Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 5468CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5468 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-305 AND 78-1279 FILE NO. 05-3136 WHEREAS, Troy R. Broitzman, a single person, (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1860 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 3 and 3A, Auditor's Subdivision No. 356, Hennepin County, Minnesota; also known as PINS No. 10-117-23 42 0004 (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the owner has made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-305 and 78-1279 to allow construction of a new single family residence on a lot 1.90 acres in area and 133 feet in width where 2.0 acres in area and 200 feet width are normally required, and to allow such construction to encroach past the defined `average lakeshore setback line' where no encroachment is normally allowed; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 15, 2005, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; the application and ongoing revisions to it were subsequently reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 19, 2005; by the City Council on September 26 and October 10, 2005; again by the Planning Commission on February 21, 2006 and further by the City Council on March 13, April 10, April 24, May 8, and May 22 2006, at which times further public comments were accepted. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #05-3136. Page 1 of 6 0 0 t CITY of ORONO ti RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 468 `9kES804 NO. 5 2. The property is located in the LR-lA One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, which requires minimum lot area of 2.0 acres and minimum lot width of 200'. The lot contains 1.90 acres in area, and is 133' feet in defined width. 3. The applicant has proposed to construct a home that encroaches past the average lakeshore setback line in order to minimize impacts on neighboring developed residential properties. 4. The Orono Planning Commission last reviewed this application at a public hearing held on February 21, 2006 and on a vote of 6-0 recommended approval of the area/width and average setback variances subject to provision of suitable landscaping and grading plans that would preserve as many existing trees on the site as possible and mitigate sightline views for the neighboring properties. 5. Subsequent reviews by the City Council resulted in a series of plan revisions that • culminated in the plans attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A, B and C which the City Council finds conditionally acceptable based on the following findings: a) The property contains an existing residence structure and detached garage. b) The property is provided with municipal sewer. c) The lot area of 1.90 acres and width of 133' is sufficient to allow construction of a new residence on the site, where a residence has previously existed for many years, without the need for any variances with the exception of an average lakeshore setback variance. d) Applicant has submitted building plans dated May 17, 2006 as well as a site grading and drainage plan that confirm a new residence and attached garage meeting all setback, hardcover, lot coverage, height and other standards ofthe LR -1 A District (with the exception of an average lakeshore setback variance) can be constructed on the property. e) There is no land available for acquisition by the applicant to bring the lot into conformity. f) Granting of an average lakeshore setback variance is supported by the following findings: Page 2 of 6 ! CITY of ORONO ti RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL `9kES80NO. 5 A t2 1) Applicant has located the house so that its greatest encroachment past the standard average setback line as defined by the two adjacent lakeshore homes (1910 Heritage Drive to the east, 1950 Heritage Drive to the west) is approximately 70 feet. However, the home is located so that it does not encroach past a re -defined average lakeshore setback line as defined by the immediately adjacent home to the east, and the second adjacent home to the west (1900 Shoreline Drive). 2) The basis for this re -defined average setback line is that the residence at 1950 Heritage Drive is located approximately 200' further back from the lakeshore than the neighboring homes along Shoreline Drive, being the anomaly among lakeshore lots in the neighborhood. Further, the owners of 1910 Heritage Drive and 1950 Heritage Drive have indicated that the proposed encroachment of 70 feet results in a new home location that has the least visual impacts and most minimizes negative impacts as compared to all other possible new home locations on the property, and helps to maintain open space in the immediate neighborhood. g) The location and scale of the proposed residence is such that appropriate vegetative screening should be established to soften the impacts of the size and location of the proposed home. The applicant has provided a landscaping plan that is appropriate to accomplish this purpose. h) The applicant has provided a grading and drainage plan that with minor revisions is acceptable to the City Engineer. i) The Council finds that the negative neighborhood impacts of establishing a new driveway to Heritage Drive outweigh the degree of public safety improvement that could be gained by removing the existing County Road 15 driveway access. The Council finds that it would be appropriate to require that the existing driveway access be retained and that no access to Heritage Drive be allowed. The Council finds that new grading and drainage plans directing drainage to the front of the property should be developed, and that a new landscape plan incorporating a number of tress lining the existing driveway should be developed, and finds that these conditions are necessary . to mitigate the impacts of the area, width and average setback variances. Page 3 of 6 0 0 g CITY of ORONO ti RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL S�I0 NO. 