A E A SCHMITT OOU6LAS R A ELLEN A SCriHITT 1475 SHORELINE OR NAYZATA MN 5SS91 SB 11-117-2S 25 0010 014B7 SHORELINE OR R L NAAOE AIL NAAOE ROBERT L A IRIS L HAADE 1487 SHt»tELINE OR NAYZATA MN 553R1 SB 11-117-2S 25 0014 01460 GREEN TREES RO CAS PUTOU CARL A SLBAN PUTOU 14B0 GREEN TREES RO HAYZ'TA m SSS91 36 11-117-23 32 0001 01200 BRACKETTS POINT RD CORir«C GRIFFITH PILL58URY CORINNE G P1LLS6URY 4600 FIRST BAtC PUCE MPLS M4 54402 36 11-117-23 32 0016 01220 BRACKETTS POINT RD ELU P CROSBY ELIA P CROSBY 1a20 BRACKETTS POINT RD NAYZATA rtl 55391 36 11-117-23 23 000801491 SHORELINE OR JANET C KIERNAN JANET C KIERNAN 1491 SHORELINE OR NAYZATA W 55391 38 11-117-23 23 0011 01485 GREEN TREES RO 0 L A N H VERGEYLE DAVID A MARGARET VERGEYLE 1485 GREEN TREF RO NAYZATA MN 55391 58 11-117-25 23 0017 00038 ADDRESS UNAS5IGNE0 CAS PLATOU CARL N A SL<SAN PLATOU 1480 GREEN TREES RD NAYZATA M4 55391 50 11-117-23 32 0010 01265 BRACKETTS POIfTT RO MICHAEL E LYIM III A NIFE MICHAEL I JORJA LYNN III 1245 BRACKETTS POINT NAYZATA 55391 TOTAL BATCH 503 00013 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 436 11-117-23 23 000901469 SHORELINE DR ERIC N BERINGAUSC ERIC N BERItCAJSE 1469 SNORELlll DR NAYZATA MN SS391 3.1 sa 11-117-2S Zl 0015 OISIO QUEEN IHEES NO » N LENNY i S N LENNY RICHMO H LENNY 1510 GOEEN TREES RO NAYZATA MN 55391 •*. * • y % p . • sa 11-117-23 23 ooia 0003a ADDRESS UNASSIONED »EEN TREES HQMEONICRS ASSOC GREEN TREES NOHEO»t<^RS ASSOC C/0 JACK O YOST 1515 GREEN TREES RO NAYZATA MN 55391 ft I 36 11-117-25 32 0013 D0058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO CORINC GRIFFITH PILLS8URY CORirtC 6 PILL^URY 4800 FIRST BANK PLACE MPLS M4 55402 I % \ O U r > O ss Oi s r%:' r '"Svf t't’.V -i- J'• '■ V''f>^ 'A.H C% fcwAH. »IS n/ • 4 •« -t A ...♦ :.x .•tf . . f r • • irv—J-4, vx ■py V . \] •. ;! - 7 -V ^ ^ , I . ... I . • • I • J Hi:i:|l;Hii ;:; :: ..Tliitln -S,. :.■■•.UMUi □ ..i: »^ If '7 / sr C v*****';-^' A; r il \P!i. :i -u-l r ; 1 li ^ 4.- j\ . L7 'Jr —' O 'fA./ ...» V \ »V . «i N Ii Vii.'' ■■"■'-•■>'s 4 \ • "» s \. • :'r:»; A'. i' 77 t I I ' »' I. ' *,• *7 ;• . .V • ,\vs II. • V, M ‘-«t.-J ’ . .• T:&^^ffe:V' ’ !- ■ ' V V .\ •'» .*^._ : •* ■ ; * ; .. V , - V V 4, ■. '.V-* ' .*4 ■ ' '« - •-. •: >''‘. V’ I .•■. .•r >.‘ V.v‘i- '-X■■ ■•: K.-j>chv^i!S!rs^^ r'. - ‘ -7 - ^v.; i vAj7-‘. - ■. ------ :VxvfS;'A ‘S»( i'. ‘ ’■ ■ ■■■ ■■-m: •vO;»'H'A7*V’ X,'*- •• . <- 71-• . ' 7;!>-:.■: -. .. \'\ U'., o ! • •«> i I... #1 « •« |« ro t ‘fl Uk tl ♦’I ^ !? '$1*; “*. .. ,, ► 0^ i ■ M i® 09 .. • •* . # ■ . I.? UJ i? O S P $5 \l1 cl^ .1 ^ J m > O' —i m <> z i'“A “'1 m< o •ja^, n* «I \ I'J ITT'ir '(tS ill 5 tf.. j•Vq(V^-^ _J; f' \ ^ •n - I lit' jpl ”'1.; i;.-m. ■K/' ki ::^ u:^a. "i r’WiS^jr ■y,1. 9^'i fi ' i <« »A1 - ' - ' If' /• Ml.- fl ^1*. « WjU / * i '* » i5tI f V / t ( / »• * y-^' t I# . 1. - Sh ,* ,# « ! *?■ f--m • ^ .\ kk.. a !»“ •I % , ^ I i f3p^,;..T^>:^.t'.; , jl.-v. i t iir ;.i. 4 t t ft' 4- ». - 2«: 1C \ ■. i r'«.^:lfea-swi ^'f «-’ !^^U:^T-. 1 Ss.;* ‘ ' 4^ crai m4 u" 'H ^-.J i tj 4cs^ / / :i^ 1:iir t T i* 1^r .. .nir Vt^. \ ' " ■ ■> - • 3^ *5l:- N L \V V *• V • % . Ni ' .''li ^ \ .1 • t \ S I .v» / ^UL-^ 2\l99i 1/8" = r-0" KffiRNAN RESIDENCE 1491 SHORELINE DRIVE ORONO, MINNESOTA Pi w'-*fM^r p-iv *i7i ■ • i - •.. W^:r TEA Tom EMison Archkecu i $ JAh KiEWAN H 4-/8-<)(r HARDC0V£|U^LCULAT10 iN WOKK5aJit.j '— * SETBACK z6l^: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-2S0* t^-SOOi’ . *S60-I00d‘ ' EXTSTTNC RyiDCOVER IN ZONE A. Houm ■ _ ______. X _____________ “iSl S.F. fi Lrn|di WkSih ;{S75P5 ^**^-** ct X X X ^ S.F. _S.F. • S.F. 'I * t • t B. Cange C. Driveway . I • • • , S.F. T-r*^ t‘- V • ;x Iv S.F. s.p:• •• D. Sidewalk COt^C. X X ^9 S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Oeck ; BciOd+lk/<d;«y6W>^ BBO X X 1 r F. f ap^TcapeU^ZrO ^ig Underlain By Plastic. Of Fabric • ! X X I S.F.rsszns.F. ' r ‘ S.F. -• S;F. S.F. ^9 39 G. Other>AwiC5V_W^^186 S.F. TOTAL HARDCpVER IN ZONE - ’ TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^8-42. + B H.^CO X 100 ■' 04Z S.F. ts.F.y A B '(T. ^?3 % A^arft 4/or /a/cc. io sov ^ ' PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ^ONE ™ ^ 5r. A. House " Lcnfih • • . r f 1*21.o«g S.F. * Wkiili X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. • > • B^Carage* .Cr—DriveiJ^ay I ••S.F. X X S.F. •S.F»%• 4 • • • • 4i>^idewillc X X .’ * * S.F. S.F. . E. PaUo/Deck Jr# 1 X X ^S^.oo S.F. /S.F.A F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X .S.F. ‘S.F. S.F. G. Other S .F. ■ y' * TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE. . , ^ ^ A ■ . ■*.. B, “X 100 - *.« . • .14 • %,4 » S.F. . A .••••• • . S.F.* • ® • •• • • • SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) r-75’ C^S-2^ Jah KiFPnak hardcover CALCULApOAM^VOKh^tiEtJ 25-SOO‘ EXTSTINC HARDCOVFR IN ZONE A. House _______:______ ^COhiC Wkith X X X I • .i B. Garage 24.4 2^. f- I C. Driveway •f’ tl' V • A * I P •( •! 5iiF^ nv 6>^^p^€ D. Sidew;ak . •.* . E. Patio/Deck X X 3^ X X % * • X X l-.l •• F. Landscape . UMerlain By Plastic. Or Fabric • t X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 772.7 B 2 f-7 O X 100 i ■ PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Widuh ?i-pra i/il PiJl; B. Garage X X X • • • e•# • I* • sk-Os. ■) C. Driv D. Sidewalk _________■ X X X X porch E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE • • total -H zone ^ . X 100 ■ - » •14 • • • «.1 500-1000' I6S3 S.F. 2^ S.F. S.F. . • S.F. 5ia ^S.F., . 4^/70 i S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P.‘ *' • •• • • •• • •• • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 7727 S.F. 2ff^ IZO ' ? S.F. 27.4^ % A B i _2£nt:^s.F. • • • .»•••• «• • 5?^. S.F. •/ S.F. 0.%^ S.F. S.F.- S.F.- !F-3 S.F. /!.«■ {?ib__S.F. ivd S.F. I S.F. S.F. S.F. s.f; - S.F. S.F. S.F. '— S.f; A B % • « ' ■ / : Kt€Aiyn^ hardcover calculation wo SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE 0-75’ gYlCTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _________:_____ • X • :__• 75-150' RKSHEET <^50-500D 500-1000f ► S.F. Length Width X X X S.F. S;F. S.F. B. Garage X s.f: C. Driveway X X S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F.- F. Landscape Underlain By Plpstic Or F^ric X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. O. Other S.F. ri TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A . ______Q. ”■ B /SO, /so S.F. A S.F.- B X 100 ■-• S ' : fo/yif /J ZSS*4 2oA/f PROPO.SFD HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House S.F.- Length Width. X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage S.f: C. Driveway S.F. •S.F. , . D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic . Or Fabric X X X «• • •S.F. S.F. S.F. O. Other s.?; TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B i5^X 100 - S.F. A S.P*/ B • e L HLajMc . ADDRESS J CODE __ CITYOFORONO Oitt Conntcted to SEPTIC SYSTEM INVENTORY CARD Municwi ! ) ) Addrtts L^H3&e^/AJe. itandard trench □ Moiind Syittm type □ Other Permit No. ^ Property 1.0. 23^ /- 2- ^o- Bedroorrji Building ty^St or GPD ^ Ltgal Dfscrlption /A/. ^ . D»t« of permit ZZ.' 2- Ifitflltf i/A Aj Laundry A $h washer Garbage Disposal SEPTIC TANKS Materiel /^CC,AS t/<, C. UPg^ C«n.g tw 1) ^OO t /OOP ' a) /OOG "7 ±Liquid depth to RO levelProper outlet and inlet ^ Baffles gYf G S 5 Height of tank bottom above water table OK,__________Distance to nearest building ^ ^ ^ Number of linesORAINFlELD: Total length of lines ^ ^O ^ Height of drain field above water table Trench width ^ Total ireatmant area (sq, ft.) . “ / ^ Soil type 3' ^ ^ Type of filter material 2^ X I ^ - . ^-OAyviy Olitance from nearest bldg. Depth of fill over drainfield so '* r:Tile size V /z^ - Perc rate ^ 1/ min/in . Depth of rock over tile .under tilt &^!"2 I . INSPECTION record DATE COMPLIANCE ^^ArAcy/t/^ AT OF C^fi^OAC^ ■■ /CITVitfc- / V sv'jrgyvv 4-Z3-<g2- . 2- TAAJKS ________ Avigevs rggcg.________ ZTZno^ / / w-v. £25^4 I 'rmi / 21 Oittancf from hou»f to p septic tanks, dist. box. and drainfield pi C - CONFORMING S - SUBSTANDARD N - NONCONFORMING 3) North arrow and road I 5crry» . • - - - • Pn»v(f3 7- /a; •/i (J P*<tcA.ST T^/>K • t. Pot-X cevtu ‘It'- 2'*’* y '/“ /y= PAILS , LJiiL. / -r t y r/.<.’ . 