Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject PacketChristine Mattson From: Christine Mattson Sent: To: Friday, October 10, 20141:25 PM 'John Stavig' Subject: 790 Brown Road N / #12-3547 Good Afternoon, I have noted that the resolution granting an extension of variances related to zoning file #12-3547 has not been signed. Signatures for John & Phoebe are required on the resolution; the signatures must be notarized. You can sign the resolution in the city offices and we have a notary on staff. We are open Monday through Friday, 8 am to 4:30 pm. Please bring along a form of identification, i.e. your driver's license so our notary's can verify your identify before you sign the resolution. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Christine Mattson Planning Assistant City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway I Orono I MN I 55356 (physical address) PO Box 66 I Crystal Bay I MN I 55323-0066 (mailing address) tr 952.249.4620 I ~ 952.249.4616 ~ cmattson@ci.orono.mn .us I ~ www.ci .orono .mn .us Office Hours: Monday -Friday 8 am to 4:30 pm OUR OFFICE WILL BE CLOSED: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 1 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 TO: John & Phoebe Stavig 780 Brown Road N Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: DATE OF MEETING: ZONING FILE: 12-3547 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: June 23, 2014 COPIES John Stavig via email: Variance Approval Extension June 23, 2014 VOTE: 3 FOR 0 AGAINST Motion: To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution previously mailed to you . Please arrange to sign the original resolution at the City Offices (Monday through Thursday 7:30 to 5 pm or Fridays 7:30 to 11 :30). All persons with an interest in the property must sign the resolution. Variance extension approval is limited to the extent shown on approved plan and as noted in the approval Resolution No. 6147. Changes in approved plans are subject to further review by the City. Variance extension approval expires one year after date of approval. A building permit must be obtained no later than June 24, 2015. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. Additionally, on-demand video re-play of the Council meeting is available on the City's website: www.ci.orono.mn.us . If you have questions please contact Melanie Curtis at mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4627. MINUTES OF THE ORONO · CITY COUNCil, Monday, June 23, 2014 7:00 o'clock p.m. e Court finds that there is not a good reason for not appearing at a c hearing, they will issue a bench wa t. Mattick noted James Barth had three years to clean u e violations and that it was not a matter of two ers. Mattick stated there were a number of pie s showing violations presented at the hearing and tha · James Barth had done what the court o ered three years ago, he would not have served any time in ja· Mattick stated due to James B 's failure to comply with the judge's order, he issued a bench warrant. Barth stated it is not right. Barth asked if the City foels like they are being singled out. Mattick indicated that is not the case . *5. 08-3355 CLEME AND WINNIFRED KROLL, 60 STUBBS BAY R SOUTH, 6TH PRELIMINARY PL APPROVAL EXTENSION -RESOLUTION NO. 6414 Levang mov , Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6414, a Resolution Gran Sixth E nsion of the Preliminary Approval of a Class ID Subdivision for Property Locate Stu s Bay Road South. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *6. 12-3547 JOHN STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, VARIAN CE APPROVAL EXTENSION -RESOLUTION NO. 6415 Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6415, a Resolution Granting an Extension of Variances Established Per Resolution No. 6147 for the Property Located at 790 Brown Road North. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Page 11 of 30 ----------------- Date Application Received: 06/03/14 Date Application Considered as Complete: 06/03/14 60-Day Review Period Expires: 08/02/14 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: 1 A J , Administrator Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis y ~V Title: Planning & Zoning Coordinator Item Description: Date: 19 June 2014 Item No. (p Agenda Section: Planning & Zoning # 12-3547 John & Phoebe Stavig, 790 Brown Road N -Variance Extension -Resolution Zoning District: LR-lA, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acres/200' Lot Area: 62,247 square feet (1.42 acres) Lot Width: +360' at OHWL (944.3') & + 356' at 75' setback List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. Exhibit E. Draft Resolution Application for Variance Extension 1st Extension Approval 06/24/13 Resolution No. 6147 Code Sections 78-128 & 78-129 Application Summary: In June of 2012 Council granted approval of an average lakeshore setback variance; a rear (street) setback variance to allow setback of 30' where 50' is required; a variance to allow construction 15 feet from the top of bluff where a 30-foot setback is required; and a variance to locate the home 5 feet into the defined 20-foot bluff impact zone. According to the approval Resolution No. 6147 the variances would have expired on June 25, 2013. On June 21, 2013, the applicants requested and were granted an administrative extension of the variance approval pursuant to City Code Section 78-129. This extension expires on June 25, 2014. The applicants have not proceeded with their project and are requesting a second, Council approved extension at this time pursuant to the provisions of Code Section 78-129. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Council should consider adopting or amending the attached resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF VARIANCES ESTABLISHED PER RESOLUTION NO. 6147 FILE NO. 12-3547 Council Exhibit A WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") has adopted land development regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2012 the City Council approved Resolution No. 6147 granting a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 to allow construction of a new residence on the Property to be located 30 feet from the rear or street lot line where a 50- foot setback is normally required; and grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279(6) to allow encroachment of the defined average lakeshore setback; and grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1279(1) and 78-1279(3) to allow construction of a new residence located 15 feet from the defined top of bluff where a 30-foot setback is normally required and encroaching 5 feet into the defined bluff impact zone where no such structures are normally allowed; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2013 the Applicants requested and were granted an administrative extension of Resolution No. 6147 pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 78- 129 thus extending the approvals granted via Resolution No. 6147 until June 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-129, John D. Stavig and Phoebe M. Stavig, husband and wife (hereinafter "the Applicants") on June 3, 2014 applied for an extension of the approvals granted under Resolution No. 6147 for property located at 790 Brown Road North and legally described as follows: Tract F, R.L.S. No. 1275, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the request by the Applicants for a further extension of the approvals granted under Resolution No. 6147 for development of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Applicants were not able to commence construction within the allotted one-year established by Resolution No. 6147 or within the one-year extension granted; and Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the approvals granted by Resolution No. 6147 expire on June 24, 2014; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby grant an extension to June 24, 2015 of the approvals granted under Resolution No. 6147, subject to the following conditions: 1. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining building permits by June 24, 2015 or the approvals will expire on that date. 2. All other findings, conclusions, and conditions of Resolution No. 6147 shall remain in effect. 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit approval and industrial site plan approval shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned Applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Applicants, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the Property. Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 23rd day of June, 2014. ATTEST: Rachel Dodge, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Page 2 of 3 Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this_ day of _____ , 2014, by John D. Stavig, husband of Phoebe M. Stavig. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public This instrument was acknowledged before me this_ day of _____ , 2014, by Phoebe M. Stavig, wife of John D. Stavig. Notary Public Page 3 of 3 City of Orono Variance Approval Extension Application Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Application # Date Received: Staff: 1st Extension: $50 Council Exhibit B Main: 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: administrative a roval P.O. Box66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 2nd & Subsequent Extensions: $350 (Council approval) This extension application form must be completed in full and submitted at least 60 days prior to the variance expiration. PROPERTY INFORMATION: ?a ~/J /} L'- Site Address: 70 IV £/"4.:>V'N /,,(.0 no OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) Name: ::j;;+,1 7:>, ...s:i-AV•S Phone (home): {, f '2. -? '2-S" -Z ~ g S-Phone (work): (iS:a-'-/51 _ 952-0 Complete Address: 7 ::[-o fl. 8'2,ow.,v' /2 ~-"b · City, State & ZIP L--=>Nk> LAIL€ MN ~£ 2S::C. Email: .=:;rs-rAV1 G @ UM.ti. E7>lt Fax: {,, z -t 'Z--'-f ~ Z-01/l OWNER: • Agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this extension application, and • Certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. • Applicant and/or Owner acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the City Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant/owner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. · • Some or all of the information that you are asked to provide on this application is classified by State law as either private or confidential. Private data is information which generally cannot be given to the public but can be given to the subject of the data. Confidential data is information which generally cannot be given to either the public or the subject of the data. Our purpose and intended use of this information is to annually update our records and records of other governmental agencies required by law. If you refuse to supply the information, the application may not be issued. Owner Signature: Date: Owner Signature: Date: ' ·",._,";.., J l • ~4' --~ ' Ii City of Orono 2750 Kelley Par~.i'lay Orono MN 55356 Receipt No: 3.011041 Johr1 Stavig Planning and Zoning Variam:e EKtension 790 N Brown Road 11)1-3¼20 952-249-4500 Jur, 31 2014 350.00 Cond Use-Variar,ce-Dev Fees Total: 350.00 ---------------Check Check No: 6431 Payor: John Stavig Total Applieil: Change Ter,dered: DUP.licate Copy 06/03/2014 08:47AM 350.00 350.00 .oo . ' . .. I,,.; •. June 24, 2013 John Stavig 780 Brown Road N Long Lake, MN 55356 . RE: ·-' Variance 12-3547 Resolution 6147 Council Exhibit C CITY OF ORONO Street Address: I Mailing Address: I Telephone (952) 249-4600 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Fax (952) 249-4616 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 www.ci.orono.mn.us By Resolution 6147 the Orono City Council granted approval for variances for construction of a new principal structure {file 12-3547). We have received your request dated June 7, 2013 and the Variance Approval Extension Application dated June 21, 2013 for an extension of this approval, which was to expire on June 25, 2013. · Pursuant to City Code Section 78-129 staff may grant a 12-month extension of the approval granted by resolution number 6147. Because nothing has changed since the time of the original variance approval your extension approval has been granted. Your variance will expire on June 25, 2014. A request for an additional extension must be received at least 60 days prior to the new expiration date. Any subsequent extensions may be granted by City Council approval. The terms and approvals granted in resolution 6147 still apply. If yo_u have any questions, please contact me at cmattson@ci.orono.mn.us or at 952-249-4620. Sincerely, CITY OF ORONO f\ln~·Mfv\Jtt~ bt<1iltine a son Planning Assistant 1111111111111 Council Exhibit D Doc No T4998753 Certified, filed and/or recorded on 9/21/12 4:30 PM Office of the Registrar of Titles Hennepin County, Minnesota Rachel Smith, Acting Registrar of Titles Mark V. Chapin, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 13 Pkg ID 862490M Doc Name: Resolution Document Recording Fee Document Total Existing Certs 1087483 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. $46.00 $46.00 New Certs 'i·" ( CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6 f A 7'. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-305 AND 78-1279 FILE NO. 12-3547 WHEREAS, John D. Stavig and Phoebe M. Stavig, a married couple (hereinafter "the Applicants") are the owners of the property located at 790 Brown Road North within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as: Tract F, R.L.S. No. 1275, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is an existing Lot of Record and meets the requirements of Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-72(b )(2) to be utilized for single- family detached dwelling purposes by administrative approval; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 to allow construction of a new residence on the property to be located 30 feet from the rear or street lot line where a 50-foot setback is normally required; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279(6) to allow encroachment of the defined average lakeshore setback; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1279(1) and 78-1279(3) to allow construction of a new residence located 15 feet from the defined top of bluff where a 30-foot setback is normally required and encroaching 5 feet into the defined bluff impact zone where no such structures are normally allowed; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the Orono, Minnesota, City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 19, 2012 and again on May 21, 2012 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and Pagelof7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. {. 