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 7. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant and owner, but are necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; are necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-305 and 78-1279 to allow construction of a new single family residence on a lot 1.90 acre in area and 133 feet in width where 2.0 acres in area and 200 feet width are normally required, and to allow such construction to encroach past the defined `average lakeshore setback line' where no encroachment is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the building plans dated May 17, 2006 submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A; on the site plan and grading plan dated June 6, 2006 submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B; and the landscaping plan by TMG (undated) submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this resolution as Exhibit C; subject to the revisions recommended by the City Engineer in the memo dated June 5, 2006. Any amendments to the above noted plans which are not in conformity with City codes or not in keeping with the provisions of this Resolution will require further City Council review. 2. All trees and shrubs shown on the approved landscaping plan (Exhibit C) shall be in place prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new home. This includes any trees depicted on Exhibit C that are intended to remain but which are severely damaged or destroyed as a result of construction activities. Page 4 of 6 4 'A CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5468 3. The final plans submitted for building permit approval shall be in conformity with the design features, elements and materials as depicted in Exhibit A, and any substantial changes in the plans (as determined by City staffl will require further review by the City Council. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (May 22, 2007). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicant and the applicant's heirs, successors and assigns, 40 hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 22nd day of May, 2006. ATTEST: i Barbara Peterson,Mayor Page 5 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5 46 8 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on thit)L day of (,, , 2006 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. 4 V° 1JACC�UELYN'I�A. YOUNG STATE OF MINNESOTA Notaryr��iic-Minnesota • My Corrxni3alar ExFesa Jan 31, 2010 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN iThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this'' "day of +� , 2006 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. .r RACHEL DODGE/✓�G -' NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTAESOTA My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2010 Notary Public • STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this 7-7 day of jofte— , 2006 by Troy R. Broitzman, a single person. DENISE M. LESKINEN NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA 'U My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2010 Notary Public Page 6 of 6 9 0 BLAKEI """ Broitzman Residence All !1504/1[1 wwm'. Orono, MN �+.. $ I AICIITEET91E �... yl � 0 BLAKEI """ Broitzman Residence 0 ��,LICIITECT1lE I _ r.+ +�wro I I AICIITEET91E �... mlWk � 0 _-. , �,„ Broitzman Residence 0 I _ r.+ +�wro 6I AICIITEET91E u.. Orono, MN ml Cy z BLAKE �,„ Broitzman Residence —c All ASSOCIATESma I _ r.+ +�wro 6I AICIITEET91E u.. Orono, MN ml _ z Broitzman Residence `� . Da- oro40.MN 00 1°111111 XoI10111dsmOD xoq ION W13S'NOLRLE XON&N .0-,L=.OLjL3jV3S R wNdld 13/131 213ddn € 15 IMM30 w o f 09 0 � moms of H3do Pd a A CD MOIZMUISNOD 2103 ION U'()S 8 LO L XOSddV V0NVN3A 39SBVI IJ 13S ZO£ L'XOHddV 39VNV9 7410SMOEEE XOi1my .0.L-.OL/137V3S p Ndld 13A31 NIdW (D 1 M0I1MULSNOD XOJ Zom 0 0 a 0 0 ld �S 5L£ N31NtlH33W 1� OS'NLIZ66£ )(OHddV .Q L�.OL/131V35 Ndld 13A31 Z13M01 w � "1 o -SIBS u c3i .A co 1?, a\ •-1' 7b b U L1 A w N a ro y't••• -••] r Mc �cy rc.1 O �J 0. Y h IL-1 " b 0.^ b VJ VI 0 /"� CD O N N O p O iii' [OY W 00 Cn R tri C�7 0 C+7 ° C+7 �• �l1 F^i W C+7 < C�7 C�7 0 •Ci 1+1 0 m .7 a r-•' p 5 ti y <° ="c5n v•❑� a�rn cbo °,Srn .Ca 1��� 5.�7 S(yo .C�Sw �a I�J�,�S .�J� G.�aC� A o �° Q o o v�c�o cn' cno c�� rncn� �p �w"�p �� E. via m cn5 rn� cn m t7 0-: D 5 o a '''1 �,b ° tli Cii o Cn tom m to o h9b til a [x1 1z7� 5 CA°O th F o]oo co 0 5 ce C7�s C7 C7. Gm C7C7n C7o dam, Cy p:C7� t75 ro �P co ❑ c; a wce `<Go� Sr S. y p..o..c'o1..Q..T❑..�... }r1 o y co a° 5 O ce o rn,, 'C', b o m_ co _� 7 d FL aaip coO Ina o`° c ai aCJ w wabD` y �('T1um rn ca coo �' ? •'G (ro Z o N o 0 o n S. �a °° 5 cJ' m C mit 1<y ' o cr°•bb 5� < cu a" o c. b y c� - co a H < a P a; `C .� H o m co m o ❑ d olw cu Q'�o4° co 5 S•`D c p] r(op {g{uui [o a a- a �f •�y T a• p A F A "^. y G a b co oy C R• y C v' 2. r"II� N� N N N� :n •-• Y '_' � d W �'..-+ ° m p +D O �O"� }�j O ry •O b 0 m Q '�1" i 1y m 6' �ii .y b a O��' •-1 f3. O O N N O O C) N? .� O O N P. O O 00 O O 00 �+•• N^v O C (A >! v°i •p' N <m•. -O+1 "� `G 7i �j' pf ° (9 0.4 p (9 •t N • O O r1 '.•• �' 7 •°p a N H (9 y •�. G1 O O Q\ O1 p ONO b �' .ja'P. ,..• m " p N V] m a 'Q O �G S y 1.2211 .+ N CA N ° W O O �aN p-P,y C8 ii 1"h ",O, W*a P•� O r+ rr O O�00 O� NOp-W OW O�mO� < lOn t(IU S p �o = o 0 o x m rtb o �� �.. y o ion y y o a,y rn� oo< N c(1❑ M co o �• i� to O O •=i ,Qm_.G ^ X a W �• y' < .I.-' Lam* o S o O y `� O (o O p �O' 0.O O° O C O y < ••��j m ,rt co o O fD ''! Q y r- cOi v^, �•, y o �• �• Iv o y i (A •, r* vl ., �-h a. p y a• o to wyo `X'c^°P;.�Xby��ia5va�o_o`o' f %y�o a�cr'�cboxo N Q w 5' m .o IIY moa a� ❑a• c� < �O� n�P a O K l.11 H n fl O `� (B n t• fn a p fn n�S L]. y CA . �n Y m O y p' rPVV b O y rn `C m O' p •+1 P.� '0 p',t" aC [p o -r N a vl NJ. '• ' .(P._, 0. y Q• O O (p O ^n: tf O A Yo yP. ay rto a;.. S. .