1C C \ " tl//‘JTiU /r /^i-w , ff •'! n fi ft I *1 ‘ I I !' /' V§' /o/ /o/ \ll<^ll^l ‘ ‘ i •t^///1 . . |‘’t* »V f P/Vf; ''I f /U-i<oy' 1- f~A c er£i 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED ■> •/ ? '■ Lots 1 ond 2, N. J. Stubbs, First Subdivision in Lot 2, Section 11, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ALSO* That part of Government Lot 2, Section 11. Township 117 North, Ronge 23 West of the 5lh Principal Meridian, which lies westerly of the West line of Lots 1 and 2, N. J. Stubbs First Subdivision in Lot 2, Section 11, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and southeasterly of the southeasterly right of way line of H, C. S. A. H. No. 15, Plot 51, per Document No. 4701348. J1 9S4 ------ (9516) denotes iron marker found denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum denotes existing spot elevation, meon sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an ossumed dotum. • There is not a description of record for this piece of property that is known to us. This property may have to be added by some type of judicial proceedings. This survey irilends to show the boundories of the above described property, the locotion of an existing house, goroge, and pumphouse, end the locotion of oil visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. I 1 7^ r To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator August 16, 1996 #2167 Waterstreet Builders/Allen and Judy Schefers, "2540" Casco Point Road Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 Acre, Sewered Application:Request for 75-250' hardcover variance to construct new home on this vacant lot. Possible request for CUP for fillimportation in excess of 100 cubic yards. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey (8-14-96 revision) E - Hardcover Calculations (8-14-96 revision) F - Original Proposal G - Flood Insurance Rate Map H - Area Map from Flood Insurance Study I - Detailed Study Area Showing Boundary Between 931' and 935’ Flood Zones J - Section 10.08, Subd. 3 Pertinent Code Sections 1.. 2. 3. 4 Sections 10.22, Subd. 2/10.56, Subd. 16 (L): 75-250' zone hardcover limited to 25% (30.7% proposed). Section 10.55, Subds. 7: The regulatory flood protection elevation for the Floodway and Flood Fringe Districts is 1.0' above the base floodwater surface elevation as defined in the Flood Insurance Study. Base floodwater surface for the drainageway on this site is 934.5', requiring basement floor elevations no lower than 935.5'. Section 10.03 Subd. 21.2: Maximum fill allowed to be imported without CUP is 100 cubic yards. Section 10.08, Subd 3: Variance .standards (Exh. J) r Zoning File #2167 August 16, 1996 Page 2 Suminar>' of Request This application continues to evolve as the days go by. Applicants originally proposed to construct a new residence on this vacant 1.0 acre lot just outside the 75' setback line, and the size of the house plus necessarv’ driveways to serve it at that location yielded 30.7% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. Additionally, at that original location the house would have encroached into the defined floodplain alongside the house, raising two issues of concern: 1, Placement of structure and fill within a designated flood plain, potentially reducing the available amount of storage in the wetland and thereby causing an increase in flood height; and 2. Proposed construction of a basement garage at a floor elevation less than the required 1' above the 100-year flood plain, results in the possibility of flooding that basement garage. Both of these concerns were the impetus of the original request, although the City technically by state statute could not grant a variance to allow the basement floors below' the 935.5' Regulatory Floodplain Elevation. The applicant has since raised the house to 935.5 ’, moved it out of the defined floodplain, and reduced the driveways and decks in an attempt to meet the 25% 75-250' hardcover limit. However, they still are at 26.03% and cannot apparently cut back any further without reducing the size of the house. Additionally, applicants surveyor is attempting to balance the cuts/fills on the property to result in less than 100 cubic yards of fill needing to be imported. However, as of this writing it is unknown whether a CUP is needed. Hardcover Variance The existing vacant lot is conforming to the 1/2 acre, 100' width standards of the LR-IC zone (See Exhibit D). The applicants’ need for a hardcover variance is entirely a function of the size of the house proposed for the site. The house has a 4100 s.f. footprint including the 3-stall garage, in addition to only 40 s.f. of sidew'alk shown and a modest 340 s.f deck. The driveay configuration, entering at the side rather than at an end, results in a larger apron within the 75- 250 ’ zone. Re-design of the garage configuration could potentially eliminate some driveway and a backup/parking apron could be placed behind the 250' zone line. While Planning Commission might find that the proposal is not out of character within the context of Casco Point, there is no question that the need for the variance is created by the applicant and not based on a hardship caused by any unique feature of the property. There is likely no adequate justification for granting the variance based on the standards of section 10.08, Subd. 3. 1 Zoning File #2167 August 16, 19% Page 3 CUP for Fill Importation As of this >\Titing, applicants have not submitted a grading plan indicating whether a CUP for importation of fill in excess of 100 cubic yards is necessar>'. Absent such a plan, this portion of the application cannot be adequately dealt with at this time. Staff Recommendation Applicants have not provided a hardship statement regarding hardcover, nor a grading plan defining whether a CUP is needed for e.xcess fill importation. Applicants should be asked to define the specific hardships they propose in support the hardcover variance. At this late date staff can only recommend tabling the CUP portion of the application, although Planning Commisssion may want to give some direction regarding the hardcover variance. Options for Action 1. Table for further information regarding CUP for fill importation 2. Recommend approval/denial of hardcover variance. 3.Other. Application tt Date Received iTy e Amount Paid <_ CITY OF ORONO - VARLAxNCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 - ^ (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00 (no change from original application) •» k ^ •• • . Variance for non-conforming structures S220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) .AV *•4 t •* • PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 2^4-0 j ^kj M.V. wjj w. j t tL^ ^ ^ ^ ■_ ... ■ — Propertv- ldentification*Number (P.l.D.)^7.y:?^ri '^7 t____L. I____I onnU/-<itinn if nAt inrliirt(»r1 nn remiired surve\ OOV.1—* A ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Prope^. Acquired Q _________________________(month/year) I (do) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: .>C residential Zoning District:^___________________ other (specify) APPLICAl^T^ - ,v , Name UJ: Phone (home) Address:-At _____ Phone (work) •3^-1''^ Cl O ^ Citv: Zip.'J^HJLZ. OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) (^\Z- Name ^ S^We-r-<» -c Phone (work) Address: ^ — ^ip:—2^1’6^ Estimated Construction Cost S l4ro.-^DESCRIPTION OF REQITST Describe request in detail: .a _La (3 c's >'<« tro J ' (j^(attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore HARDSfflP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing . . _ . ^ . -------!------------TT \ I - . - - \ , I TD • ^ -MrtQA \ ^ 1 \jrt\.^y>r\ rAi aifap \ i tj -V. ■> • >■ y Wv: U rTj e J ..-h \ Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions p compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^. s ^ rS im ^ >.gr'.VvA . vL/t .Lte^(i cl (U b _fi__ I A (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. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property 0%vners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Count}’ Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Cenificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic suney (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 iVi" 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 s*aff. 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. APPLIC.ANT’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 K;ue^a^ couea to the best of his/Ttcr know'ledge. .^2-------Applicant’s Signau Date 0 OVNER’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 purpose^^^ investigation »d 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 Comuaission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in yom place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 _ \ \ 'O \ \ \\% \ \ \\ / 4 A y \ >>■ ; 1 : 3 ^ ! \ 0 //\ L. (22; -^.• •s '*>'"x '■'?•'/' V'' \ •:'? ' \ f? A (23) f3e; ' ( ( \ ^ i t o fi"*! - "*'ir>\ / / m y % \ /' / i -jOj A -27.65 M59*29'* X:’^ ■‘1 K^Sillsv. \v:v-;::v::\ t^i;: / / 33 N89"35'W . <;xro\'Cv/7P 3!3.5? i^fiStip eo*'‘, (43) ij. :■>'.33'35'* 2^‘:i2 ''■ / Zr-ll!-23-2l /.. v^ CO POINT RD / ) ' 40^iO 1 43 a( 35)7 40 6 L 40 1 sR; I'- -0 1.U H5.2 / ! / 1 "• 1 17 T A J201 • f. I /rr-1____L' ’ \! 4C R3.-3 /.• / S! ! ^ i P’- (1 :c '^s s&mirisim qp fi !i^,V -7 f^fB):0) fr j*, •'Cifh7 ■ 'U! ■■Izs u SMB D!