'i 4 7' WHEREAS, on May 21, 2012 the Orono Planning Commission on a vote of 6-0 recommended denial of the variances for bluff setback and encroachment of the bluff impact zone; approval of variance for average lakeshore setback; and recommended approval of variances to allow a street setback of 25 feet, and side setbacks of 25 feet instead of the required 30 feet; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2012 the Orono City Council reviewed the application and after due deliberation on a vote of 4-0 directed staff to draft a resolution for approval of the requested variances as initially requested by the Applicants. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 12-3547. 2. The Property is located in the LR-lA One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District which requires a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres and a minimum lot width of 200'. 3. The City Council makes the following findings regarding this application: a. The Property contains 62,247 square feet (1.42 acres) in area and has in excess of 350 feet in defined width. The Property is an existing Lot of Record created in 1969 and meets the requirements of Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-72(b )(2) to be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes by administrative approval. b. The Property is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and sanitary sewer is available to serve the Property. c. The location of the residence structures on the adjacent lakeshore properties is such that the defined average lakeshore setback line leaves no buildable area within the Property. The proposed encroachment past the average setback line will have minimal or no impact on views of the lake enjoyed by the neighboring property to the west. Therefore the proposed encroachment of the average set15ack. line is justified.·· Page 2 of 7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. / -: 1; '7 V ~ 4 ) , d. The proposed street setback of 30 feet rather than the required 50-foot setback is a function of balancing the need for a usable buildable envelope with the existing constraints of the required street setbacks and top of bluff setback, which if no variances were granted would yield a buildable envelope of less than 10 feet in depth. e. Based on the location of the neighboring residence structures and the configuration of the private road and cul-de-sac serving the neighborhood, the proposed location of the new home 30 feet from the street lot line will have minimal or no negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood. f. The topography and shape of the Property creates a practical difficulty for locating the home in a conforming location with respect to the defined top of bluff and bluff impact zone. A significant portion of the property meets the Zoning Code definition to be considered as a bluff. g. An existing old driveway bed located just above and just below the defined top of bluff may provide some level of slope stability that would not otherwise be present. The proposed house location will be within 15 feet of the top of bluff but is intended to be uphill from the driveway bed and not disturb the integrity of the driveway bed. h. The Applicants' proposed site plan indicates that approximately 10 mature trees protected by virtue of being within the bluff impact zone will be removed along the uphill edge of the old driveway bed. No other protected trees are proposed to be removed. 1. The Applicants' engineering consultant has provided an opm1on that the proposed house location above the driveway bed will be in soils that have sufficient stability to allow construction of the proposed home. The City Engineer in his review has indicated that while the information provided by Applicants is not a guarantee of slope stability, the proposed house location will minimize grading and erosion potential, and the positioning just above the driveway bed provides the most stable location with regard to the downhill slope. J. Approval should be conditioned on the recommendations of the Applicants' Engineer and the City Engineer as noted in their respective submittals, especially in regards to erosion control and surface water runoff management. Page 3 of 7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6 1 .4 ? NO. _______ _ k. The variances to allow encroachment of the bluff impact zone and bluff setback are necessary to allow for a reasonable building envelope for the property. Additionally, the heavily wooded nature of the bluff area and the regulatory protection afforded vegetation on bluffs and bluff impact zones by Orono Zoning Code Section 78-1285 should result in minimal negative impacts to views of the property from the lake. 1. The Applicants' request will alleviate a practical difficulty inherent to the Property and not created by the Applicants. m. The Applicants' request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and will result in minimal negative impact on adjacent properties. n. The Applicants' request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the Applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this Property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the Applicants, but are necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty; are necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the Applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 to allow construction of a new residence on the Property to be located 3 0 feet from the rear or street lot line where a 50-foot setback is normally required; and grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279(6) to allow encroachment of the defined average lakeshore setback; and grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1279(1) and 78-1279(3) to allow Page 4 of7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ___ ....,f-,,,__ --;.1_..._ti _,,'j:!'-., __ construction of a new residence located 15 feet from the defined top of bluff where a 30-foot setback is normally required and encroaching 5 feet into the defined bluff impact zone where no such structures are normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the survey depicting the site plan, grading plan and tree removal plan for a conceptual residence structure footprint submitted by the Applicants and mmotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the plans which are not in confonnity with City codes or which revise the footprint to an extent that would cause the removal of additional mature trees or result in substantial additional grading within the bluff impact zone will require further City Council review. 2. The City Council acknowledges that no building plans have been submitted depicting the floor plans or fa9ade elevation views of the proposed structure, but advises the Applicants that this approval is in part based on statements by the Applicants that the house constructed pursuant to the approval of variances will be in character with other homes in the neighborhood. Applicants are advised that City regulations regarding the height and massing ofresidence structures will be strictly adhered to. 3. Grading within the defined bluff impact zone to create an access driveway around the south side of the house to serve a basement-level storage garage will not be allowed. 4. The following engineering requirements shall be adhered to with regards to construction of a home on the Property: a) Silt fence shall be placed at the downhill edge of the old driveway bed prior to any work, including tree removal. Erosion control for the entire site during construction shall adhere to City and MCWD requirements. b) Disturbed slopes shall be seeded and protected with erosion control blanket immediately after grading is completed. Sodding is also acceptable. c) All runoff from the new house, yards, walks and driveways shall be designed to properly manage potential erosion issues due to point discharges. Installation of rain gardens to collect the new runoff shall be required, designed to limit the peak runoff rates, disperse point discharges and prevent erosion. d) Tree removal and backfilling of the resultant ground openings shall adhere to the recommendations of Applicants' engineer as indicated in the report by Carl Anderson Engineering dated April 30, 2012. 5. Applicants are advised that the Property has not been provided with a sanitary sewer service stub and was not assessed for the required Sewer Connection Charge at the time the neighborhood line was installed. The existing sanitary service stub directed toward Page 5 of 7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ,,~·1,17 NO. '·-' '·, · this lot is intended to serve the property at 7 80 Brown Road North, and potentially may require an easement over the Property at 790 in order to make use of it at the time 780 is connected. The Applicants will have to install a new connection to serve 790 and will bear the costs of the City Sewer Connection Charge at the time of connection ($8250 for 2012) as well as the Met Council SAC fee (both due at the time of building permit issuance), City connection permit, and grinder station for connection to pressure sewer. 6. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (June 25, 2013). 7. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned Applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Applicants and the Applicants' heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property . . . Ado_p,ted/6y.;tli~·O:rono City Council on the 25th day of June, 2012. A~~~-~~'. u. w /l_U(_ 'Lindi:r:s:-.V~e;,:§'.ity.Clerk ___ . Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor • •, 1 .,, .~ ..... Y_-~ ••. •►• ,;,'.'.<.",· . i· -: -\,· •. ::. Page 6 of 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL (.; 1 Ll .,. NO. ., ' .. l This instrument was acknowledged before me this l/fd~y of /-/2,:('.1,:,., f, 2012, by , ' 0 John D. Stavig, husband of Phoebe M. Stavig. RACHEL DODGE NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2015 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public 0 This instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ qday of LJ l/.ffl SX-, 2012, by Phoebe M. Stavig, wife of John D. Stavig. MONICAA. FADNESS NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2017 c.:2cB.:.:~ee.,3~~~~~?2Z~~ '-tv~~ Notary Public Page7of7 ~ C'HtO:CO 1-358 \ (.'.) ~- (._) CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN D. STAVIG OF TRACT F, R.L.S. NO. 1275 HENNEPIN COUN1Y, MINNESOTA , I LONG ' \. LAKE \-i \ \ f ~6-i----,,, ----~ \ ··,\ \ '..,, \ ,___ ,, I ,. .. ~ ~ .... Tract F. Regl111lenid l.snd Survey No •• 1275, flies of Roglsb'ar of TIUes, Hennepin County, Mlnnfu;ota This sutVcy Intends lo show the boundarle., of Ifie above desaibed property. the loc:aUon or 010 exlslJng bulldlng setback areEI cu,renlt In clfad. lor U& Traci. :::e 1;a!i~:"artU:,l!~:r~:~·d1~p~g1!~ ro~1fl~~"i~~~rJy ..2f D1e r:Fcs drlvewey. II doe, not purport fo show any other Improvements or enaoachments. ffl : Oenotl!S lree lo be removed . o : Iron mmkcr ....;e3-: 8dsUng contour ll11e ~ : Denotes prcposed contour line : Oi:nalC!I prgposed spol elcval1on arlng~ shown :ue based upon on assumed datum DCSCN'l"D4 l.-22•12 POSSlbt.!!. HOOSE,. GAA[)IHG~D ~ I_H ~T ~ SHOWN -$ GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSUL TING ENOINEERS, LANO SURVEYORS, SITE PLANNERS 4--45 HORTH WILLOW DRIVE. LONGi LAKE. MH. SS35G 962-473-4141 ,, ? r-, I \ I \ I I I \ -1 I I I I I 1..- + SCN,t 1·• ... 30• I He'.r.E.BT cmnN111i'TTtfl.S PLNL SPECIFJCl\110N, ORREf'ORl WAS PRET"N\ED BY ME OR. UHDER MY DIRECT SUPERV1S10N AND THATIMf.A. DULY UCEJ',ISED PR.0r'ESellOHAt.~ AND I..AHCf~ SURVEYOR 1JNOER THC LAV\0-OP nm STATe 01' MINNE.SOJA. MH UCENSE NUMBER--L!:.Z.fl. u;.12 J08 I<'. 11~!58 ~~1~. ~ ,!::,,. :"I ;u m ro X (I) ::. 0 s=c -· r-t- r-t--· )> 0 ::, STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The undersigned, being duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Orono, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at the meeting of the Orono City Council on June 25, 2012, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a conect transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the · : . City this 26th day of June , 2012. ~ ' .. . . ~·.' ,/~ ·~ -·-. k'' :.,_·:CJ; ,1-"' • , ·11' (sea~)':, . ~-,., ·-' . -. ~ 4. ' .'. . ' •J ,· Municode Council Exhibit E Sec. 78-128. Expiration. Variances shall expire one year after the date of council approval if not used and an extension has not been granted. Any change in use of the property shall require a new variance. (Code 1984, § 10.08(8); Ord. No. BO 3rd series,§ 1, 11-22-2010) Sec. 78-129. Extension. Extensions may be granted by either city staff or the city council pursuant to the following: (a) (1) An extension of up to one year may be granted by city staff upon the applicanh request, provided that the request is made at least 60 calendar days before the expiration of the variance. If an extension is granted, the variance shall expire at the end of the extension period unless the applicant applies to the city council for an additional one-year extension. (2) If city staff denies an applicant's request for an extension, the applicant may request an extension from the city council. The city council may grant an extension of up to one year. If an extension is granted, the variance shall expire at the end of the extension period unless the applicant applies to the city council for an additional one-year extension. (b) The city council may grant an additional extension at the expiration of an extension granted by either city staff or the city council upon the applicant's request, provided that the request is made at least 60 calendar days before the expiration of the variance extension. (c) The terms and conditions applicable to a variance at the time of its original approval continue to apply when an extension is granted by either city staff or the city council. Upon receiving a request for an extension, neither city staff nor the city council may alter or amend any of the terms and conditions applicable to the variance or condition the granting of an extension on alteration or amendment of any of the terms or conditions applicable to the variance. (Code 1984, § 10.08(9); Ord. No. BO 3rd series,§ 2, 11-22-2010) h1tn: //lihrRrv .m11ni r.nrle.