�y ❑ �iQoEq1 ji�r Cooc❑�o'Qop1 S�'i55a°s CLran] w • ❑<cr•' a<,W cm°t • ,axoo„oAy Pm to o'0 oo5 a wp.” ? b 5 „rt�°O°': ��o❑ �ti'pcZ+,• �aaaQgoQoacQtl Pw1� 5Cc)(Q-s% Ofc° REMP �oxor, C o ti 'Uwmo❑� oo'a' � ce M:3��yeb C - o "wevC,°=_ :""a o (° w�031.O F°° ^�MRl�p 95 o p opZ H w apo x o Qo P n oS °? �< pa �- a m aCD � �•�-a in p+ cc'oo�bd o°9 I5 p c<o oc5o a ,r m 5�ba. O• y' O m b T'� °I O G N p �• '•O •l (D •t fA %C' N• m m" O CJ' `•C O m .•+ O O .�• r .r (9 ,y Y Q n Q (o R' y N ON c„lo P.M �., �� mo •` n� �• 00 o'(B7�o �° c� ° b < a C -, �O y h C ./ O y .S �� O y '�� (D [i O O 7 C1 A y �j R 0. co a O �'. N O ,0.1 O A b .•` O C N O P. a N c' SacDIW" �a o❑.r(5o� �'m'7via �. coo (5, om (s a n P .,o coo ro^I o cox�A °mac ""Ran ° p P co O o n 5 ql (ao ° < m �. oa o ar < `�° '* ie C 1e °, < • � w cob O P CD i7 °' O ' O ° 1 LA CD ov a o' v o .� o 0 o a C, o 5 y w a w a o p' ° �T �?to y N Vyi O '� O a O ° p _ ° (o a � Z. 0o O 'O P. of cdo w 9 co Q oa a < cb n m 1 T, •ON pt Q O C r•"•�'1 �, 1 J �s 1 +� E gee R :11 81 goo bd > >> m ° � T mQ10 1 1. ,�• io x m \ v SI o Q n 7 � n •• ``Jq&�„ t \1 N ITA Vl .- ,�,= =sem./. •�' ,� �, / t� Ask \ o Ef YYY O ` o M 1 9 \ \ O O 41 a� w� w En 00 ,- o, N x 00 tA NO Z04 CD O � � \\\•• ' / oho° � � a Qn \:.. . r O ro O C ror trJ ��ycO+1 e" y r � by c C." co 0 r -l - N cii W Q. CD (D IL M CA c") 0) M m 0 .P E Z 0 EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION NO. 5 4 6 8 02, Xi - 11 9. Cc -11, rMIL ID IN Eq Er 3 U2 0 M RESOLUTION# 5468 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) CITY OF ORONO ) I, Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on Mav 22, 2006 , and that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this lst day of June , 2006. �,, ;�,;� .:: „�"`"�`� ��"�/ . � �.. G/ ��. „+ ��: r ' ,;;�' � Linda S. Vee, City Clerk ,;:. ;� ,-': :,3� �� ;�� , � ,�,� s� .+.ri .-j.,^ t4j��s {♦ . 1� �? ~�� f -�=1::"' �' (S��AL) :� ,� , � ;.- f :.y t _�- ��. �: , � ;-:s•� +,. �'_ ,. >;. � y�.. �.S.M p �� 'Aa r , � ' � ' ' � r u� � ��I�� �C J�'�.� � � Doc No 4290863 08/07/2006 11:00 AM Certified filed and or recorded on above date: Office of the Registrar of Titles Hennepin County, Minnesota Michael H. Cunniff, Registrar of Titles TranslD 244241 Deputy 001 New cert Cert Fees 1160382 $1.50 AF $10.50 STATEFEE $34.00 TDOCFEE $0.00 TSUR $46.00 Total 1v� �� , ��� ����. � � * . � MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 22, 2006 7:00 o'clock pm. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. #OS-3136 TROY BROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINE DRIVE—VARIANCE— RESOLUTION NO. 5468 Gaffron explained that the applicant had submitted a new grading plan, new landscaping plan and new building plans and elevations since the May 8 meeting. The plans continue to have the driveway accessing to Heritage Drive,but show an attempt to direct drainage to the front. Gaffron indicated that the applicant requests final approval for the lot area,width, and average setback variances. The changes to the house plans included the length of the garage wing had been shortened approximately 6 feet,the bonus room above the westerly half of the garage wing had been eliminated,reducing the bulk of the structure above the garage area, and the basement theater had been lengthened while the storage below the westerly half of the garage wing had been eliminated, becoming an unexcavated area. Gaffron pointed out that the attempt to direct runoff toward Shoreline Drive is a positive improvement. He explained that the added runoff from the proposed rear driveway would be insignificant in terms of adding to any floodwater height if flooding were to occur.Additional information requested by the City Engineer included pre-post drainage calculations,information regarding what the impacts of a 100-year runoff would have on the small wetland on the applicant's properiy, as well a the Fo�ill outlot, and finally, noting that the grading around the front terrace has changed to include more fill exposing less of the terrace wall to Shoreline Drive, leaving the walkout opening toward the side lot line. Gaffron pointed out that staff does not support the retention of the driveway to Shoreline Drive and believes a driveway to Heritage Drive could be designed and implemented to have no unreasonable impacts to neighboring properties. Christine Wytaske, 1860 Shoreline Drive, and Jim Palmer of Advanced Surveying and Engineering were present with the applicant to address drainage and landscaping questions. Murphy stated that he went out to the site once again, and while he appreciated the willingness of the applicant to make some changes to the massing, knocking off the top of the garage wing, he still felt the home was massive and somewhat out of scale. In addition, he stated that he was more convinced than ever that the driveway should remain off Shoreline Drive,rather than disrupting so much in the rear of the home to lose one curb cut. McMillan complimented the applicant on the more natural proposed landscaping plan. Murphy continued, stating that he believed they could enhance the current driveway off County Road 15 with plantings and trees to provide screening. He asked whether the neighbors were in support of his proposal. McMillan disagreed, stating that she supported the opposite approach. She believed the applicant had adequate hardship to support his plans and had adjusted them accordingly to address staff and City issues, plus would eliminate a curb cut as requested by the County. PAGE 2 of 9 � . A MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 22,2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4.