¥E$EBM " 9) I AC) /4 --/ MM DATE 07/2A/96 BATCH 503PROD AOOR QMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SB 20-117-23 21 0012 0003B AOORCSS UNASSIOCO A J A J B SCHEFERS ALLEN J A JUDY B SCHEFERS 2511 112TH ST N BLOOMINGTON MN 55431 38 20-117-23 21 0015 02528 CASCO POINT RO marie a svAr«: MARIE A SVANS 2528 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COMTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST38 20-117-23 21 001300038 ADDRESS LM.LSSIGECD A J A J B SCHEFERS ALLEN J A JUOV B SCHEFERS 2511 112TH ST N BLOOMINGTON MN SE431 58 20-117-23 21 0017 02520 CASCO POINT RO THOMAS H FRAHM ETAL THOflAS H FRAHM 2520 CASCO POINT ROAO HAYZATA HIE 55391 REPORT NO. PimSAOl PASE 938 20-117-23 21 0014 02550 CASCO POINT RO T CHALUPSKY A 0 Y CHALUPSRV T CHALUPSKY A 0 Y CHALUPSRY 2530 CASCO POINT RO ORONO M4 55394 58 20-117-23 21 0022 00058 ADDRESS UNASSlGNEO VIL OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55359 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 58 20-117-23 21 0024 025B0 OUNHOOOY AVE JAG NAFUS JOHN A TUFUS 2580 OUMOOOY AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0034 02590 CASCO POINT RO JO»W T REOMONO JOHN T REDMOND 2495 CASCO POINT RO ORONO fM 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0043 02400 CASCO POINT RO PAUL J A NARY E RASTER PAUL J A NARY E RASTER 2400 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AOOR QMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR TOTAL BATCH 503 00009 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE INFORMATIW ^_IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BESTOF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OF OF MY RNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE ^ ■ r\. u. % XT"¥e^'k'ryt^ % I IVIII 'll I % ..-(935.0) (53-.») • # •• •• % --Owo) cnaB LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES ; Lot 2. Block 6. TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK o : denotes iron marker (937.9): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum ^ denotes proposed spot elevation, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the proposed location of a proposed house thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. - JJS.S j) = 9^f.S ?IS.f ^oc*^(A /HARnrOVE^ CALCLLAllU.N V^UKK^tltti ^<f4/ ^VV-9,.;TB aCK Z0;VE: (CIRCLE ONE) Co-753 75-250’ 250-500’ 500-1000 EXISTING HARDCONTR IN ZONT A. House ______________ Lingual X X .X WtdCi S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Ci:zzt S.F. C. D.-^vewav S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patio.Dcck F. Landscape C-ndcrlain Bv Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER I.N ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY .AREA IN ZONE A B X 100 S.F. S.F. ?c B PROPOSED HARDCOVER FN ZONT .A. House ______________ Lcng'Ji B. Garaae C. Drivcwav D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic Or Fabric G. Oihcr X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A O_ _ _ - B . WidOi% *« 9STO S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _S.F. S.F. A B 9SXO X 100 er*0 / HARDCOVER CALCLL/^ lO.N vv UKKanuc. A sTB aCKZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0*75’ Qsjsjj^ 250-500* 500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCO\TR IN ZONE / A. House X Lcn$:h X X X B. Cz:zzt C. Drivevvav X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio-Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B PROPOSED HARDCO^ LR IN ZONE A. House X Lcnj’J) X X X B. Garage X C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X S.F. Width S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F S.F S.F. S.F. • * # S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 % y/ o/ S.F Width S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /280 s? S.F. S.F. S.F. 3VO s?. S.F. F.Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic Or Fabric X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A "7 ^ J B 2.Z,^ o X 100 5*7^/ S.F. S.F. A B 2.2./ja A B • • HARDC0V1ER CALCULAllU.N J* .THaCK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-250’ C 250-500:^ 500-1000 ’ t » EXISTING HARDCONTR IN ZONT A. House X Linglfl X X X B. Circes C. Dnvr.vav X X D. Sidsvvalk X X E. Patio-Deck X X F.Landscape Underlain Bv P!a;stic Or Fabric X X X C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -r B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lenj'Ji X X X B. Garac: • • C. Dri^■e^vav /O/X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X .X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A /2/2 - B . Width a a X 100 Width fZ • •/2/2 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. s S.F. A B fo S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /2/2 :.F. /2^ ^SO X 100 iCS/7 S.F. 9.» % A B 1 ,.-(93|0) ^ P iei6/A«AC •••(94ao) EIEE] LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES ; Lot 2. Block 6. TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK o : .denotes iron morker (937,9): denotes existing spot elevation, mean seo level datum denotes proposed spot devotion, meon seo level datum Bearings shown ore based upon on assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove described property, and the proposed location of a proposed house thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroochments. '} ; rjs.o t 94(.o f)-7 Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. l . iiwi/fiitv I MviiliXto. Sr.r.i-yi Si% 4^2 (.iinjr.uk \\atuw‘ * I ni: \:uu\ 'To I"' S2) I hereby certify that this survey wns prepared by me or under my direct super ­ vision, and that 1 am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the Stale of Minnesota. Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 DATE 5-16-96 SCALE I lOB NO 96-170 ■ . ♦ -; -r^h}: ••’•■•.- Atf'rM U,- '.; •-. • •f-^Vtf^’rfi’*-i.',^^| ^c'n.'','•'/■ r*. •• m' >aw'.''V*‘ i^ ^*- ‘ ; 'i’; *''-*- amiS£g SbiH Citv of Spriii'J! I’.irk AR&A NOT included ZONE A1 (EL9361 RM11 1 mm.h m ^^o('0S(-A. UOCI'V- '•V., kN-f- wmm ili* ^^gswM mmmX / / rl\\ \ \ il 1 }>!\ -'o) _) \;.X V-.' .\ / /l»l .---r/GsrstAp^ \-^\ ' \ V f-0 .C20NE Aw' / flf(V ,-179/. fT.- 3u:-----------1 —.. Fagerness Point't; «# V' ZONE A ''O / N' 7 .r~^r. \ ORONO AO / / Pelican Point ^o- \ioose Inland 'Pnng >7" A % .3,7’ tWio; ■ u JJ I ♦J/ CSAH 15 wm m m7vsto ■ ■ZONE A v\ K hv I RM II j'l :n ZONE A N ■? X ZONE A V \ { \\vX\*■o ZONE A X\ C'^o:\ t \\ j \' \ \ if. s \ \ • N \ >♦ • \4 M o <. V- » \ \ .'• V V. vV \ /\ f 1. t)f/^ L. i\ vQascoi Pbiht s/^?2^a£S>S 200 ZONE A1 (EL. 935' MS.) )/ ZONE A2 ^ L.93I'mSL) CARMAN BAY' »-TN 5v>; lake MtNNETONKA I \ H 'j 1 i,-.\ . U U jpfiiiiv 1 Oil Lilf id CARMAN BAY AREA ^ ■'S ’S 10. (TS without impairing the intent and purpose of the Zoning Chapter. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments shall recommend such conditions related to the variance regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed building, structure, or use as it may deem advisable. The Council by unanimous action may waive reference to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. B, The Board shall hold hearings as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subd. 2. A notice shall be published in the official newspaper once at least ten days before the day of the hearing. Any party may appear at the hearing in person or by agent or attorney. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 150 feet of the property that requires the variance. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the nature shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this Subdivision has been made. C. Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the Council, the Board may adopt rules for the conduct of proceedings before it. Such rules may include provisions for the giving of oaths to witnesses and the filing of written briefs by the parties. The Board shall provide for a record of its proceedings which shall include the minutes of its meetings, its findings and the action taken on each matter heard by it, including A. In considering applications for variance, the Council shall consider the advice and recommendation of the Board and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. Before granting a variance, the Council shall hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this Chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means: 1. The property in question cannot be put^ to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. ORONO CC 265 (4-1-84) S 10.08 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this Chapter. 5. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrar" to the intent of the Zoning Code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 ORONO CC 266 (4-1-84) ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 15,19% ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Stephen Peterson, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, and William Stoddard Elizabeth Hawn was absent The following represented the City Staff Building aiul Zorting Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gatfron, and Recorder Sherr>' Frost Council Members Kelley and Goetten were present Chair Peterson called the meet.ng to order at 7 03 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#1) 7:00 P.M. - #2152 HANS T. HAGEN, 4750 WEST BRANCH ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVTSION Application has been withdrawn by applicant ACTION ITEMS (#2) #2131 LARRY KARKELA. 