<'.om/nrint.mmx?h=&clientID= 13 094&.HTMR eouesl=httn%3a%2~/n2f1ihmrv .mnnicode.com%2fHTM ... 1/13/2014 Christine Mattson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Melanie Curtis Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:46 PM John Stavig Christine Mattson Re: 790 N Brown Road -Variance Extension I have it. We will place the extension on the Council's June 23rd agenda for consideration of approval. Thanks -Melanie Sent from my iPhone. On Jun 10 , 2014, at 16:42 , "John Stavig" <jstavig@umn.edu> wrote : Melanie, I dropped off the variance extension form and payment last week. Let me know if you require anything further. Thanks. John 1 ,., City of Orono Variance Approval Extension Application Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Main : 952-249-4600 fax : 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Application # Date Received: Staff: 151 Extension: $50 2nd & Subsequent Extensions: administrative a roval $350 (Council approval) This extension application form must be completed in full and submitted at least 60 days prior to the variance expiration. PROPERTY INFORMATION: 79 ~/J I) A.\.. SiteAddress: · 0 /V ,.A.t...:>t,v/11 /,,(.0 no OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) Name: .:;;r;;;,N 'V. ...fi-AV•S Phone (home): & f z -? '2. S" -z ~ g S-Phone (work): CompleteAddress : 72'-o /V. 8'2,ow,.,, f2,:,k-b City, State & ZIP i....-=-N--f.:. LA\l.E MN Email: .::J""S.,-A\11 S @ CAM-tJ. alt ,£2S:l. Fax: 1,,2. -t 0-2-01/l OWNER: • Agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this extension application, and • Certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. • Applicant and/or Owner acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the City Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicanUowner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. ' • Some or all of the information that you are asked to provide on this application is classified by State law as either private or confidential. Private data is information which generally cannot be given to the public but can be given to the subject of the data. Confidential data is information which generally cannot be given to either the public or the subject of the data . Our purpose and intended use of this information is to annually update our records and records of other governmental agencies required by law. If you refuse to supply the information, the application may not be issued. Owner Signature: Date: Owner Signature: Date: ,· \ . . .\,. ·:, \.~:.\ City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono MN 55356 Receipt No: 3.011041 Johr, Stavig Planning and Zonir,g Variance Extension 790 N Brown Road 101-34420 Cond Use-Variance-Dev Fees Total: Check Check No: 6431 Payor: John Stavig Total Applied: Change Tendered: DuP.licate Copy 06703/2014 08:47AM 952-249-4600 Jun 3, 2014 350.00 350.00 350.00 350.00 .oo .... ·, June 24, 2013 John Stavig 780 Brown Road N Long Lake, MN 55356 RE: Variance 12-3547 Resolution 6147 CITY OF ORONO Street Address: I Mailing Address: I Telephone (952) 249-4600 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Fax (952) 249-4616 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 www.ci.orono.mn.us By Resolution 6147 the Orono City Council granted approval for variances for construction of a new principal structure (file 12-3547). We have received your request dated June 7, 2013 and the Variance Approval Extension Application dated June 21, 2013 for an extension of this approval, which was to expire on June 25, 2013. Pursuant to City Code Section 78-129 staff may grant a 12-month extension of the approval granted by resolution number 6147. Because nothing has changed since the time of the original variance approval your extension approval has been granted. Your variance will expire on June 25, 2014. A request for an additional extension must be received at least 60 days prior to the new expiration date. Any subsequent extensions may be granted by City Council approval. The terms and approvals granted in resolution 6147 still apply. If you have any questions, please contact me at cmattson@ci.orono.mn.us or at 952-249-4620. Sincerely, CITY OF ORONO ~~~~ Planning Assistant City of Orono Variance Approval Extension Application Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Application # Date Received: Staff : 1s t Extension: $50 I.&.-~I -I~ Main : 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: (administrative aooroval) 2 nd & P.O . Box66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Subsequent $350 Extensions: (Council approval) This extension application form must be completed in full and submitted at least 60 days prior to the variance expiration. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: --l---f,----'CI_Q_~tv~o~Y~lli ......... ,-~+,,<--+-( ......... Dl~✓'J~h _eo~a~d~-t---"'O~Yi~DD~O -,-------'/Y~V)----.----S~~-:3~51a~ OWNER: • Agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this extension application , and • Certifies that the information supplied is true and co rrect to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. • Applicant and/or Owner acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the City Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant/owner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. • Some or all of the information that you are asked to provide on this application is classified by State law as either private or confidential. Private data is information which generally cannot be given to the public but can be given to the subject of the data . Confidential data is information which generally cannot be given to either the public or the subject of the data. Our purpose and intended use of this information is to annually update our records and records of other governmental agencies required by law. If you refuse to supply the information, the application may not be issued . Owner Signature : Date : Owner Signature: Date: City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono MN 5535& Receipt No: 3.00'3122 John & Phoebe Stavig Plar1nir,g and Zonir,g Variance Extension -790 N Brown Rd 12-3543 101-34230 Filing fees-elections/plats Total: Check Check No: 6190 Payor: John & Phoebe Stavig Total Applied: " Char,ge Tendered: 952-249-4£00 Jun 21, 2013 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 .00 OE,/21/2013 10:09AM Christine Mattson From: Christine Mattson Sent: To: Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:24 PM 'John Stavig' Cc: Melanie Curtis Subject: Attachments: RE : Stavig Variance -790 N Brown Road Variance Approval Extension Application 2013 .pdf Hi John, We received your request for an extension to your variance approva l. Attached is the Variance Approval Ex ten sio n application . The fi rst extension request ca n be handled administratively with a $50 pe r m it fee . Please be aware any subsequent extension reques t s, require co u ncil approval and the application fee is $350. Please complete the atta ched form and return w ith payment of $50. If you have an y additional questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Christine Mattson Planni ng Ass istant City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway I Orono I MN I 55356 (physical address) PO Box 66 I Crysta l Bay I MN I 55 323-0066 (mailing address) a 952.249.4620 I ~ 952.249.46 16 121 cmattson@ci.oro no.mn.us I ~ www.ci .orono.mn .us Su m m e r Offic e Hou rs: (Mon da y, May 2 0 through Friday, August 30, 2013) Monday -Thu rsday: 7 :30 am to 5 pm Friday: 7:30 am to 11:30 am OUR OFFICE WILL BE CLOSED: Thursday, July 4, 2013 From: John Stavig <jstavig@umn.edu> Date: June 7, 2013, 13:08:32 CDT To: Mike Gaffron <MGaffron@ci.orono .mn.us>, Melanie Curtis <mcurtis@ci .orono .mn.us > Subject: Stavig Variance -790 N Brown Road Mike and/or Melanie When Mike and I spoke last summer, he mentioned that I would need to seek approval for a one-year extension for the variance on our property at 790 N Brown Road. Please advise on the required process and timing. We hav e had the property on the market for a period of time, and are proceeding with our intent to building a home for ourselves. Thanks again for your assistance, John 1 John Stavig (612-625-2485) Director-Gary S. Holmes Center for Entrepreneurship Carlson School of Management-University of Minnesota www.entrepreneurship .umn.edu 2 \ . Christine Mattson From: Sent: To: Melanie Curtis Friday, June 07, 2013 1:13 PM Christine Mattson Subject: Fwd: Stavig Variance -790 N Brown Road Sent from my iPhone. Begin forwarded message: From: John Stavig <jstavig@umn.edu> Date: June 7, 2013, 13:08:32 CDT To: Mike Gaffron <MGaffron@ci .orono.rnn.us>, Melanie Curtis <mcurtis@ci .orono .rnn .us > Subject: Stavig Variance -790 N Brown Road Mike and/or Melanie When Mike and I spoke last summer, he mentioned that I would need to seek approval for a one-year extension for the variance on our property at 790 N Brown Road. Please advise on the required process and timing. We have had the property on the market for a period oftime, and are proceeding with our intent to building a home for ourselves. Thanks again for your assistance, John John Stavig (612-625-2485) Director -Gary S. Holmes Center for Entrepreneurship Carlson School of Management-University of Minnesota www.entrepreneurship .umn.edu 1 Memo To: Finance Department From: Christine Mattson, Planning Assistant CC: Zoning File . Date: 9/5/2012 G/L: 101-22205 Re: Variance Escrow Refund Planning & Zoning Department Variance #12-3547 pertaining to 790 Brown Road North is complete. Property owner, John Stavig, is requesting his $2 ,000 escrow to be refunded to him . The following is attached: • Email from Campbell Knutson stating they have no unbilled WIP for this application. • Email from Bolton & M.enk stating theyhave no unbilled WIP for this application. • Original signed escrow agreement • Copy of PermitWorks receipt showing escrow amount received Mail to: John Stavig 780 Brown Road N Long Lake, MN 55356 z:\zoning applications\2012 zoning applications -#3537 thru\12-3547 (790 brown rd n) var\escrow refund memo.doc Christine Mattson From: Sent: To: Sherry Charboneau [SCharboneau@ck-law.com] Tuesday, September 04, 2012 12:27 PM Christine Mattson Subject: RE: Unbilled WIP Christine: No unbilled WIP on this one for Campbell Knutson. Have a good afternoon. Sherry Sherry L. Charboneau Legal Assistant CAMPBELL KNITTSON P.A. 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Suite 317 • Eagan, MN 55121 ~ (651) 234-6230 • Fax: (651) 452-5550 ~ scharboneau@ck-law.com • www.ck-law.com From: Christine Mattson [mailto:CMattson@ci.orono.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:58 AM To: Sherry Charboneau Subject: Unbilled WIP Hi. Any unbilled WIP for variance application 12-3547 for 790 Brown Road N, property owner John Stavig? Thanks! Christine Mattson Planning Assistant City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway Orono MN 55356 (physical address) PO Box 66 I Crystal Bay MN 55323-0066 (mailing address) '2 952.249.4620 ~ 952.249.4616 l:8l cmattson@ci.orono.mn.us I ~ www.ci.orono.mn.us Office Hours: Monday -Friday 8 am to 4:30 pm OUR OFFICE WILL BE CLOSED: Monday, November 12, 2012 1 Christine Mattson From: David P. Martini Sent: To: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 1:00 PM Christine Mattson Subject: RE: Unbilled WIP Christine, There is no unbilled WIP on this project. Thanks. David P. Martini, P.E. Bolton & Menk, Inc. P: (952) 448-8838 ext. 2458 M: (612) 756-4315 email: davidma@bolton-menk.com From: Christine Mattson [mailto:CMattson@ci.orono.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:32 AM To: David Martini Subject: Unbilled WIP Hi Dave, Can you tell me if you (meaning Bolton & Menk) have any unbilled WIP for the variance application #12-3547 at 790 Brown Road N, property owner is John Stavig? Thanks! Christine Mattson Planning Assistant City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway I Orono MN 55356 (physical address) PO Box 66 ! Crystal Bay I MN i 55323-0066 (mailing address) fl 952.249.4620 @ 952.249.4616 ~ cmattson@ci.orono.mn.us I '1'l www.ci.orono.mn.us Office Hours: Monday -Friday 8 am to 4:30 pm OUR OFFICE WILL BE CLOSED: Monday, November 12, 2012 1 APPLICATION ESCROW AGREEM!:¥ ~t::=-.47 Zoning Application # I l----fr_,_._.~---'-'----9 ✓ 'l __ .,,., AGREEMENT made this / _/) day of -···/A,v.,,A!L, '1 , 20 /Z.. , by and between the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal c_orporation ("City'') and __________________ _ -:--:;;i· rv '1.? _s:T A v1 -, [a corporation -optiona~ ("Applicant"). Recitals 1. Applicant has filed Zoning Application # I 7- review plans for ---1-!'·,.{»J~-,--~.u.:.."""""'--::t---;-,,--=--=x---:-,r:r-.c-+.,,_--.....,..::c-::----:,,-,,,,---,c-::---,>r::T"--,--+-- located at hi) · the "Subject Property") as more fully sho 2. Applicant requests the City to review said plans which requires City approval including ___ _ 3. The City is willing to commence Its review of the application and incur costs associated with said review only if the Applicant establishes an escrow to ensure reimbursement to the City of its costs. NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. 'D!=POSIT OF ESCROW Fl:lNDS. Contemporaneously with the execution of this Escrow Agreement, the Applicant shall deposit $ }JJCiO with the City. All accrued interest, if any, shall be paid to the City to reimburse the City for its cost in administering the escrow account. 2. PURPOSE OF ESCROW. The purpose of the escrow is to guamntee reimbursement to the City for all out-of-pocket costs the City has incurred (including planning, engineering, or legal consultant review) or will incur in meeting with the Applicant,. re:::Jjg the plans, and preparing agenda packet material for City Council review of application # I 2--,?,,121: ~ Eligible expenses shall be consistent with expenses the Applicant would be responsible for under a zoning and subdivision application. 3. MONTHLY BILLING. As the City receives consultant bills for incurred costs, the City will in turn send a bill to the Applicant. Applicant shall be responsible for payment to the City within 30 days of the Applicant's receipt of bill. 4. DISBURSEMENT FROM ESCROW ACCOUNT. In the event that the Applicant does not make payment to the City within the timeframe outlined in #3 above, the City may draw from the escrow account without further approval of the Applicant to reimburse the City for eligible expenses the City has incurred. The City shall notify the Applicant of such draw and the nature of the expense for which the reimbursement is being made. If the Escrow amount falls below 75% of the original escrow amount the Applicant shall deposit additional sums as directed by the City, or the City shall discontinue all review. 