#OS-3136 TROYBROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINEDRIVE, Continued) Sansevere questioned whether the County could deny the retention of the curb cut if the City allowed it to remain. Brokl indicated they could not force the removal of the existing curb cut. White stated that he,too,concurred with Murphy,and preferred the driveway from County Road I S with additional trees planted on either side.He felt the applicant would have better sightlines from the current drive than off Heritage and did not believe the elimination of one curb cut justified the impacts that would be made on the back side of the home. While he appreciated the applicant's efforts to bring down the massing, Sansevere asked how many trees were originally removed near County Road 15 and how many more would be impacted if the driveway were moved to Heritage Drive. Mr. Coward stated that he would support the front driveway with additional plantings along the driveway to lesson the impacts from County Road 15. He stated that the removals of the earlier pines doubled their exposure to the traffic on I5. Sansevere asked whether the Council could support the level of massing now proposed. Murphy stated that the Council needed to move on and could not allow the neighbor's to further design the house with regard to massing,but the Council could protect the neighbor's impacts from lights and curb cuts. Sansevere stated that he would support both Murphy and White's position. Wytaske requested that, if the driveway were placed off the front,whether they could be allowed to design a plan with trees that would not grow to excessive heights blocking their views. Broitzman questioned whether there were limitations which prohibited him from taking trees down on his lot that were outside the 0-75' zone.He pointed out that, if he was allowed to remove trees on his property,his neighbor's could lessen the impacts themselves by planting trees on their lots if they wish additional buffers. Sansevere interjected his opposition to the applicant's rationale, indicating that if he chose to go down that line of reasoning,they would vote to deny the application. Wytaske pointed out that the applicant has put forward his best plan on all fronts and was becoming frustrated by the limitations being imposed upon him. She asked that they be allowed to create a buffer within reason along the drive. McMillan reminded the Council that the City does not have a tree Ordinance in place which restricts residents from removing trees on their property which fall outside the 0-75' zone. She stated that she felt strongly that people can do what they want with the trees on their property,even if it impacts their neighbors.While it was unfortunate that the neighbor's were impacted by the removals,McMillan encouraged them to work together to replant,she stated that we don't want to PAGE 3 of 9 � , ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 22,2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4.#OS-3136 TROYBROITZMAN, I860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) get into the business of screening for our neighbor's benefit.In addition, she pointed out that trees do not block noise. McMillan stated that Mr.Broitzman had a right to develop his property and the Council did not have to be punitive about the removals. Murphy stated that he still disagreed and maintained that the City had tried to get the applicant to redesign this substantial home.He stated that he would not support the proposed driveway. Palmer pointed out that incorporating a driveway off of the back could be done very nicely. Murphy questioned the need for a tremendous amount of fill to do so. Palmer stated that very little fill would be necessary and that the trees that would be removed were not worthwhile trees,but box elders and some buckthorn.He maintained that a better buffer could be planted with nicer trees. Murphy stated that he believed there already was a worthwhile driveway. Sansevere stated that he might consider a driveway off of the back if a better buffer would be replaced out front. Brokl stated that,due to the 60 day limitation,the Council must take action this evening. Broitzman asked if he left the driveway where it was and added additional trees for a buffer,if he could get approval this evening. Murphy stated that,if the applicant would work with staff and his landscape architect to come up with a suitable plan,he would grant approval. Wytaske stated that it seemed somewhat strict to require them to plant trees all the way up the front of the driveway,as that would be more than was previously there. Murphy stated that he wanted the applicant to plant trees,not just to replace those that were removed,but questioned the plan in which trees were voluntarily to be planted everywhere before, • and now they feel the City was being strict requiring certain additions. Mr.Coward, 1950 Heritage Drive,stated that he felt the proposed rain garden was inappropriate, new trees to be planted in the back would not grow due to the conditions,and if the driveway was moved to the back it would be to their detriment. McMillan pointed out that the applicant could adjust the plantings to what would grow in the warranted conditions and encouraged the Cowards to make suggestions. Wytaske pointed out that they had approached the neighbors prior to the original tree removals and no one voiced their concern at that time. It was apparent that no one anticipated the impacts would be so great until after the removals. PAGE 4 of 9 . MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 22, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4.#OS-3136 TROYBROITZMAN, I860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) David Scott, 1905 Heritage Drive, stated that he still believed the curb cut should come off of Heritage Drive. Morris Nelson, 1900 Heritage Drive, continued to voice his opposition to the massing and scale of the home. Murphy moved,White seconded,to adopt Resolution No.5468 approving the concept footprint and scale now proposed and that the driveway come off of County Road 15,not Heritage Drive,and be tree lined in a way to provide scale and buffer,subject to review and drainage approvals by the City Engineer. Brokl added the approvals of lot area, lot width,and average lakeshore setback variances subject to the conditions as stated by the City Engineer. Murphy accepted the attorney's addendums. Sansevere asked the applicant if he would be okay with this action. Broitzman stated that, if the application could be resolved this evening, he would accept the conditions. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 1. McMillan disagreed that the driveway should remain off County Road 15 and for reasons stated earlier. *5. #06-3179 TOM RADKE,3424 EASTLAKE STREET—VARIANCE— RESOLUTION NO. 5469 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded,to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 5469 , a Resolution granting a hardcover variance to allow 36.5°/a in the 75-250' zone with the condition that the City be granted an easement for the lift station.VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. *6. #06-3185 WJM PROPERTIES,2605 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST— COMMERICAL/AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS—RESOLUTION NO. 5470 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5470,a Resolution granting Industrial Site Plan approval for various building additions, site layout changes, and conditional uses,including a 25,620 s.f addition to the principal structure,the 250 s.f. addition to connect existing accessory buildings; revisions to approve the parking layout; the CUP amendment to revise conditions placed on the outside storage and display of vehicles; but denying the CUP for two 60' flagpoles,and does not include the signage proposal. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 7. #06-3189 TERRY AND SUZANNE JOHNSON,543 PARK LANE—VARIANCE Gaffron explained that the applicants had been working with staff to reduce and revise their variance requests resulting in structural hardcover of 15%,pulling the home slightly further from PAGE 5 of 9 4 . R . MINLJTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (LMCD REPORT, Co�itinued) McDermott shared with the Council that the LMCD has sent out its first newsletter,which is slated twice a year to be sent to every household on the lake. Inside the newsletter the LMCD identifies its priorities which include the milfoil demos, shoreline inventory project, and the future of the lakes day event. In addition, the LMCD is trying to develop partnerships with marinas and dock installers to avoid rule breaking. The LMCD has also installed new signs at the public access points. McDermott pointed out that a boat density study is typically performed every four years by the DNR and LMCD which measures quantity, density and attitudes of users. From the study, the LMCD has learned that 66% of users come from the surrounding communities within a 15 mile radius. In addition, while peak weekend traffic is higher, the overall average is lower for the highest boat count ever. Boaters also believe the amount of restrictions on the lake is appropriate. White commented how interesting it was that the average number of boats kept on the lake is merely 7,000-8,000; whereas, there are half a million launches each year. McDermott stated that icing around docks during the winter months has also posed safety concerns and impacted views of many lake users prompting numerous complaints. Though one exists on Forest Lake,he explained that the LMCD has typically said no to de-icing machines around docks for these reasons, especially from a safety aspect. In addition, it ruins the entire winter lake experience. McMillan stated that she has seen more permanent dock requests than in the past and urged the LMCD and Council to remind folks that permits will not be granted to allow them to de-ice around their permanent docks. McDermott informed the Council that a substantial increase for the 2007 budget was slated, roughly a 10-20% increase as he thanked them for their generous contributions in the past. T'Ia:phy asked for a condense�state of tlze lakes from McDer.^.�ott. McDermott stated that overall the lakes are in good condition, although there is an ongoing need to watch for zebra mussels,but a 24 hour watch poses the biggest challenge. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. #OS-3136 TROY BROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINE DRIVE—VARIANCE Gaffron explained that the applicant had submitted a new grading plan pursuant to a meeting on the site with the applicant, staff, and Engineer Kellogg. The applicant had also provided a proposed landscape plan including the location, size, and species of proposed plantings. While the building PAGE 3 of 1� w . _ . M]NUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #OS-3136 TROYBROITZMAN, I860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Coratinued) plans/elevations have not been revised, Gaffron stated that the applicant requests final approval for the lot area, width, and average lakeshore setback variances. Gaffron indicated that the grading plan had been revised to create a swale about 20' in from the NE lot line, draining to the front and minimizing impacts on the existing trees between the Charrier and Broitzman homes. Additionally, the driveway now incorporates curbing rather than an inverted crown, so runoff from all parts of the driveway will be directed to the rear. In addition, the side driveway apron will be bordered by a 1-2' retaining wall in an attempt to minimize impacts on the two existing spruces, although staff is skeptical they will survive. Gaffron continued, stating that as the driveway leaves the garage area and curves towards Heritage Drive, very little of it will be below existing grade. It will remain curbed on both sides all the way to Heritage, where catch basins will divert runoff to the wetland rather than onto Heritage Drive. Gaffron noted that it has been determined by the Engineer that the added runoff due to the reconstruction on this site will require installation of a culvert offsite, of which there are two options, 1) under the Coward's driveway which was apparently built through a wetland,without installation of a culvert in the 1960's, or 2) under Heritage Drive to the larger wetland to the north. With regard to the landscaping plan, Gaffron stated that all the proposed plantings are