4149 HIGHWOOD ROAD - AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:03-7:18 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application was for an after-the-fact variance in the construction of a 65 5 s f upper level deck at the lakeshore side of the property. The deck extends from expanding a 3' walking deck The proposed structure is 21' in front of the average lakeshore setback line The existing lower level deck is 316'. This additional deck results in 11.5 s.f of additional hardcover. The applicant offered his apology for the after-the-fact construction. Peterson informed the applicant that the issue of average lakeshore setback was important. He noted letters received from neighbors on both sides in support of the project. Lindquist commented on the question of whether the deck would have been approved if a variance request was proposed prior to the construction. It was noted that the deck was stopped during construction and has stood incomplete since 1993. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996 (^2 - #2131 Larry Karkda - Continued) Smith asked if there were any extenuating circumstances which resulted in this deck being constructed Karkela said the existing lower level deck is accessed from a spiral staircase, which is cumbersome to travel down, and therefore, it is only used when he has a large number of guests fhe other option is to walk down a steep hill, which is also ditTicult when carrying food, etc The upper level had a walkway-type deck and was being expanded to allow its dining use Peterson asked about the 1984 permits w hen the walkway was approved but a deck was not part of the application Mabusth noted the inability of the 3' walkway deck to house a table with chairs Mabusth added that the applicant is willing to remove portions of the lower level deck andybr parking area to ofl'set hardcover increase There were no public comments Smith asked the applicant what he was w illing to remov e of the lower level deck in order to gain the upper level deck Karkela said he was open to w hat was necessary to keep the upper lev el deck but noted the complexity of removing sections of lower level deck because of location of footings and need to maintain stability of the upper deck Karkela added that the upper level deck was at the height of the roof lines of the neighboring homes The neighbors view to the west was said to be downward toward the lakeside. Trees separated his property from his other neighl»or at the east Stoddard asked if there were any guidelines for mitigation. Mabusth said that determination was made by the Commission and applicant adding that the applicant was aware of the structural excesses The applicant suggested removing comer pieces from the lower deck He was willing to remove more hardcover. Smith did not wish to take away from the driveway. Lindquist suggested removing the length of the deck to maintain the same edging on both decks The applicant said he would prefer to cut the corners off from a style standpoint. Karkela suggested removing 6‘ triangles of lower deck of 36 s f, which would result in a reduction of 11 s.f with the new deck Smith noted that the hardcover excess was already in existence prior to the new deck The applicant then suggested to remove the front 2-3' of deck to the footing area along with the triangular pieces from the tw o front comers. This would enable the applicant to maintain the current footings Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2131 based on the design as outlined above of removing decking to the supports and corners Schroeder inquired why the applicant waited from 1993 to 1996 to finish the project Karkela said he had personal matters which had required his attention Vote Ayes 5, Nays 1, Peterson, who historically votes against allowing any average lakeshore setback variances. MINUTFS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELDONJU1.Y 15, 1996 («) #2135 PAUL AND SUE HEDLUND/EDNA ALBEE EST*.TE, 1575 LONG LAKE BOULEVARD - 3'ARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:18-7:54 P.M. Members of the Edna Albcc family w’ere present, along m\h Burnet Realtor, Jeff Martineau. Gaffron recalled the application being before the Commission at their May meeting for a proposed addition to the structure to include removal of a detached garage, a new attached garage, an addition, a second story addition, and driveway There are concerns over hardcover excess, the placement of the garage to the street and side of the property, and the septic/sew er situation GalTron said the proposed buyers of the property, the Hcdlunds, are currently not pursuing the application, but the property owners would like to continue with the application in order to determine what can be done with the property. Gafiron continued in reporting on the hardcover, which will decrease from the existing 1195 s f to 1185 s f, rather than the originally proposed increase to 1280 s f Hardcover in the 75-250' rone will increase from 887 s f to 1467 s f. rather than to 1783 s f as originally proposed The net hardcover results in an increase from 2082 s f to 2652 s.f. rather than to 3063 s f as originally proposed This would be equivalent to the 25% allowed in the 75-250' setback The garage, now proposed at 34' from the side lot line, will now meet the required 30' side setback 1 his revised proposal moves the garage to a location 8' from the street property line and cut of the public right-of-way, rather than 1' from the line as originally proposed Gaffron said the applicants ask to rehab the house to no more than 2 bedrooms The existing septic tanks will be disconnected from the drainfield and a fully executed pumping contract from a licensed contractor will be supplied to the City. The owner will also draft and record a restrictive covenant on the chain of title for the property stating a 3rd bedroom would not be allowed until City sewer has been obtained and installed. The closet in the main floor den must be walled olT, which will incur the need for a building permit if it is rebuilt to create a third bedroom Gaffron noted that the existing septic tank may only need a plug for the outlet, which would result in a minimal cost. If no sealed tank is found when inspected, however, a new’ tank would be required, and might cost the applicant about $2000. Gaffron reviewed other issues of concern The second story addition would be located 49' from the lake, where 100' is required. A variance for an 8' street setback would be necessary, where 50' is required in the 2-acre zoning district. There would be an average lakeshore setback encroachment of 32' It was noted that even though almost all of the house is within the lakeshore setback, it would not encroach on the views enjoyed by the adjacent neighboring properties. The hardcover will stay w ithin the guideline for the overall hardcover. There is a bluff issue on the west side Some filling would result from the project and erosion control measures will be necessary during constniction MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996 (S3 - S2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund/Edna Albce Estate - Continued) Peterson responded to the report noting the positive changes that were made He reported that the number of lakeshore variances requested with this application is similar to that of other properties in the areas of Long Lake Boulevard and Casco Point, which do not meet zoning regulations Peterson said the City does not know when sewer will come to the area, and he has no problem with a holding tank Peterson also reported that he spoke with a neighboring property owiter to the east, Mr Bingham, who originally voiced concern over the location of the garage near the side lot line but is in favor of the revision. Peterson noted that the street setback is consistent with that of the neighborhood. The bluff issue was said to be initiated by the state and does not seem to present a problem in the aplication Peterson also commented that the average lakeshore setback is not a problem with this application due to the location of houses on nearby properties With these notations. Peterson said the plan was still quite aggressive with the confined building site Jeff Martineau responded that the applicant has addressed the size of the home, which Martineau says is consistent with the size of starter homes at 1092 s.f with a 534 s.f garage and 38 s f deck Schroeder commented that the house was small because it was bound by the