5. CLOSING ESCROW. The Balance on deposit in the escrow, if any, shall be returned to the Applicant when the review has been completed. 6. CERTIFY UNPAID CHARGES. If the project is abandoned by Applicant, or if the eligible expenses incurred by the City exceed the amount in escrow, the City shall have the right to certify the unpaid balance e subject property pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 415.01 and 366.012. APPLICANT' OWNEIR:-----·-·:-\ By: ,,./··/() ( ):::> ' Its: / .-'---------------t_.. / -10 - EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tract F, Registered Land Survey No., 1275, files of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota RECEIVED JAN 1.8 2012 CITY OF ORONO City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Oror,o MN 55356 Receipt No: 3.006459 952-249-4600 Feb 22, 2012 Johr, Stavig Planning and Zoning 2012-00149 780 Brown Rd N 101-22205 Deferred Rev-Developer Deposit Plannir,n and Zoning 12-3547-780 Brown Rd N 101-34420 Cond Use-Variance-Dev Fees Total: Check Check No: 6028 Payor: John Stavi11 Total Appliea: Change Tendered: 02/22/2012 01:15PM 2,500.00 700.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 .oo CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY ORONO, MN 55356- 111111111111 lllll 111111111111111 11111 111111111111111 IIII IIII *2012-00149* DATE ISSUED: 02/22/2012 (952) 249-4600 FAX: (952) 249-4616 : 780 BROWN RD N : 34-118-23-11-0002 ADDRESS PIN LEGALDESC : REG. LAND SURVEY NO. 1275 PERMIT TYPE PROPERTY TYPE : LOT 000 BLOCK 000 · : ESCROW FEE-APPLICANT : RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION TYPE : ESCROW FEE -APPLICANT NOTE: 12-3547 ZONING APP APPLICANT ST A VIG, JOHN & PHOEBE 780 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE, MN 55356- (612) 625-2485 OWNER STA VIG, JOHN & PHOEBE 780 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE, MN 55356- AGREEMENT AND SWORN STATEMENT The work for which this permit is issued shall be performed according to the approved plans and specifications, applicable City approvals, and the State Building Code. This permit is for only the work described and does not grant permission for additional or related work which requires separate permits. All provisions oflaws and ordinances governing this type of work shall be compied with whether or not specified herein. This permit will expire and become null and void if construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days of the date of issuance, or if construction is suspended for a period of 180 days at any time after work has commenced. The applicant is responsible for assuring all required inspections are requested in conformance with the State Building Code. This permit may be revoked at any time for due cause. I I ESCROW FEE -APPLICANT TOTAL n I Applicant Permitee Signature Date Issued By Signature Qy'\...-1:)ate SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR WORK OTHER THAN DESCRIBED ABOl\)rE. 2,500.00 2,500.00 Checklist for Refunding Variance / Land Use Escrow Variance# IL-~ 7 Street Address: __ 1~q{) __ f?_nJW_V\ __ R{l __ r)~----- Applicant Name: O\aV~ 1 J<llilCl ~crow request received Date: 1) ... , 0 '{ L- □ Is the resolution signed? S No wJ--nDt-ye_ID(}@~ ~t As-built survey? Yes No Approved: ______ _ □ Email CK &Wlon trMe:;ets any unbilled WIP. Date email sent: q.,q-. ! L- □ Prepare memo for Finance Department Peter Zimmerman to note in spreadsheet titled 'DevDeposits2010.xlsx' refund was made. z:\forms\zoning standard forms\checklist for refunding variance escrows.doc December 23, 2010 Christine Mattson From: Sent: To: Subject: Christine, stavi003@umn.edu on behalf of John Stavig Ustavig@umn.edu] Friday, August 10, 2012 9:41 AM Christine Mattson Escrowed Funds -790 N. Brown Road I wanted to request the release of our $2,500 escrowed funds for the approved variance request at 790 N. Brown Road. The variance request has been approved and all charges from the city have been paid with respect to this project. There are no additional plans in place for building or development at this site. Please let me know if you require anything further to release the funds. Thanks. John John Stavig (612-625-2485) Director-Gary S. Holmes Center for Entrepreneurship Carlson School of Management -University of Minnesota www.entrepreneurship.umn.edu 1 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 TO: John & Phoebe Stavig 780 Brown Road N Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: DATE OF MEETING: Variances June 25, 2012 ZONING FILE: 12-3547 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 26, 2012 COPIES: VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Motion: To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution previously mailed to you . Please arrange to sign the original resolution at the City Offices (Please note: The City is now on a summer schedule. Monday through Thursday 7:30 -5 PM & Friday, 7:30 to 11 :30). All persons with an interest in the property must sign the resolution. Variance approval is limited to the extent shown on approved plan and as noted in the approval resolution. Changes in approved plans are subject to further review by the City . Variance approval expires one year after date of approval. A building permit must be obtained no later than June 25, 2013. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. If you have questions please contact Mike Gaffron, Assistant City Administrator, at mgaffron@ci.orono.mn .us or 952.249.4622. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCil, MEETING Monday, June 25, 2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. *5. #12-3547 JOHN AND P~OEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH -VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO . 6147 Franchot moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6147, a Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-305 and 78-1279, for the property located at 790 Brown Road North. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. #12-3554 DOUGLAS AND ANN ENGLUND, 3884 CHERRY A VENUE -VARIAN CE - OLUTION NO. 6148 Franc t moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6148, a Resolution Gr ting Variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-350 & 78-1288, for the property loc d at 3884 Cherry Av ue. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays O. *7. !RECTOR/CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT NT -STUBBS BAY RA VINE Franchot moved, Printup se oded, to approve the Final Pay R uest for the contractor Peterson Companies, Inc., in the amoun f $41,964;87 for the comple · of the Stubbs Bay Ravine Stabilization. VOTE: Ayes 5, N s 0. Struve reported that Big Island has bee owed in prepar 10n for the 4th of July weekend. Old Crystal Bay Road has been resurfaced . Franchot asked how thick the overlay was. Struve indicated it was an inch and a half. S MAYOR/COUNCil, REPORT Franchot reported the Commun · tions Commission is movine head with discussions concerning the at they .are about to start some stu: · es on the quality of the system prior to beginning negotiations wit ediacom . Printup noted Summe est was last weekend and that it was a success . McMillan report she attended the grand opening for the Creative Kids Ac emy on June 14th and that they have don an impressive job with the building. The owner of Creative s indicated that he had a temporary er out and that he received an e-mail from someone regarding th stated th ity Council should discuss the signage issue perhaps this fall. lan noted the Highway 12 turnback committee met last week. ( ---------------Page13of15 Date Application Received: 02/22/2012 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/22/2012 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/22/2012 60 Day Extension Sent 3/21 Expires: 6/21/12 Addt'I Extension Granted 6-5-12 to: 8/20/12 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: l)A 4 1}p.Jtinistrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron VY~- Title: Asst. City Administrator Item Description: Date: June 20, 2012 Item No. _5 Agenda Section: Planning & Zoning # 12-3547 John & Phoebe Stavig, "790" Brown Road N / PID 34-118-23-11-0003 -Variances -Resolution Zoning District: LR-lA, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acres/200' Lot Area: 62,247 square feet (1.42 acres) Lot Width: +360' at OHWL (944.3') & + 356' at 75' setback List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Resolution Notice of Council Action 6/20/12 Draft Council Minutes 6/11/12 Application Summary: The City Council on June 11 voted 4-0 to direct staff to draft a resolution for approval of variances as requested by the applicant, including an average lakeshore setback variance; a rear (street) setback variance to allow setback of 30' where 50' is required; a variance to allow construction 15 feet from the top of bluff where a 30-foot setback is required; and a variance to locate the home 5 feet into the defined 20-foot bluff impact zone. Council directed that staff incorporate into the resolution conditions to be adhered to for minimizing the impacts of the proposal. Such conditions have been incorporated into the resolution. A resolution reflecting the Council action is attached for adoption. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-305 AND 78-1279 FILE NO. 12-3547 Council Exhibit A WHEREAS, John D. Stavig and Phoebe M. Stavig, a married couple (hereinafter "the Applicants") are the owners of the property located at 790 Brown Road North within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as: Tract F, R.L.S. No. 1275, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is an · existing Lot of Record and meets the requirements of Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-72(b )(2) to be utilized for single- family detached dwelling purposes by administrative approval; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 to allow construction of a new residence on the property to be located 30 feet from the rear or street lot line where a 50-foot setback is normally required; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279(6) to allow encroachment of the defined average lakeshore setback; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1279(1) and 78-1279(3) to allow construction of a new residence located 15 feet from the defined top of bluff where a 30-foot setback is normally required and encroaching 5 feet into the defined bluff impact zone where no such structures are normally allowed; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the Orono, Minnesota, City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 19, 2012 and again on May 21, 2012 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and Page 1 of7 WHEREAS, on May 21, 2012 the Orono Planning Commission on a vote of 6-0 recommended denial of the variances for bluff setback and encroachment of the bluff impact zone; approval of variance for average lakeshore setback; and recommended approval of variances to allow a street setback of 25 feet, and side setbacks of 25 feet instead of the required 30 feet; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2012 the Orono City Council reviewed the application and after due deliberation on a vote of 4-0 directed staff to draft a resolution for approval of the requested variances as initially requested by the Applicants. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 12-3547. 2. The Property is located in the LR-lA One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District which requires a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres and a minimum lot width of200'. 3. The City Council makes the following findings regarding this application: a. The Property contains 62,247 square feet (1.42 acres) in area and has in excess of 3 50 feet in defined width. The Property is an existing Lot of Record and meets the requirements of Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78- 72(b )(2) to be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes by administrative approval. b. The Property is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and sanitary sewer is available to serve the Property. c. The location of the residence structures on the adjacent lakeshore properties is such that the defined average lakeshore setback line leaves no buildable area within the Property. The proposed encroachment past the average setback line will have minimal or no impact on views of the lake enjoyed by the neighboring property to the west. Therefore the proposed encroachment of the average setback line is justified. Page 2 of7 d. The proposed street setback of 30 feet rather than the required 50-foot setback is a function of balancing the need for a usable buildable envelope with the existing constraints of the required street setbacks and top of bluff setback, which if no variances were granted would yield a buildable envelope of less than 10 feet in depth. e. Based on the location of the neighboring residence structures and the configuration of the private road and cul-de-sac serving the neighborhood, the proposed location of the new home 30 feet from the street lot line will have minimal or no negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood. f. The topography and shape of the Property creates a practical difficulty for locating the home in a conforming location with respect to the defined top of bluff and bluff impact zone. A significant portion of the property meets the Zoning Code definition to be considered as a bluff. g. An existing old driveway bed located just above and just below the defined top of bluff may provide some level of slope stability that would not otherwise be present. The proposed house location will be within 15 feet of the top of bluff but is intended to be uphill from the driveway bed and not disturb the integrity of the driveway bed. h. The Applicants' proposed site plan indicates that approximately 10 mature trees protected by virtue of being within the bluff impact zone will be removed along the uphill edge of the old driveway bed. No other protected trees are proposed to be removed. 