on the Broitzman property. From a staff perspective, Gaffron noted that even though the grading plan now makes an attempt to save the trees, there is the potential that all existing trees in proximity to the applicant's new home are at risk, and he should be prepared to replace those that are damaged during the demolition and consiruction process.To that end, Gaffron pointed out that a draft resolution with numerous conditions had been drafted for Council consideration and comment with the requirement that all trees and shrubs shown on an approved landscaping plan be in place prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Kellogg stated that he had made a site visit with the applicant and that many of the points had been incorporated into the proposal. He indicated fhat the appiicant had made great strides in retaining water and drainage on his site. Sansevere asked whether the Cowards favored a culvert running under their driveway. Gaffron stated that, for some reason, in the 1960's no culvert was put in and should have been done so at that time. He indicated that staff had no specific preference,though it would be more costly to put the culvert under the road. Broitzman stated that they could install a 12' culvert under the driveway and restore it to its original condition after being placed. Mr. Coward, 1950 Heritage Drive, stated that he did not have a strong position with regard to the culvert,though he would prefer not to tear up his driveway to place one there. White stated that, in his personal opinion, the applicant should return to his original request to maintain the dnveway off the front of the home onto County Road 15 in order to retain the vegetation in the backyard. He felt that, in an attempt to help the County out by reducing the PAGE 4 of 17 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #OS-3136 TROYBROITZMAN, 1860SHORELINEDRIVE, Continued) number of curb cuts on the County road,he realized that it made less sense to jeopardize the vegetation and impact the neighbors to do so. Broitzman stated that, at this point,he would prefer to run the driveway as proposed off Heritage Road. McMillan asked how many trees,in his estimation,would be lost to run the driveway from Heritage. Broitzman stated that roughly 6+trees of larger size would be removed to run the approximately 250' driveway to Heritage Drive, and showed some photos of the staked wooded area. Murphy stated that,he too,had been of the same opinion as Council Member White, since his last site visit. He indicated that he had come to the same conclusion that the driveway might be better off where it is than making so many changes to the property to move it.Placed in front,Murphy acknowledged the driveway would have far less impact on the neighbors as well.Murphy maintained that in his estimation,the proposed screening along the driveway off Heritage Drive was inadequate to screen the at grade driveway. He pointed out that they would be destroying a relatively undisturbed area and creating all kinds of drainage issues to boot. Murphy rationalized that in order to accomplish the elimination of one curb cut,too many other impacts were being raised,plowing through the undisturbed area,putting in fill,creating a new culvert,etc. He asked if a culvert would be necessary at all if the driveway were not going in off Heritage Drive. Kellogg explained that the culvert would only be necessary if a driveway were going in. Murphy commented that enough was enough. While he recognized Broitzman for making adjustments to address some of the concerns of the neighbors and City,Murphy maintained that the applicant was not entitled to put whatever he chose on the site.Murphy�eiterated that he did not feel it was worth it to plow the back side all up and that he still saw no hardships to allow this proposed plan to move forward. Broitzman pointed out that the current driveway runs along the property line and allows for little screening.He indicated that he believed his hardship to be that his proposed footprint is essentially the same size as his neighbors. White questioned whether the size of the home was out of scale given the footprint. White however did believe the applicant had overmanufactured the area of the lot.He urged him to reconsider using the current driveway position,pointing out that this would save him a great deal of money, rather than tearing up the rear and dealing with all of the drainage and landscaping issues. White maintained that the undisturbed back side had value. McMillan stated that the applicant's proposed driveway could be planted more naturally to provide screening and was hesitant to ask to change the road now. PAGE 5 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #OS-3136 TROYBROITZMAN, 1860SHORELINEDRIVE, Continued) Sansevere stated that he would not support the placement of a culvert across the Coward's property,unless they wanted it.He indicated that,he too, would prefer the applicant retum to the original driveway but asked at this point if this could be mandated. Gaffron stated that,while the County would prefer fewer curb cuts off the County road,the County must recognize existing driveway cuts. Planning Commissioner Kempf pointed out that,in an attempt to slow the impetus or divert water from running off a long driveway to the lake, he would prefer it be directed thru a wetland. Sansevere asked the Council to consider the width of the home and questioned whether it was still too wide to fit all that the applicant was asking for. Murphy stated that although the home meets all standards to which the City has,the Council has discussed the side setbacks and average lakeshore setbacks.He repeated that,although it does not violate anything,the Council had repeatedly urged the applicant to get the picture and create something with his architect less than what is being proposed, which has not happened yet.Murphy maintained that the City and applicant have been going through an awful lot of trouble to make this all fit,including an intensive landscaping design. While she appreciated the applicant's effort to rethink the landscaping and swale,Mayor Peterson stated that she was still having difficulty with the massing of the house. She indicated that she was torn between the two driveway accesses and was hoping that the applicant would have tweaked the plan before returning to Council. Broitzman pointed out that the current home is actually wider than the one being proposed. Steven Larson, of the Fox Hill Association, asked about the process which allows for an increase in hardcover by 50%. Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing to discuss the lot width requirements for non-conforming lot sizes which addresses the need for aggregate setbacks. Larson pointed out that the Association felt that the additional runoff being proposed for their pond may have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood and they would object to an increase in water there. Gaffron suggested that the City would need to determine whether the pond contained a closed basin or not. Mr. Coward questioned the landscaping plan which suggested arborvitae, a sun loving shrub, for the rear shady side of the property. He maintained that there was no way to make this plan work in this neighborhood even with the amount of engineering going on, and that it would have detrimental impacts on the neighbors' property values. PAGE6of17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #OS-3136 TRDYBROITZMAN, 1860SHORELINEDRIVE, Corztiniced) Mrs. Coward pointed out that they have already been im�acted by tree removals and that this would continue to impact them the full length of their property with the driveway proposed in the rear at grade. Morris Nelson, 1860 Shoreline Drive, stated that he continued to object to the�ro�osal,pointing out that the footprint of his home was 1900 s.f., even if the applicants home was placed over his footprint,the massing would negatively impact him and his neighbors. Broitzman indicated that the runoff along Heritage Drive currently runs onto his property. Mrs. Coward pointed out that based on the original aerials, the wetland on the applicant's property has always been there and was not simply created by the Cowards' driveway. White asked what the proposed footprint for the new residence would be. Broitzman stated that the footprint would be 4764 s.f., 1419 of which would be garage. Sansevere asked whether the Council could limit the massing of the structure or the placement of the driveway. Since the applicant was asking for three variances, Attorney Brokl stated that the Council could tie certain factors to their approvals if they deemed the lot was too narrow to support the proposed massing. He indicated that the Council could deny the application if they did not support the massing and could word their motion for denial accordingly. Sansevere asked whether the Council members were in agreement that they had trouble with the massing. Mayor Peterson stated that she had difficulty allowing the level of proposed mass, since the lot is so narrow and the proposed dwellin�does not fit the character or scale of what exists. She commented that she was disappointed in the clear cutting of the pines out front which might have helped screen some of the proposed massing. White moved,Mayor Peterson seconded,to propose that the driveway run from County Road 15 and a reduction in massing by 15%. While she admitted that massing is a problem, McMillan questioned how the City could deny the inevitable as massing continues to be a problem as property values get higher. She stated that, until something is put on the books about massing, she found it difficult to put her finger on just one isolated case and say it is massing. She believed that if the applicant's proposal fell within the codes,the Council should be consistent, though they may not like it, and allow him to do so. Brokl interjected that there is a motion on the table requiring a 1�%reduction as a condition that could not be easily administered. As there was a draft resolution within the Council packet,Brokl suggested that the Council deny the application or approve it as requested with conditions or alter the conditions as the Council sees �t. PAGE 7 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #OS-3136 TROYBRDI7'ZMAN, 1860SHORELINEDRIVE, Coiitinued) White withdrew his motion. Coward pointed out that a precedent for lot width had been set within the neighborhood and this house does not fit it as it is far more massive. Murphy stated that it saddened him to see how the proposed mass of the home nearly almost shamed his neighbors in size. Larson stated that it appeared to him that the only hardshi�the applicant faced had been created by the size of the home that he proposed to put on the lot. He failed to see any hardship whatsoever. Gaffron pointed out that, in a zone that requires 200' widths, any proposed construction would require a variance. In fact, Gaffron stated that all of the homes within Fox Hill would require a width variance to be rebuilt. Moorse indicated that the applicant had met the side setback requirements. Broitzman maintained that the City has a code which addresses the size of the footprint, on a less than 2 acre lot, where a certain percent is allowed for the footprint or is limited by the structural coverage which he stated they are in compliance with. Sansevere asked whether the applicant was willing to reduce the massing. Broitzman stated that he was not. Murphy moved,White seconded,to accept the resolution, moving the driveway to the original location off of County Road 15 and directing staff to compile findings of fact to support the location. Broitzman stated that last fall he was told by the Council to put the driveway out back and now, after 8 months, he would prefer it that way. White pointed out that until he could be supplied with a �nal plan for either location, he could not be in a position to decide which he would support. He believed