size of the lot Peterson added if this was new construction, this home would not be allowed to be built Smith clarified that the second storv does not e.xtend over the master bedroom located on the main floor A future powder room area was noted on the floor plans but will not be completed at this time There are two baths currently on the first floor Smith suggested removing the wall to open up the den area so it could not be used as a bedroom The applicant commented that the wall may be load bearing Smith asked that it be made clear that the second story powder room and first floor bedroom not be used as such. Lindquist 'taid that would realistically happen when sewer comes to the property. Lindquist noted there was only a partial alternate site for septic. Gaffron agreed but noted it would not be needed when sewer came in The existing system will be converted to a holding tank and the drainfield eliminated Schroeder asked w hat would happen if it was found that sewer would not come for another five years Gaffron said the applicant may then wish to replace the current septic system. The applicant reported that it w as their intent to notify potential buyers of a 3rd bedroom possibility in the future Lindquist asked if it was the applicant's intent to follow thru with this proposal and rehabilitate the house and then sell it, or sell it now as-is Martineau said the intent was to have the capability of showing potential buyers what the property could be. Gaffron noted that this could result in a buyer presenting a totally different plan to the Commission at a future time. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996 (#3 - #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund/Edna Albee Estate - Continued) Smith asked what would happoi if sewering was put on hold, a new septic system was built using the alternate site, and it failed. Gatl'ron said the property owners would then have to resort to pumping. Peterson noted that there were many homes in Orono that pumped. Berg said the application was then based on what might be or what could be done. Martineau informed Berg that their goal was to modi^' the previous plan in order to present a variation to the Hedlund's and bring closure to the purchase if possible. The Hedlund's were sent the current package being reviewed Smith said if that failed, then a tangible plan would be possible for another buyer Martineau concurred noting it was a good use of the property. Schroeder asked what size holding tank was used and whether it could hold up to a 3 bedroom home. Martineau said they were under the assumption that the existing tank could be sealed and would work with Orono to determine if that was so It w as noted that the actual size of the tank was immaterial as whatever pumping schedule was required would have to be done Martineau said the pumping contractor would monitor the use of water to gain historic data and pump accordingly It was determined that the holding tank was not relevant to the number of bedrooms in the house Lindquist noted that the review was similar to that of a sketch plan rev iew Peterson said it verbally was a sketch plan review but in actuality an application. Martineau responded he felt there was a high probability that the Hediunds would move forward on the purchase Smith asked Gaffron if there w ere any concerns with the bluff Gaffron said a grading plan would be required to protect the site during construction The driveway revisions could possibly require retaining walls Other similar sites were noted in the area. It was determined that a grading plan would be required prior to the application going before the Council Lindquist noted that the hardcover was decreasing in the 0-75' setback and totals were similar to what now exists. The setbacks were also similar. He saw the plan as being viable. 1 i 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COxMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996 (#3 - #2135 Paul and Sue HedlundUdna Albee Estate - Continued) Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application #2135 with the understanding that a grading plan for the bluff area be presented prior to the application going before the Council A minimum of a 1500-2000 gallon tank would be required for pumping and the drainfield would be disconnected Variances for a street setback of 8’, hardcover, and average lakeshore setback were recommended Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 1, Peterson (to be consistent with his policy to vote against average lakeshore setback variances). Peterson noted the improvements made to the plan and said the proposal is consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood The application will be presented at the August 12 Council meeting. (#4) #2148 WAYNE M. HOLMES AND JACKIE DAHL, 1390 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:54-7:59 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicants was present Mabusth reported that their original proposal was to restore the majority of the house and add a new second story The applicants found that the foundation would not support the new second story and now propose to raze the structure and install a new residence. The property is located in the 1 acre zoning district The lot width is met as well as all setbacks. A lot area v ariance is required. No negative comments have been received from any neighboring property owners. Peterson saw the application in the light of a formality due to code restrictions. He did voice concern over a cistern on the property and asked that it's remov'al or abandonment be attached as a condition of the application. The existing well is to be relocated, and the existing well will need to be abandoned. There were no public comments. Mabusth noted that the applicant's have asked to have the application presented at the July 22 Council meeting. Peterson moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2148 w ith the addition of the removal of the cistern and existing well. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996 (#5) #2149 THERESA NORSTED, 2811 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARLANCE PUBLIC HEARING 7:59-8:17 P.M. T.ie Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The applicant was present Mabuith reported that the application requires a variance to the average lakeshore setback for the construction of an enclosed screen porch to the lakeside of the property. The porch would wrap around the house to a bay addition and be located 11' in front of the average lakeshore setback line No other variances would be required. During the review of the application, the applicant determined w hile speaking with neighbors that her plans for a detached garage may be impacted by her current imprpovement plan The applicant asks for direction regarding the porch and the possibility of a 20 ‘x22', 2-stall, garage consisting of440 s.f of hardcover. This would require the application be tabled to allow filing an amended application to include a garage The property is allowed 573 s f of additional structural coverage and 628 s.f in the 75-250’ zone. The applicant is asking the Commission what would be reasonable for the property. Peterson said, with the objection from the neighbors regarding any change to the average lakeshore setback, no 3-season porch would be allowed if the applicant also desired a garage Peterson suggested the possibility of a deck instead of a porch. Lindquist recommended staying within the average lakeshore setback Peterson said the neighbor would be able to see across a deck Mabusth noted that there was only 1' in which to work with before crossing the average lakeshore setback line Construction at grade level was suggested. Norsted said the original screen porch was made into a room. She said she would like to enjoy the lake and questioned whether a narrower porch with no wrap around was a possibility She questioned whether a garage is possible with the hardcover and asked clarification on standards to determine if she should keep the property. She also questioned whether a deck would have *o be at grade level or if it could be located on the second level. Schroeder asked if the neighbor, Mr Stem, received a variance for his remodel. It was noted that he received a 9" variance from applicant's side lot line but was within the average lakeshore setback. Stern and Norsted's lots are similar in size. The property on the other side is larger Mabusth noted that the garages on the adjoining properties were probably built in the I950's with no record of building permits being issued, and they are located less than 1' from Norsted’s property lines. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 19% (#5 - #2149 Theresa Norsted - Continued) Lindquist commented that he would be in favor of a second stoty deck if it did not encroach into the averaee iakeshore setback. Stem commented that he was strongly in fa\-or of maintaining the average Iakeshore setback. He did not wish to see a second story deck which he felt would obstruct his views. It was noted that trees would result in the same obstruction Stem replied that trees were within the rights of the applicant where a deck was not. Stem asked that the Cotimssion uphold the code Peterson said, although he usually voted against encroachment into the average Iakeshore setback, other members did not necessarily do so Mabusth added that the City does listen to the comments from neighbors Stoddard asked the Commission to give direction regarding the garage Lindquist said he would be in favor of a garage no nearer than 1-2' from the lot line which might require a fire wail. Lindquist said a side setback variance would probably gain approval Stoddard said a registered survey should be conducted During public comments, Susie Swanson noted that there was a garage on the site in recent times and questioned whether the felled garage could be grandfathered in. Peterson said the Commission does feel a property owner is entitled to a garage in this climate and would attempt to come to a resolve. Stem said he had no problem with a garage, only with obstruction of the views. Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2149. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0 (#6) #2150 KENT AND SUSAN SWANSON, 3229B CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:17-8:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicants .verc present 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PEANNING COMMISSION NUNUTES OT m ^ HELD ON JULY 15. 1996 (»6 - #2150 Kent and Susan Swanson - ContinuM)(#6 - Ncni iwiu --------- 27 s f kitchen expansion addition ^ j,elow deck A second addition be no reduction tn hardcover as a p e^sim hardcover and upper level involves a kitchen expansion of -7 s t ^ ^^ 250’ setback One deck One addition is within ' ukeshore back and the other at 33 ’. The addition would be 49’m front of t addition is proposed 65 ’ to the lake. -'ved no «..s from .he neighbors. «.d .here is no visual impact from the proposalimpdtl Iiv/iii I.I.’W — Stoddard questioned whether both a ^ changes He continued by noti^ i imily. Peterson said there ’ P'“ . ^iSring a variance, the reductions made, and the location of the home c'ose to 5,„,cn^e ,he problem arises when there are creation of a different type of „pUed that the se.b.ck was at 50' whCT «‘".;:'cod: ». .h,. .ime. Mabus,h added that the majority of the home was also out of the 0-75' setback.nomc — u tar.hitect was being used who originally designed the Smith was informed that the same improvements for the residence in the early 1980 s and l. . ___ Avm S of the average lakeshore setbackOl 11*^ avviw,«5>' • The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicanis, along with their architect, were present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUI.Y 15, 1906 (#7 - #2151 John and Janice Hurd - Continued) Mabusth reported liiat the application was for hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances to reconstruct a new residence after razing the existing residence There is a 20' encroachment by the existing house into the average lakeshore setback and is proposed at 25’ with an upper level screen porch There is a minor excess of hardcover in the 75-250* zone resulting from hardcover in landscaping underlaid with plastic The 7% excess in hardcover in the 250-500% zone results from the driveway, turnaround, and landscaping underlaid with plastic. Mabusth said she has received 3 letters from neighbors voicing concerns with turther visual impact with the mass of the house and the leapfrogging of construction closer to lake The neighbors would like to see the home kept behind the average lakeshore setback. The Hurd’s architect, Mr. Combs, said the original structure has been remodeled 4 or 5 times. The existing foundation is unable to support further remodeling. Combs presented drawings to show the relationship of the proposed home to the neighboring homes and the site lines Combs said the garage, parking, and play area, which is highly used, will be pulled into the lot to create a safer play area and enable the residents to drive out onto Casco Point Road The plan calls for the use of the existing building site Combs said the applicants were sensitive to the average lakeshore setback and impacting of any views by maintaining this building site and angling of the home to better the impact The home is also located in the mid-section of the lot so as not to infringe on the views Combs said most existing views are obstructed by trees Combs superimposed a drawnng of the proposal over the existing to show that the new residence would be located in the same sweep line He said it was also his intent to work within the existing topography. Peterson said the concern is that the proposed structure gives a larger appearance to the neighbors He noted that the 675 s f hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback and 7.3% in the 250-500' setback is minor when comparing the size of the home to the lot. Mabusth a.sked is there a need to grant a hardcover variance'^ Peterson added that with the razing of the existing home, the Commission views the proposal as new construction. Council Member Kelley asked the Commission to review the boat house on the property. Peterson acknowledged with new construction, a boat house may not be allowed. This then results in the existing boat house becoming an issue The code calls for an existing boat house repair to be limited to board by board maintenance Peterson noted that this particular boat house was in excellent condition MINUTES OF THE Oa' 3NO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996 (#7 - #2151 John and Janice Hurd - Continued) During public comments, neighbor on the south side, Ron Grundeen, said his concern was with a second aory Peterson informed Grundeen that his views will be changed regardless of what is built on this property Grundeen said he w ould like to maintain the views he now enjoys The obstruction of tree foliage was noted during the summer months Lindquist reviewed the location of the existii^ residence at 15’ in front of the average setback and a proposed 24' to the enclosed porch This does not include the deck at 22'. Neighbor, Todd Theilmann, commented that the foliage was not an issue but was concerned over a "leap frog" affect with structures moving forward He acknowledged that the placement of the garage and play area more into the lot would assist in alleviating an unsafe condition. Peterson commented that Casco Point neighborhood had many average lakeshore setback variances and saw it only increasing with more intensive building This particular application becomes a bigger issue with the element of new construction Peterson noted the possibility of the need to remove the boat house on the property. John Hurd said no mention had been made of the boat house during the designing of the house He said he placed stakes showing the new home construction which he feels is less offensive from a view impact standpoint than the current residence Hurd said the home now has 3 sub basements, and it is their intent to build the huine as hould be rather than add on a further remodeling addition, which would be a hardshi, ,aid the boat house should not be part of the consideration and asked if there was any mention of boat house removal in the cede Peterson said the boat house becomes an issue when principal structure is to be removed and new improvements involve variances Bill Miller. 2691 Casco Point Road, reported that the Hurd's responded to the neighbors' concern of visual impact by architecturally repositioning the home and staking out to show the lesser impact He disagreed with Peterson’s assessment that the boat house would have to be eliminated. The code allows for boat houses to be upgraded through the variance procedure as he had completed for his property The boat house is not to be improved. Miller said the Hurd's hardship is in the need to raze the home but the possibility of removal of the boat house only increases the value of their home presenting an inordinate amount of hardship upon the Hurd's. Peterson responded that in new construction, this is the time the City has to rectify past mistakes that are grandfathered in. He noted other agencies also do not allow such boat houses. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996 (#7 - #2151 John and Janice Hurd - Continued) Schroeder acknowledged that the Commission docs have the authority to allow the boat: house to stay, but this proposal deems the property new construction requiring variances, which does raise the issue of the boat house Schroeder said the people w ho live on Casco Point should be most concerned with the dev elopment of the area Hurd responded that this lot is one of the best in Casco Point and remodeling the existing residence would create a hardship. Theilmann said he had suggested the staking. It is his opinion that the second story of the proposed home would eliminate the views for the neighbors Stoddard asked the Hurds what their objection would be in complying to the average lakeshore setback Cohen said it was their intent to get back what they had with the construction and not to further disturb the land Stoddard said he also lives on the lake and is in favor of the Hurd's boat house, but sees the average lakeshore setback as an issue. Peterson acknowledged that the hardcover was a mute point and the concerns were the average lakeshore setback and the boat house Lindquist said any new construction would have to meet the average lakeshore setback There were no additional public comments. Combs said the home could be moved back, but the Hurds would like to maintain the same views. Mabusth noted that the new construction was being located closer to the Grundecn property. She said she had made mention of the boat house issue to Mr. Combs when the applicant was hied. Lindquist asked the applicants if it was their desire to table the application or noted the possibility of denial unless the residence was placed behind the average lakeshore setback The Hurds asked that the application be tabled. Lindqui.t moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2151. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15. 1996 (#S) #2153 BEN YOUNG, 3106 SIXTH AVTNUE NORTH - VARIANCE • PUBLIC HEARING 9:04-9:08 P.M. The AflBdavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicant was present Mabusth reported that the application was for an oversized detached accessory structure for a property located on the south side of County Road 6 just w est of the intersection of Old Crystal Bay Road and Sixth Avenue North The structure meets the size limitation for a property of 3 92 acres. The variance required involv es the structure being placed 15'm front of the line of the residence Peterson commented that the issue was not with the proposal but a matter of technicality with the code. Young was asked what color the structure would be Young said it would match the color of the home and be of a lapsiding. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2153 It was determined that no landscaping would be required Mabusth asked that the ground cover be restored. Smith was informed that the structure would be used to house vehicles and equipment and used for storage. Young noted the 6' height of his current garage door does not allow for parking of his truck. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#9) #2154 JOHN 0*SULLIVAN/ERWIN SMITH, 2380 SHADV'WOOD ROAD - PROPOSED REZONING/COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN The Applicants. John O'Sullivan and Erwin Smith, were present, along with Consultants, Rob Thompson and Jim Coen Gaffron noted the addendum to the proposal which requires no site plan review at this time but only review of the rezoning issue The property in question is being proposed for rezoning from the LR-IC district to B-5, which requires 20,000 s f lot area. The proposal is for a bank building with a drive-up teller area and a two-story retail/oflfice building. A portion of Nav arre Lane has already been vacated, and applicants will propose that the remainder be vacated A stormwater holding pond is to be constructed. Parking is also being addressed MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15. 19% (#9 - #3154 John O’Sullivan/Erwin Smith - Continued) Gaffron said the issue is whether the property should be rezoned from residential to commercial There is B-1 zoning on two sides of the property The northern side is an existing 1/2 acre residential neighborhood On the east side is an outlot containing a wetland area which is a density credit for the Lafayette Ridge neighborhood The site itself consists of 4 tax parcels, portions of which are within the 1000' lakeshore setback. Hardcover regulations allow for 35% coverage over these portions of the property GaRron reported that the Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to encourage private development in the Navarre area but to not adversely affect the neighboring property. Woodland areas are to be maintained also The plan calls for neighboring retail and professional services to be available Gaffron reported that there is pressure on Orono and other cities to provide affordable hou.sing and questioned whether this property might meet such a need In reviewing the property, Gaffron said it could hold three 1/2 acre single family residences With its proximity to the neighboring businesses, other options could be three 2-unit duplexes or M-6 density' housing Gaffron asked that the Commission make their considerations in the scheme of enhancing the Navarre area and in consideration of the area as a w hole A study was begun in 1987 to rev iew the Navarre area Business owners were not interested in pursuing any changes at that time Peterson brought attention to the public information hearings conducted by O'Sullivan on the project. Peterson attended one of the meetings and noted favorable input from those in attendance Peterson noted only one variance appeared to be required for this proposal. However, the issue of lezuiiiug is serious and has rarely been changed in the history of the City. Peterson continued that if such rezoning was done, this is is a logical location but use is a different matter altogether The comments Peterson heard at the meetings favored the rezoning The neighbors were said to view the proposal as a viable option. Stoddard said he atiended both meetings and saw overwhelming support for the proposal. He noted that something needs to happen with the vacated church property adding that the B-5 zoning was a less stringent application As to the housing possibility, Stoddard said he understands the need but noted having a proposal at hand from a local businessman. Stoddard did acknowledee the need for review of a Navarre beautificationw plan or revitalization. Peterson responded that the business owners showed no interest when presented with such an idea. He added that the City would not proceed without that interest from the local businesses MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15. 19% (#9 - *^2154 John O'Sullivan/Eruin Smith - Continued) Peterson said he would not have envisioned changing the zoning one year ago but now views it differently, noting a recent proposal lurther south on Shadvwood for a minor rezoning from residential to commercial for an automotive graphics business He suggested the two sites be considered together There are two residential lots combined with the lot that was considered for the auto graphics site Berg said she did not believe the Commission would want to tie the two properties together Goetten said the back lots were zoned residential, and the applicants had proposed rezoning Goetten said the Council wanted to look at all of Navarre before making any changes In discussing whether to look at Navarre as a whole or property by property, Lindquist said it could not alt he dr»ne at once Lindquist saw the need tor developers to make an>lhing happen and rezoning alone would not accomplish anything Berg cited an example in Minneapolis of a neighborhood revitalization She said the business owners had to be convinced to become involved by offering incentives Mabusth later noted in the meeting that the business owners back in 1987 were oflered low interest loans but still had no interest Berg acknowledged O'Sullivan's pride in his property and saw the proposal as an improvement She also saw the need to look at the highest and best use of the property and w as not convinced residential would be the answer. She noted the neighbors were pleased with the proposal at hand Mabusth asked for a reason w hy the property was not suitable for housing. Berg said it was close to an intersection and not large enough to attract a developer Peterson said he thought the neighbors would prefer a buffer such as a church but that was not voiced Lindquist asked about petitions for and against the project. O'Sullivan noted that petitions were presented at both information meetings as w ell as located in his store Of all the signatures, he has only received one in opposition, and that person lives tarther away from the site O'Sullivan said he has heard no opposition Peterson acknowledged the change of heart from those neighboring property ow ners in this application as compared to the previous application for a shelter for this property O'Sullivan also questioned the affordability of land for moderate housing on the site It was noted that the public was not notified of this sketch plan review The next door neighbor to this property, John Erickson, was said to not oppose or voice positively for this proposal. 