1. The Applicants' engineering consultant has provided an opinion that the proposed house location above the driveway bed will be in soils that have sufficient stability to allow construction of the proposed home. The City Engineer in his review has indicated that while the information provided by Applicants is not a guarantee of slope stability, the proposed house location will minimize grading and erosion potential, and the positioning just above the driveway bed provides the most stable location with regard to the downhill slope. J. Approval should be conditioned on the recommendations of the Applicants' Engineer and the City Engineer as noted in their respective submittals, especially in regards to erosion control and surface water runoff management. Page 3 of7 k. The variances to allow encroachment of the bluff impact zone and bluff setback are necessary to allow for a reasonable building envelope for the property. Additionally, the heavily wooded nature of the bluff area and the regulatory protection afforded vegetation on bluffs and bluff impact zones by Orono Zoning Code Section 78-1285 should result in minimal negative impacts to views of the property from the lake. 1. The Applicants' request will alleviate a practical difficulty inherent to the Property and not created by the Applicants. m. The Applicants' request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and will result in minimal negative impact on adjacent properties. n. The Applicants' request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation 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. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this Property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the Applicant, but are necessary to alleviate a practical 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 a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 to allow construction of a new residence on the Property to be located 30 feet from the rear or street lot line where a 50-foot setback is normally required; and grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279(6) to allow encroachment of the defined average lakeshore setback; and grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1279(1) and 78-1279(3) to allow Page 4 of7 construction of a new residence located 15 feet from the defined top of bluff where a 30-foot setback is normally required and encroaching 5 feet into the defined bluff impact zone where no such structures are normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the survey depicting the site plan, grading plan and tree removal plan for a conceptual residence structure footprint submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes or which revise the footprint to an extent that would cause the removal of additional mature trees or result in substantial additional grading within the bluff impact zone will require further City Council review. 2. The City Council acknowledges that no building plans have been submitted depicting the floor plans or fac;ade elevation views of the proposed structure, but advises the Applicants that this approval is in part based on statements by the Applicants that the house constructed pursuant to the approval of variances will be in character with other homes in the neighborhood. Applicants are advised that City regulations regarding the height and massing ofresidence structures will be strictly adhered to. 3. Grading within the defined bluff impact zone to create an access driveway around the south side of the house to serve a basement-level storage garage will not be allowed. 4. The following engineering requirements shall be adhered to with regards to construction of a home on the Property: a) Silt fence shall be placed at the downhill edge of the old driveway bed prior to any work, including tree removal. Erosion control for the entire site during construction shall adhere to City and MCWD requirements. b) Disturbed slopes shall be seeded and protected with erosion control blanket immediately after grading is completed. Sodding is also acceptable. c) All runoff from the new house, yards, walks and driveways shall be designed to properly manage potential erosion issues due to point discharges. Installation of rain gardens to collect the new runoff shall be required, designed to limit the peak runoff rates, disperse point discharges and prevent erosion. d) Tree removal and backfilling of the resultant ground openings shall adhere to the recommendations of Applicants' engineer as indicated in the report by Carl Anderson Engineering dated April 30, 2012. 5. Applicant is advised that the Property has not been provided with a sanitary sewer service stub and was not assessed for the required Sewer Connection Charge at the time the neighborhood line was installed. The existing sanitary service stub directed toward this Page 5 of7 lot is intended to serve the property at 780 Brown Road North, and potentially may require an easement over the Property at 790 in order to make use of it at the time 780 is connected. The Applicant will have to install a new connection to serve 790 and will bear the costs of the City Sewer Connection Charge at the time of connection ($8250 for 2012) as well as the Met Council SAC fee (both due at the time of building permit issuance), City connection permit, and grinder station for connection to pressure sewer. 6. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (June 25, 2013). 7. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned Applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Applicants and the Applicants' heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title ofthe Property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 25 th day of June, 2012. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Property Owner( s) Page 6 of7 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this_ day of _____ , 2012, by John D. Stavig, husband of Phoebe M. Stavig. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public This instrument was acknowledged before me this_ day of _____ , 2012, by Phoebe M. Stavig, wife of John D. Stavig. Notary Public Page 7 of7 ~ (.') I--.. (..) \ ~. "1[,.s-½--._ i--.: ~ 8~>'t.,G~, Z l's"lck1~t.', ti"'~ 0-'il -e-t-,, I 0 ~\ 1ff-'-',.,, ,___ ,, I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN D. STAVIG OF TRACT F, R.L.S. NO. 1275 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LONG " Tract F, Registered Land Survey No., 1275, flies of Registrar ofTitles, Hennepin County, Minn~sota This survey intends to shoW the boundaries of the above described property, ::'u:~~i::t!;~Ujiti~l~~ict::~~~= g1;r;~~: :el~:r ~e;::• topography northerly of the old driveway, and topography from field shots southerly ..gJ the old driveway. It d~ not purport to show any other Improvements or encroachments. tJt : Denotes tree to be removed . o : Iron marker \ LAKE \ \ ', '•, \ -qs&-: Existing contour fine· 11: Denotes proposed contour line : Denotes proposed spot elevation e rings shown are based upon an assumed datum 0ESICNEO "'"""" om 2-22-12 cs1:<:KE1> 11~358 D(SCRf'TION POSSIBLE HOUSE! ~~-D!J!~~ND TREES IN THAT AREA SHOWN $ GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSUL TING ENGINEERS, LANO SURVEYORS, SITE PLANNERS 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE, LONG LAKE, MN. S5356 952-473-4141 r-, 1 \ I \ I I I \ ·I I I I I I -,,... + POSSIBLE DOCK LOCATION I HEREBY CERllFYlMATTHIS PLAN. SPEOFJCATION, OR REPOR~ WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANO THAT I AMA DULY UCENSEO PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND LAN SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE SfAlE OF MINNESOTA. DATE SCAU 1"=30' d2LL 1~-12 J08 NO. 11-358 ' I ., m~ >< "' 2: 2. C" s:: -· ---· )>g NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 TO: John & Phoebe Stavig 780 Brown Road N Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: June 11, 2012 ZONING FILE: 12-3547 DATE OF NOTICE: June 20, 2012 COPIES: At their meeting on June 11, 2012, the Orono City Council voted 4-0 to direct that City staff prepare a resolution for approval of the variances as requested by applicant, for adoption at the next Council meeting. VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next meeting is scheduled as: Monday, June 25, 7:00 p.m. Council Exhibit B If you desire certified copies of the official City Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. If you have questions, please contact Mike Gaffron at mgaffron@ci.orono.mn.us or 952-249-4622. ~ % ~ \ MINUTES OF THE ~ 0\_ ~ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING , ~ Monday,Junell,2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. Council Exhibit C 6. #12-3547 JOHN AND PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH-VARIANCES John Stavig, Applicant, was present. Gaffron noted this is a vacant lot located on a private road off of Brown Road. Gaffron noted there is also a bluff on the lot. The applicants are requesting the following variances in order to construct a residence on this vacant lot: average lakeshore setback variance, rear (street) setback variance to allow setback of 30' where 50' is required; variance to allow construction 15 feet from the top of bluff where a 30-foot setback is required; and a variance to locate the home five feet into the defined 20-foot bluff impact zone. The Planning Commission has reviewed this application twice. Following the first meeting, the applicant submitted additional engineering on slope stability. Staff has also looked at other options for a building site outside of the bluff impact zone. Without any variances, it would be ve1y difficult to construct a house on this lot. Based on that review, Staff would recommend that a 25-foot setback be allowed rather than a 30-foot setback and allow the house to be located 25 feet from the side lot line. The applicant has indicated he is not interested in locating the house closer to the street and closer to the neighboring property . Staff also recommended that the applicant be allowed some grading work within the bluff to allow for a walkout. The applicant has also asked for a tuck under garage. The Planning Commission at its May 21 meeting voted 5 to O to recommend a combination of approvals and denials as follows: 1. Approval of an average lakeshore setback variance; 2. Denial of the bluff setback variance; 3. Denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure; 4. Allowance for limited grading within the bluff impact zone to allow for a walkout door; 5. Approval of a street setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear (street) property line , five feet closer than requested by applicant; 6. Approval of left and right side setbacks of 25 feet where 3 0 feet is normally required to allow for a house/garage footprint of approximately 2,150 square feet. The applicant did not request these variances. Gaffron stated the recommendations of the Planning Commission offer the applicant additional unrequested relief to the prope1ty line setbacks while denying the structural bluff impacts. The applicant has not indicated acceptance of these conditions . Gaffron noted that in addition, the potential for granting side setback variances was not specifically included in the legal notices for either hearing, and as a result, the adjoining neighbor to the immediate west who is potentially affected may not be aware of the 25-foot setback recommendation. ----------------Page 5 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 11, 2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6. #12-3547 JOHN AND PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, Continued) Gaffron noted Staff conducted another bluff analysis following a phone call from a builder who had been called by a realtor who asked whether they could construct a house fmther back in the bluff. Gaffron indicated the house would still be in the bluff impact zone in that scenario. Rahn asked if the house is located five feet closer to the street, whether it would meet the bluff regulations. Gaffron indicated you would be able to fit a house in that location without being in the bluff and that it comes down to the size of the house. John Stavig, Applicant, stated they have attended two Planning Commission meetings and have submitted additional engineering information on slope stability. One issue at the March Planning Commission meeting was whether it fits the definition of bluff, and in their opinion it slightly exceeds the 30 percent threshold at certain points in the bluff area. As a result, they have tried to move beyond arguing over the definition of the bluff. Stavig stated soil erosion issues were also discussed at the March meeting and the application was tabled to allow additional engineering to be conducted. Stavig indicated he hired an engineering firm to conduct soil testing on the driveway bed, which was constructed approximately 100 years ago. Essentially the findings of the engineer were that the driveway bed showed no signs of erosion and would support the construction of a house in that area. In addition, the engineering firm found that the proposed location of a walkout structure on the survey is well suited to minimize required grading and take advantage of the steady and gradual slope of the bluff line. The rear wall of the foundation would be located just above the stable shelf created by the construction of the driveway bed more than a century ago. Stavig indicated they have attempted to create a low profile walkout house that would fit within the neighborhood as well as minimize the impact on the trees and the slope. The City Engineer has confirmed that this is the best location for the house. Stavig commented that anyone who has visited the site would appreciate the heavily wooded areas and the stability the trees afford. The engineering report also identified construction techniques that could be employed to minimize the impact to the site. Stavig noted the City Engineer has looked at the rep011 and has indicated that the proposed location of the walkout structure is located to minimize grading and potential erosion, which the bluff setback regulations are designed to address. Positioning the structure immediately above the existing driveway bed provides the most stable location with regard to the downhill slope. Stavig stated a lot of the discussion at the second Planning Commission meeting centered around the fact that the DNR has recommended no construction in the bluff impact zone. Stavig indicated he did not contact Mr. Gleason of the DNR before that meeting but that he has since discussed this issue with him. Mr. Gleason indicated he recalled having commented on the prope11y and said he sympathized with the situation but that they are a regulatory body and not trained in geotechnical engineering