that now that he had seen a proposal and all that it entailed,he preferred the driveway off the front. Brokl stated that the Council could direct staff to bring back a resolution and findings of fact to support the driveway off the front of the property. Morris Nelson commented that the water runoff from the front of the yards typically ends up in his yard where there is a culvert and offers a better solution. Broitzman asked the City Attorney if the Council could ask him to rework his efforts after having asked him to put the driveway in the back previously. PAGE 8 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #OS-3I36 TROYBROITZMAN, 1 S60 SHORELINE DRIVE, Co�zti�iued) Brokl stated that the Council does have the right to give conditional approval,which the applicant can choose to accept or not,but the Council must get to their question. With regard to hardcover, Gaffron interjected that he felt there was adequate available hardcover to use for a driveway running to the County Road. In fact, Gaffron mentioned that a credit could be given for unused hardcover in the 75-250' zone. VOTE: Ayes 2,Nays 3. Mayor Peterson,McMillan, and White dissenting. Motion failed. Murphy moved,White seconded,to deny the application. Brokl stated that if the Council chooses to deny the application,the applicant could reapply in 6 months with a different plan. Gaffron reiterated that the applicant cannot come back with the same plan for 6 months. Broitzinan stated that he would prefer the Council not vote to deny and asked for more clarification. He indicated that at the last meeting, Sansevere stated that he would approve the application if the applicant addressed the drainage, which he felt he had done. Murphy stated that not only did the Council feel that drainage was an issue,but that the footprint and scale were in question as well. He suggested the applicant return with a house design of a different scale. Broitzman stated that he felt the massing had been minimized near the lake. Sansevere interjected that,having quickly reviewed the minutes from the last Council meeting, he had not stated that drainage was the only issue standing in the applicant's way for approval.He read from the minutes his comment that the applicant downsize the footprint of his home and that the applicant at that tirne continued to use his neighbor's properties to resolve his problems. Broitzman stated that he was not going to go away and that he had every right to build the house he chooses on his property, which he felt he had done to the letter of the codes.He asked for more direction on the massing and footprint. Sansevere stated that it is the Council's charge to hold Orono to a certain standard that exists here and suggested the applicant consider compromising or be denied, Broitzrnan stated that he had compromised from his original design of 19,000 s.f. and asked the Council to table the application. Brokl pointed out that the 60 day extension would run out in June and that the Council would need to vote up or down by then. Broitzman acknowledged that he would be willing to sign an extension. PAGE 9 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #OS-3136 TROYBRDITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Murphy stated that he would be willing to table the application only if the applicant was willing to take what had been said to heart, and bring back something with less massing than what has been proposed thus far. Sansevere stated that,to him, drainage was still an issue. McMillan pointed out that massing and square footage do not necessarily equate to value. Broitzman asked then, if the Council would prefer all of the water directed at the lake. Murphy stated that, once again,the applicant was taking too literal a position, that, of course, the Council would urge the applicant to wo:k with staff to resolve the drainage issues and not aim the water directly into the lake. Murphy withdrew his motion for denial. Murphy moved,Mayor Peterson seconded,to table the application one more time to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposal. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Murphy urged the applicant and neighbors to continue their dialogue another month. Mr. Coward voiced his frustration at this moving target as things continually change from what the applicant tells them is to be the case. He cited the example of the driveway which he was told would be cut below grade, so as not to impact them, only to find out that this was not to be the case. 5. #06-3179 TOM RADKE,3424 EASTLAKE STREET—VARIANCE Curtis explained that the applicants were requesting a 75'-250' zone hardcover variance in order to construct a new patio with a pergola and covered front entry. In April the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend conditional approval of the request provided that the applicants further reduce hardcover within the 75-250' zone to reach 31.7% as approved in 1985. She noted that the two dissenting Commissioners would have allowed 33% hardcover within the zone. Curtis indicated that the planning staff recommends a reduction in hardcover to meet the level which was approved in 1985. Mr. Radke presented a side by side comparison between he and his neighbor's lots built at the same time, with his being slightly larger but allowed approximately 8% less hardcover. He added that his property also contains a lift station to which the City never obtained a signed easement for but the past Public Works Director insinuated in the minutes that good a�zd valuable consideration should be given to tlie ow�2e��s by tlTe ciry if they should apply for future applications. Sansevere pointed out that it appeared to him that the applicant moved ahead with something thinking that at some time the City would give him some additional consideration for allowing them to put an easement on his property. PAGE lo of i� r � , ��o3$a A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-305 AND 78-1279 FILE NO. OS-3136 ya�og� �