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM^^SSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996 (#9 - #2154 John O’SullivanErvvin Smith - Continued) Schroeder asked the Council members present if there w^s any long term plan for Navwe. Goetten responded that the original thoughts of planning were dropped after no interest was shown It is her hope that 0’Sulli\ an's other project would encourage other business owners to take part in re\itali2ing the area Schroeder reiterated that there was no grand plan en%isioning a movement to de\ elope a systematic plan for the area Kelle>' said the area will probably not compete with neighboring city areas and saw a need to view it differently Goetten acknowledged that the City has never done any TIF programs Kelley agreed that unless the business owners have an vested interest, any improvements would be for naught Berg added that there were alot of absentee ow nership properties within Navarre Goetten said it w as her hope if the new project w as successful that it would energize the area Gafffon said plans considered but not adopted in the 1988 review included parking to be located in front of the buildings with some multi-family and institutional facilities as well as single and duplexes to the w est Peterson suggested a sub-committee review the area but would not apply to this particular application He saw the proposed commercial development as an excellent choice over multiple housing options He asked other Commission members if the plan w as appropriate for the site Erwin Smith noted difficulty in gaining upgrades in the buildings in the area. O'Sullivan added that with the new restaurant and other buildings, there will be improvements made elsewhere. Coen noted tnat the original O'Sullivans had been refaced Schroeder acknowledged O'Sullivan as a driving force to revitalizing the area O'Sullivan did sec the project as a calJyst for others when new business is brought to the area Regarding rezoning, O'Sullivan commented that the church has been there for many years, and it may be hard for others to env ision anvihing else He said the project at hand makes sense with the neighborhood and its municipal parking in creating a natural flow O'Sullivan said their purchase option for the church property expires at the end of July, and only a short extension will be allowed He said no developer or business will commit to a project without assurances that rezoning will happen Banks have shown interest in becoming a tenant but will not progress further without the rezoning. O'Sullivan said, once the rezoning issue is resolved, the project can be conformed to the code requirements He saw possibilities of clinics, light retail, bank, gift and greeting shops He noted there would be no high intensive use of the property such as video or liquor stores. O'Sullivan said bufter zones would be created. During a meeting, neighbors asked how the property would be accessed and deliveries made Reaction was favorable tr ’/a: pl.'ins. Peterson noted that the majority of those attending walked to the meetings 0'5 "hv v said he has spoken with 80% of the business owners and all voiced favorable opl.iior.s of the project. They also saw no conflicting usage. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15. 1996 (#9 - #2154 John O’Sullivan.'Ensin Smith - Continued) O’Sullivan said he cannot move any farther forward without the rezoning. He acknowledged that other dev'elopers w'ould come forward at some future point but noted the comprdicnsive plan's call for encouragement of pri\ ate unification and coordinated projects O’Sullivan said the property could remain as it is, the existing structure could be used, or tax*subsidized housing is a possibility. He asked that with the purchase option, the plan of presentation before the Planning Commission and Council in August be upheld. Schroeder asked what studies were done to see if such a project '.vas viable. O'Sullivan said he stood on the comer and viewed the situation He noted that since the proposal, others have approached him with interest in the project. Coen added that a cash flow review showed favorable results Lindquist asked if O’Sullivan w ould require a certain amount of the building to have lease commitments prior to building O'Sullivan said he would look at 70-80% Berg said leases would have to be the length of the mortgage It was noted that of the 23,000 s.f size, 19,000 would be for office and retail use. O'Sullivan said he has spoken with the Engineer, Shawn Gustafson, who said the plan appears to be a good use and feasible from an engineering standpoint. The engineering issues wilt be addressed. In obtaining Commission viewpoints, Stoddard saw the plan as a good buffer to the residential area. Lindquist said he was in favor of the project Peterson saw the project and rezoning as appropriate and as a catalyst for the Navarre area Smith said she was okay with the plan She did not see it as the perfect buffer: though acknowledged, there may not be a perfect solution Smith asked why B-5 was considered. Gaffron reviewed the uses in the business districts noting the fit of the B-5 uses with the area. B-l had the most uses B-3 requires a 2-acre minimum lot size and accommodates shopping centers and multiple buildings. B-4 provided for professional and office but without any retail B-5 allows for such uses as municipal, office, clinics, art stores, office supply, real estate, barber shops, photo stores, hobby and gift, antiques. libraries, pet store, and other miscellaneous retail Other B-5 areas in the City are to the w est end of Navarre, with a furniture store, a non-conforming gas station, a Dairy' Queen, a veterinarian office, an auto parts store, and office space. Schroeder said he liked the look of the project and asked for direction on how rezoning process occurs. Gaffron reviewed the process. Schroeder asked that traffic flow improvements be considered and other businesses be encouraged to work with the City for revitalizing the area MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996 (#9 - #2154 John O'Sullivan/Erwin Smith - Continued) Kelley said he was concerned w ith the time frame for the project in light of the need for rezoning Goetten agreed that a month's time was probably not enough A scheduled public hearing will be held at the August 19 Planning Commission Meeting Peterson asked that signs be posted on the comer of the proposed project calling attention to the possible zoning to B-5 Berg suggested the notification be extended as far as Lydiard and Kelly. Smith asked that neighborhood notification go be>'ond the last application Coen said 300 notices were sent for their first proposal and the Navarre vacation. 600 notices were sent for the recent meetings Mabusth said a list can be obtained from the County. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#10) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 8, 1996 Peterson attended the July 8 Council Meeting and informed the Planning Commission regarding the outcome of the agenda items. (#I 1) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 17, 1996. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. Lindquist will attend the August 12 meeting of the Council ADJOURNMENT Berg moved, Schroeder seconded, to adjourn at 10;23 p.m Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. Stephen Peterson, Chair Person A Retail Image MaBagememt Croup Sixty South Sixth Street Suite 2600 Minueapolii Minne$ota y^40Z>4444 Phone 61 l*}4i*9^oi Fax 6iZ»^42*9-^0 iAf‘ August 5,1996 AUG 6 »96 City of Orono Building Permit Division Orono. MN Jean and/or Mike; We are withdrawing our application for a building permit and City approval to build an improved homesite at 3115 North Shore Drive. After lengthy discussion with adjoining property owners, we are unable to come to agreement regarding the type of home we had planned to build. Please accept this letter as cancellation of our application and cancellation of our intent to purchase the property at 3115 North Shore Drive, Wayzata, MN 55391. It is our understanding that the City of Orono w ill refund any unused application fees. We would like any remaing application fee dollars refunded to: Michael McE-nany 4680 Manitou Road Excelsior. MN 55331 If you have any additional questions regarding our intentions, please do not hesitate to call either Michael McEnany at 471-0089 or Debbie W'illiamson at 342-9674. We appreciate the work you have done to date regarding our application. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to resolve this matter. Sincerely, C-i t c-C ^ A - ') -y I ^ Debbie Williamson Michael McEnany cc: Richard Olson Amc / Elena