and steep slope stabilization. It therefore would be inappropriate to attempt to provide solutions and that he would recommend that a professional engineer be consulted. Stavig commented he feels as if he is in a bit of a loop. Stavig stated the point is that the DNR did not really consider this specific site and merely used boilerplate language. Stavig stated in his view they have employed a thoughtful approach to the construction and it should be allowed. Page 6 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 11, 2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6. #12-3547 JOHN AND PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, Continued) Stavig stated he appreciates the time that the City has taken on this application and that they have attempted to minimize the number of variances being requested. Stavig indicated he did not receive the e-mail with the City's recommendations until after the Planning Commission meeting and that he did not have a chance to discuss Staffs recommendation with his neighbors. Stavig indicated the proposal to push the house closer to the street and to the tennis court is not something that his neighbors would like and not something that he proposed. The Planning Commission elected to vote for Staffs proposal, which also creates additional hardcover. Stavig stated he is attempting to find a solution and that he is proposing to put the house in the most responsible place and where the engineers have recommended. There is approximately 1,500 square feet to construct a house in the location proposed by Staff and it will be considerably smaller than the other houses in the neighborhood. If the house is located closer to the street, it will be more visible to the rest of the neighborhood and block the lake views. Rahn asked what the bluff setback is for Long Lake. Gaffron stated the model ordinance that the DNR adopted approximately 20 years ago is one that they expect all cities to comply with and that it is likely Long Lake's regulations are the same as Orono's, which is consistent with the DNR regulations. Stavig indicated they would be willing to eliminate the driveway to the storage shed and that they would also be open to considering limiting the height of the house. McMillan noted she visited the site yesterday and that it is a difficult lot. She added the lot would not have much of a building envelope without variances. McMillan asked how the City typically handles requests for variances when there are no plans to build a specific house. Gaffron stated variances have been granted in the past for a conceptual house so the owners knew they could market the lot as buildable. In the case where there is a proposed footprint, Gaffron indicated he would not be surprised that the actual plans would have a different footprint. Gaffron stated basically the applicant is attempting to establish a location for the house and the size of the house. McMillan commented it is fair to the applicant that he knows what he can build on the lot so he can market it appropriately. McMillan noted there will have to be some variances granted and that it is a matter of how many and what type of variances would be approved. Gaffron stated the Consulting City Engineer has stated in his letter that traditionally the City has not considered information such as a slope stability analysis that has been provided by applicants when reviewing proposed encroachments into slope setbacks as defined by the City Code. This is because even with the technical information that has been provided, slope stability still cannot be guaranteed. It is his understanding that the City has past examples where extreme weather has led to slope instability on other lots that were originally believed to be stable. This is one of the reasons that the City has adopted the slope setbacks. Gaffron stated in essence the Consulting City Engineer is saying that there is risk involved but that he did say the proposed location is acceptable. Staff would prefer variances to the bluff not be granted. ----------------Page 7 of 17 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,Junell,2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6. #12-3547 JOHN AND PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, Continued) McMillan noted this lot was subdivided in 1969 and probably would not have been able to be created after 1992. Gaffron noted this property is located in the MUSA and that there is a sewer connection available to the property. Stavig stated he is not attempting to represent that the slope will never fail but that the driveway bed was constructed over 100 years ago and has not eroded. McMillan commented that anytime you sta1t removing more of the soil, stability will be impacted. Gaffron stated Staff has not done any analysis to determine whether the lower level will be considered a basement or a story. McMillan opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Meg Pendleton, 800 Brown Road No1th, noted she attended the March Planning Commission meeting and had the understanding that Mr. Stavig needed to obtain some additional engineering, which she was fine with. Mr. Stavig had discussed his application with the neighbors prior to approaching the City and the neighbors are comf01table with his research and proposal. Pendleton stated in her view he respects the neighborhood. Pendleton indicated she still has respect for Mr. Stavig's opinion and that she thought the engineering report would be enough for the City to pass his application. Pendleton indicated she would not like the house to be moved closer to the cul-de-sac since it will be likely the house will be higher and that she would prefer the house be located further back. Pendleton stated if she is looking out over the lake, the closer the house is to the cul-de-sac, the higher the house is, and that she would prefer the location proposed by the applicant. McMillan closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Rahn commented it is difficult to approve an application without elevations since that would give the Council a better perspective on how the structure would impact the neighbors. Rahn stated encroachment into the bluff is a major issue and it is not something that the City n01mally does. Gaffron stated the City does not typically grant variances to the bluff. Gaffron noted the minutes of the Planning Commission reflect that they were not unanimous in their recommendation that additional engineering would persuade them to approve the application. McMillan asked if there are two variances to the bluff being requested. Gaffron indicated the applicants are requesting a bluff setback variance and a variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure. The bluff impact zone is the first 20 feet back from the bluff and the applicant is proposing to be five feet into that zone. One of the impacts of the proposal is that a number of trees would need to be removed on the uphill side of the old driveway. McMillan noted those trees would be removed with either proposal. ----------------Page 8 of 17 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,Junell,2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. /j) /o) !J2J 4J ;J )l (6. #12-3547 JOHN AND PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, Continued) Gaffron stated some grading would be required for a walkout and that he is unsure whether all the grading that is shown on his sketch would be required. McMillan asked if the house is moved five feet out of the bluff impact zone, whether that would be a good compromise. McMillan noted it would still be 10 feet within the street setback. Gaffron stated it would still require some work within the bluff impact zone but the structure would be eliminated from that area. Franchot commented that would also speak to the slope stability and maintaining the City's setback to the bluff. Gaffron stated the bluff impact zone is intended to help ensure stability as well as minimizing visual impacts. Gaffron stated he is in agreement that the visual impacts of a house as viewed from the lake are fairly minimal given the trees. Franchot commented in his view the Mayor's proposal would be a good compromise. Stavig stated he appreciates that proposal , but unfortunately, given the pie-shaped lot, he would lose 15 percent of the house and 21 percent of the garage. Franchot stated if they presume the City Council approves the other variances, those would help him avoid constructing a multi-story house. Stavig stated the engineering report specifically commented on attempts to relocate the house further forward and noted that given the unique contour created by the construction of the driveway bed, positioning the structure further away from the bluff zone may actually create a greater potential for erosion above the driveway bed. Stavig stated it would create more of a concern locating it there than at the proposed location. Stavig stated he would also like to highlight the fact that there is another application on tonight's agenda requesting a variance to the bluff. Stavig stated Planner Gaffron's proposal requires six variances, which is more than what he is requesting. McMillan stated she would be in favor of one side setback variance on the side of the applicant's other lot and that the garage could also be pulled forward closer to the road, which would lessen the impact on the bluff. Printup stated he has struggled with the recommendation from the engineering repo1t and then discounting it. Printup stated he understands the concerns with impacting the bluff and that in his view bringing it f01ward five feet is good. Printup commented he has a concern with the City Council designing a building pad for the applicant. Rahn stated the City Council is discussing a plan that the applicant is not interested in and the neighbors are not interested in the plan. Rahn stated the City Council has provided the applicant with some feedback, and that in his view the Council cannot make a decision based on what is before them tonight. Rahn stated it is not fair to a neighbor to approve a building pad within the side setback when the property -----------------Page 9 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 11, 2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6. #12-3547 JOHN AND PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, Continued) currently is a vacant lot. Rahn indicated he would like to see a more concrete plan and that the proposal is being driven by the square footage of the house. Stavig indicated 1,600 feet is the upper level of the house and that it is at least 50 percent smaller than any other house in the neighborhood. Franchot stated he understands the concerns expressed and that in his view the City Council is not designing a house but merely providing some direction on the best place to locate a house. McMillan stated the applicant is requesting the City approve a building envelope for them so they can market the property. Franchot asked if the goal is to market the lot. Stavig indicated not necessarily, but that if anyone is willing to pay him the assessed value of the lot, he would likely be willing to sell it. McMillan commented the applicant is attempting to figure out what he would be allowed to construct. Rahn stated he understands the applicant's reluctance to Staffs proposal and that perhaps the City Council should simply vote on the application that has been presented by the applicant. Stavig stated that is what he is requesting. Stavig stated they have attempted to address the erosion issues and that his engineer and the City's engineer have agreed the proposed location is the best location for the residence. Franchot moved, Printup seconded, Application #12-3547, John and Phoebe Stavig, 790 Brown Road North, to direct Staff to draft an approval resolution for the application presented by the applicant granting an average lakeshore setback variance, a rear street setback variance to allow 30 feet where 50 feet is required, a variance to allow construction 15 feet from the top of the bluff where 30 feet is required, and a variance to allow a 5-foot encroachment into the bluff impact zone. McMillan noted if the City does go down this path, she would recommend including some language in the resolution regarding the amount of grading that would be allowed. Rahn asked when the Council spoke of excavating for the walkout level, whether that was part of the applicant's engineer's repmt. Stavig stated there are specifics contained in his engineer's report about the grading and incorporating rain gardens and other methods to handle runoff. McMillan asked whether there would be language preserving the trees also included in the resolution . Gaffron stated other than what is being proposed to be removed, the rest of the bluff would be preserved. McMillan asked if there is anything else Staff would like to see included in the resolution. ----------------Page 10 of 17 ----------------- MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,Junell,2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6. #12-3547 JOHN AND PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, Continued) Gaffron stated he would like to consult with the City's engineers on whether any other specific conditions should be complied with to be included in the resolution. Franchot amended his motion to include conditions recommended by Staff to minimize the impact on the bluff. Printup seconded. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. #12-3551 CARL TSENG AND KIM YUEH CHA UN, 1505 LONG LAKE BOULEY ,.._,.Ll:"1.l CES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -RESOLUTION NO. 6146 , Applicant; and Tom Budzynski, Builder, were present. Gaffron state the applicant is proposing to raze the existing house and replace it wit a new structure and attached garage. The driveway is being relocated slightly to lessen the impact to t trees. They are requesting the foll ing approvals for construction of a new residence: 1. to allow construction on a lot of 11,951 square required; 2. Lot width variance to ow construction on a lot of 99 ' d width where 200 feet is r uired; 5. 6. A lakeshore setback variance to all 7. Average lakeshore setback va · nee to allow avera setback encroachment of 30 feet where no encroachment is allowed; 8. 0-75 foot hardcover va ·· nee to allow 14.2 percent hardco where no hardcover is normally 9. 10. 11. allowed; over variance to allow 3 5 .2 percent hardcover w d· ' allow structure within Bluff Impact Zone where no structure is d variance required for 0-75 foot grading/filling/excavating in excess of Gaffron n ed since there is an existing house, under state statute they would be allowed to reo 'Id in kind. S · ce approximately half of the existing house is located in the bluff, it would be unrealistic o rebuil an identical house in this situation, which is the reason for the variance requests. Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval as follows: ----------------Page 11 of 17 ----------------- / NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 TO: John & Phoebe Stavig 780 Brown Road N Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: June 11, 2012 ZONING FILE: 12-3547 DATE OF NOTICE: June 20, 2012 COPIES: At their meeting on June 11, 2012, the Orono City Council voted 4-0 to direct that City staff prepare a resolution for approval of the variances as requested by applicant, for adoption at the next Council meeting. VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next meeting is scheduled as: Monday, June 25, 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official City Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. If you have questions, please contact Mike Gaffron at mgaffron@ci.orono.mn.us or 952-249-4622. meeting. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 11, 2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. 6. #12-3547 JOHN AND PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH-VARIANCES John Stavig, Applicant, was present. Gaffron noted this is a vacant lot located on a private road off of Brown Road . Gaffron noted there is also a bluff on the lot. The applicants are requesting the following variances in order to construct a residence on this vacant lot average lakeshore setback variance, rear (street) setback variance to allow setback of 30' where 50 ' is required; variance to allow construction 15 feet from the top of bluff where a 30-foot setback is required; and a variance to locate the home five feet into the defined 20-foot bluff impact zone . .. The Planning Commission has reviewed this application twice. Following the first meeting , the applicant submitted additional engineering on slope stability. Staff has also looked at other options for a building site outside of the bluff impact zone. Without any variances, it would be very difficult to construct a house on this lot. Based on that review, Staff would recommend that a 25-foot setback be allowed rather than a 30-foot setback and allow the house to be located 25 feet from the side lot line . The applicant has indicated he is not interested in locating the house closer to the street and closer to the neighboring property. Staff also recommended that the applicant be allowed some grading work within the bluff to allow for a _ walkout. The applicant has also asked for a tuck under garage. The Planning Commission at its May 21 meeting voted 5 to O to recommend a combination of approvals and denials as follows: 1. Approval of an average lakeshore setback variance; 2. Denial of the bluff setback variance; 3. Denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure; 4. Allowance for limited grading within the bluff impact zone to allow for a walkout door; 5. Approval of a street setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear (street) property line , five feet closer than requested by applicant; 6. Approval of left and right side setbacks of 25 feet where 30 feet is normally required to allow for a house/garage footprint of approximately 2,150 square feet. The applicant did not request these variances. Gaffron stated the recommendations of the Planning Commission offer the applicant additional unrequested relief to the property line setbacks while denying the structural bluff impacts . The applicant has not indicated acceptance of these conditions. Gaffron noted that in addition, the potential for granting side setback variances was not specifically included in the legal notices for either hearing , and as a result, the adjoining neighbor to the immediate west who is potentially affected may not be aware of the 25-foot setback recommendation. -----------------Page 5 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 11, 2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6. #12-3547 JOHN AND PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, Continued) Gaffron noted Staff conducted another bluff analysis following a phone call from a builder who had been called by a realtor who asked whether they could construct a house further back in the bluff. Gaffron indicated the house would still be in the bluff impact zone in that scenario . Rahn asked if the house is located five feet closer to the street, whether it would meet the bluff regulations .. Gaffron indicated you would be able to fit a house in that location without being in the bluff and that it comes down to the size of the house . John Stavig, Applicant, stated they have attended two Planning Commission meetings and have submitted additional engineering information on slope stability . One issue at the March Planning Commission meeting was whether it fits the definition of bluff, and in their opinion it slightly exceeds the 30 percent threshold at certain points in the bluff area. As a result, they lrave tried to move beyond arguing over the definition of the bluff. Stavig stated soil erosion issues were also discussed at the March meeting and the application was tabled to allow additional engineering to be conducted . Stavig indicated he hired an engineering firm to conduct soil testing on the driveway bed , which was constructed approximately 100 years ago. Essentially the findings of the engineer were that the driveway bed showed no signs of erosion and would support the construction of a house in that area. In addition, the engineering firm found that the proposed location of a walkout structure on the survey is well suited to minimize required grading and take advantage of the steady and gradual slope of the bluff line. The rear wall of the foundation would be located just above the stable shelf created by the construction of the driveway bed more than a century ago . Stavig indicated they have attempted to create a low profile walkout house that would fit within the neighborhood as well as minimize the impact on the trees and the slope . The City Engineer has confirmed that this is the best location for the house . Stavig commented that anyone who has visited the site would appreciate the heavily wooded areas and the stability the trees afford. The engineering report . also identified construction techniques that could be employed to minimize the impact to the site. Stavig noted the City Engineer has looked at the report and has indicated that the proposed location of the walkout structure is located to minimize grading and potential erosion, which the bluff setback regulations are designed to address. Positioning the structure immediately above the existing driveway bed provides the most stable location with regard to the downhill slope. Stavig stated a lot of the discussion at the second Planning Commission meeting centered around the fact that the DNR has recommended no construction in the bluff impact zone. Stavig indicated he did not contact Mr. Gleason of the DNR before that meeting but that he has since discussed this issue with him . Mr. Gleason indicated he recalled having commented on the property and said he sympathized with the situation but that they are a regulatory body and not trained in geotechnical engineering and steep slope stabilization. It therefore would be inappropriate to attempt to provide solutions and that he would recommend that a professional engineer be consulted. Stavig commented he feels as if he is in a bit of a loop. Stavig stated the point is that the DNR did not really consider this specific site and merely used boilerplate language. Stavig stated in his view they have employed a thoughtful approach to the construction and it should be allowed. Page 6 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 11, 2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6. #12-3547 JOHN AND PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, Continued) Stavig stated he appreciates the time that the City has taken on this application and that they have attempted to minimize the number of variances being requested . Stavig indicated he did not receive the e-mail with the City 's recommendations until after the Planning Commission meeting and that he did not have a chance to discuss Staffs recommendation with his neighbors . Stavig indicated the proposal to push the house closer to the street and to the tennis court is not something that his neighbors would like and not something that he proposed . The Planning Commission elected to vote for Staff's proposal , which also creates additional hardcover . Stavig stated he is attempting to find a solution and that he is proposing to put the house in the most responsible place and where the engineers have recommended. There is approximately 1,500 square feet to construct a house in the location proposed by Staff and it will be considerably smaller than the other houses in the neighborhood. If the house is located closer to the street, it will be more visible to the rest of the neighborhood and block the lake views. · Rahn asked what the bluff setback is for Long Lake. -, •,, Gaffron stated the model ordinance that the DNR adopted approximately 20 years ago is one that they expect all cities to comply with and that it is likely Long Lake 's regulations are the same as Orono's , which is consistent with the DNR regulations. Stavig indicated they would be willing to eliminate the driveway to the storage shed and that they would also be open to considering limiting the height of the house. McMillan noted she visited the site yesterday and that it is a difficult lot. She added the lot would not have much of a building envelope without variances. McMillan asked how the City typically handles requests for variances when there are no plans to build a specific house. Gaffron stated variances have been granted in the past for a conceptual house so the owners knew they could market the lot as buildable. In the case where there is a proposed footprint , Gaffron indicated he would not be surprised that the actual plans would have a different footprint. Gaffron stated basically the applicant is attempting to establish a location for the house and the size of the house. McMillan commented it is fair to the applicant that he knows what he can build on the lot so he can market it appropriately . McMillan noted there will have to be some variances granted and that it is a matter of how many and what type of variances would be approved. Gaffron stated the Consulting City Engineer has stated in his letter that traditionally the City has not considered information such as a slope stability analysis that has been provided by applicants when reviewing proposed encroachments into slope setbacks as defined by the City Code. This is because even with the technical information that has been provided, slope stability still cannot be guaranteed . It is his understanding that the City has past examples where extreme weather has led to slope instability on other lots that were originally believed to be stable . This is one of the reasons that the City has adopted the slope setbacks. Gaffron stated in essence the Consulting City Engineer is saying that there is risk involved but that he did say the proposed location is acceptable. Staff would prefer variances to the bluff not be granted . Page 7 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 11, 2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6. #12-3547 JOHN AND PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, Continued) McMillan noted this lot was subdivided in i969 and probably would not have been able to be created after 1992. Gaffron noted this property is located in the MUSA and that there is a sewer connection available to the property. Stavig stated he is not attempting to represent that the slope will never fail but that the driveway bed was constructed over 100 years ago and has not eroded . McMillan commented that anytime you start removing more of the soil, stability will be impacted. Gaffron stated Staff has not done any analysis to determine whether the lower level will be considered a basement or a story. ·.:·· --.-~, McMillan opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Meg Pendleton, 800 Brown Road North , noted she attended the March Planning Commission meeting and had the understanding that Mr. Stavig needed to obtain some additional engineering, which she was fine with . Mr. Stavig had discussed his application with the neighbors prior to approaching the City and the neighbors are comfortable with his research and proposal. Pendleton stated in her view he respects the neighborhood . Pendleton indicated she still has respect for Mr. Stavig 's opinion and that she thought the engineering report would be enough for the City to pass his application. Pendleton indicated she would not like the house to be moved closer to the cul-de-sac since it will be likely the house will be higher and that she would prefer the house be located further back. Pendleton stated if she is looking out over the lake, the closer the house is to the cul-de-sac , the higher the house is, and that she would prefer the location proposed by the applicant. McMillan closed the public hearing at 7: 52 p.m. Rahn commented it is difficult to approve an application without elevations since that would give the Council a better perspective on how the structure would impact the neighbors. Rahn stated encroachment into the bluff is a major issue and it is not something that the City normally does. Gaffron stated the City does not typically grant variances to the bluff. Gaffron noted the minutes of the Planning Commission reflect that they were not unanimous in their recommendation that additional engineering would persuade them to approve the application. McMillan asked if there are two variances to the bluff being requested. Gaffron indicated the applicants are requesting a bluff setback variance and a variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure . The bluff impact zone is the first 20 feet back from the bluff and the applicant is proposing to be five feet into that zone. One of the impacts of the proposal is that a number of trees would need to be removed on the uphill side of the old driveway . McMillan noted those trees would be removed with either proposal. -----------------Page 8 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 11,2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6. #12-3547 JOHN AND PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, Continued) Gaffron stated some grading would be required for a walkout and that he is unsure whether all the grading that is shown on his sketch would be required. McMillan asked if the house is moved five feet out of the bluff impact zone , whether that would be a good compromise. McMillan noted it would still be 10 feet within the street setback. Gaffron stated it would still require some work within the bluff impact zone but the structure would be eliminated from that area. Franchot commented that would also speak to the slope stability and maintaining the City 's setback to the bluff. Gaffron stated the bluff impact zone is intended to help ensure stability as well as minimizing visual impacts . Gaffron stated he is in agreement that the visual impacts ,Qf a house as -viewed from the lake are fairly minimal given the trees . Franchot commented in his view the Mayor's proposal would be a good compromise. Stavig stated he appreciates that proposal , but unfortunately, given the pie-shaped lot, he would lose 15 percent of the house and 21 percent of the garage. Franchot stated if they presume the City Council approves the other variances , those would help him avoid constructing a multi-story house. Stavig stated the engineering report specifically commented on attempts to relocate the house further forward and noted that given the unique contour created by the construction of the driveway bed, positioning the structure further away from the bluff zone may actually create a greater potential for erosion above the driveway bed. Stavig stated it would create more of a concern locating it there than at the proposed location. Stavig stated he would also like to highlight the fact that there is .another application on tonight's agenda requesting a variance to the bluff. Stavig stated Planner Gaffron's proposal requires six variances, which is more than what he is requesting. McMillan stated she would be in favor of one side setback variance on the side of the applicant's other lot and that the garage could also be pulled forward closer to the road , which would lessen the impact on the bluff. Printup stated he has struggled with the recommendation from the engineering report and then discounting it. Printup stated he understands the concerns with impacting the bluff and that in his view , bringing it forward five feet is good . Printup commented he has a concern with the City Council designing a building pad for the applicant. Rahn stated the City Council is discussing a plan that the applicant is not interested in and the neighbors are not interested in the plan. Rahn stated the City Council has provided the applicant with some feedback , and that in his view the Council cannot make a decision based on what is before them tonight. Rahn stated it is not fair to a neighbor to approve a building pad within the side setback when the property Page 9 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 11, 2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6. #12-3547 JOHN AND PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, Continued) currently is a vacant lot. Rahn indicated he would like to see a more concrete plan and that the proposal is being driven by the square footage of the house. Stavig indicated 1,600 feet is the upper level of the house and that it is at least 50 percent smaller than any other house in the neighborhood . Franchot stated he understands the concerns expressed and that in his view the City Council is not designing a house but merely providing some direction on the best place to locate a house. McMillan stated the applicant is requesting the City approve a building envelope for them so they can market the property. Franchot asked if the goal is to market the lot. Stavig indicated not necessarily, but that if anyone is willing to pay him the assessed value of the lot, he would likely be willing to sell it. McMillan commented the applicant is attempting to figure out what he would be allowed to construct. Rahn stated he understands the applicant 's reluctance to Staff's proposal and that perhaps the City Council should simply vote on the application that has been presented by the applicant. Stavig stated that is what he is requesting . Stavig stated they have attempted to address the erosion issue s and that his engineer and the City's engineer have agreed the proposed location is the best location for the residence . Franchot moved, Printup seconded, Application #12-3547, John and Phoebe Stavig, 790 Brown Road North, to direct Staff to draft an approval resolution for the application presented by the applicant granting an average lakeshore setback variance, a rear street setback variance to allow 30 feet where 50 feet is required, a variance to allow construction 15 feet from the top of the bluff where 30 feet is required, and a variance to allow a 5-foot encroachment into the bluff impact zone. McMillan noted if the City does go down this path, she would recommend including some language in the resolution regarding the amount of grading that would be allowed . Rahn asked when the Council spoke of excavating for the walkout level , whether that was part of the applicant's engineer 's report. Stavig stated there are specifics contained in his engineer 's report about the grading and incorporating . rain gardens and other methods to handle runoff. · McMillan asked whether there would be language preserving the trees also included in the resolution . Gaffron stated other than what is being proposeq to be removed , the rest of the bluff would be preserved . McMillan asked if there is anything else Staff would like to see included in the resolution . -----------------Page 10 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 11, 2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6. #12-3547 JOHN AND PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, Continued) Gaffron stated he would like to consult with the City's engineers on whether an y other specific conditions should be complied with to be included in the resolution . Franchot amended his motion to include conditions recommended by Staff to minimize the impact on the bluff. Printup seconded. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. #12-3551 CARL TSENG AND KIM YUEH CHA UN, 1505 LONG LAKE BOULEVARD NCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -RESOLUTION NO. 6146 Carl Ts g, Applicant; and Tom Budzynski , Builder, were present. Gaffron state the applicant is proposing to raze the existing house and replace it with a attached garage. The driveway is being relocated slightly to lessen the impact to the tr requesting the fo wing approvals for construction of a new residence : 1. e to allow construction on a lot of 11 ,951 square feet required ; 2. Lot width variance to llow construction on a lot of 99' define width where 200 feet is equired ; 3. Side setback variance to allo west side setback of 10. eet where 30 feet is required; 4 . Side setback variance to allow ea t side setback of 0.4 feet where 30 feet is required ; 5. 7. Average lakeshore setback variance encroachment is allowed; 8. 0-75 foot hardcover varianc o allow 14.2 percent hat cover where no hardcover is normally allowed; Gaffron no d since there is an existing house , under state statute they would be allow kind. Si e approximately half of the existing house is located in the bluff, it would be rebuil an identical house in this situation, which is the reason for the variance requests . Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval as follows: Page 11 of 17 I I I I I, I I ~A&, --~u_) ~ A-=r-2D' ~ ~ ~F-f!>t-.cA FF ., c f!L-I -CJNUf ~Lh ~rf)GJ2__ =>--5lt)e ~ · 1 -~CAfU (B,e ~t;J2__~ CJl)L.--be ~ =~~1~\ - I~? "! Af(t-Vkf ~c£ ~ ~6>~ rg'-1 ST<{}1/I& ! i rov-,s -: i /_l) -2:c> ~-(., f"v=__ vi ,e;,, 9 ; e,fa~ ~ - 'I '-It-/ -A/>,/) 5:c:>~-6 A&u<.-r /k!n/~t-Z:/N(; /~~ ;i ~ e~ (~Afe.5T ~c -1 '. I . , I I : I I .1 'I I I I I I . ' 'I Date Application Received: 02/22/2012 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/22/2012 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/22/2012 60 Day Extension Sent 3/21 Expires: 6/21/12 Addt'I Extension Granted 6-5-12 to: 8/20/12 fLWb {?t:;ND~W -- ~~1$->~u.trfV~ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: A-u~inistrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffronf1'~ Title: Asst. City Administrator Item Description: Date: June 6, 2012 Item No. (e Agenda Section: Planning & Zoning # 12-3547 John & Phoebe Stavig, "790" Brown Road N / PID 34-118-23-11-0003 -Variances-Resolution Zoning District: LR-lA, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acres/200' Lot Area: 62,247 square feet (1.42 acres) Lot Width: +360' at OHWL (944.3') & + 356' at 75' setback List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. PC Minutes 5/21/12 Exhibit B. Notice of PC Action 5/25/12 Exhibit C. 60-day Extension to 8/20/12 Exhibit D. PC Staff Report and Exhibits dated 5/14/12 Exhibit E. Addendum to Bluff Analysis 6/4/12 Application Summary: The applicant has requested the following variances in order to construct a residence on this vacant lot: -average lakeshore setback variance -rear (street) setback variance to allow setback of 30' where 50' is required -variance to allow construction 15 feet from the top of bluff where a 30-foot setback is required -variance to locate the home 5 feet into the defined 20-foot bluff impact zone Planning Commission Recommendation: On May 21, 2012 the Planning Commission voted 5 to O to recommend a combination of approvals and denials, as follows: 1. Approval of an average lakeshore setback variance. 2. Denial of the bluff setback variance. 3. Denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure. 4. Allowance for limited grading within the bluff impact zone to allow for a walkout door. 5. Approval of a street setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear (street) property line, 5 feet closer than requested by applicant. 6. Approval of left and right side setbacks of 25 feet where 30' is normally required to allow for a house/garage footprint of approximately 2150 s.f. Applicant did not request these variances. Note that the PC recommendation offers applicant additional unrequested relief to the property line setbacks while denying the structural bluff impacts. Applicant has not indicated acceptance of these conditions. Additionally, the potential for granting side setback variances was not specifically included in the legal notices for either hearing, so that the adjoining neighbor to the immediate west who is potentially affected may not be aware of the 25' setback recommendation. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. Additional Background #12-3547 June 6, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Please review the May 14 staff report and the draft minutes of the May 21 Planning Commission meeting. The minutes provide additional insight as to the basis for the denials and recommendations. Staff and Planning Commission indicated a preference for no variance to the 30' setback from top of bluff, and for limiting encroachment of the bluff impact zone (first 20' from top of bluff) to minimal grading to allow for a functional walkout door. In order to provide applicant additional buildable area, staff and PC recommended that the setback to the street be allowed at 25' (30' proposed by applicant, 50' required) and to allow a 25' setback for both side lot lines where 30' is normally required. Applicant had provided various pieces of additional information between the March and May PC meetings, specifically regarding slope stability. This information was considered by staff and the PC in determining a final recommendation. Initial review by staff in March included a single transect of the slope to determine whether it is indeed a bluff (it is). Recent inquiries by a builder on behalf of the applicant resulted in staff completing two additional slope transects to determine whether area directly north of the proposed building site was still within the bluff. See Exhibit E. The slopes at each of the three transects indicate the feature is a bluff, with an average slope to a point 25' above the lake being at least 30.0%. The defined top of bluff actually increases in elevation as one moves north: 978' at cross section AA; 984' at BB; and at or above 988' at CC (probably on neighboring property). Applicant has at staff's request extended the review period to August 20. Neighbor Notification There is a concern that the neighboring property owner to the west technically has not had the opportunity to weigh in on the side setback variance that would potentially affect that property. While that owner was notified of the initial public hearing, the notice did not indicate that a side setback variance and an increased street setback variance were under consideration (because they weren't at that time). The City Attorney has suggested that the neighbors be notified of the changes recommended by Planning Commission and that an additional public hearing be held at the June 25 Council meeting. Staff is prepared to send a notice to the neighbors immediately so that they have a 10-day notice of the hearing. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should consider whether to adopt the PC and staff recommendation, and review with the applicant whether he is willing to accept a variance package as recommended by the PC and staff. Based on Council's conclusions and direction, Staff will prepare a resolution for Council adoption. If Council concludes that the 25' side and street setbacks are potentially acceptable, direct that a public hearing be noticed for your June 25 meeting. Date Application Received: 02/22/2012 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/22/2012 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/22/2012 60 Day Extension Sent 3/21 Expires: 6/21/12 Addt'I Extension Granted 6-5-12 to: 8/20/12 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: ,1,u~inistrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Pf~ Title: Asst. City Administrator Item Description: Date: June 6, 2012 Item No. '2 Agenda Section: Planning & Zoning # 12-3547 John & Phoebe Stavig, "790" Brown Road N / PID 34-118-23-11-0003 -Variances-Resolution Zoning District: LR-lA, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acres/200' Lot Area: 62,247 square feet (1.42 acres) Lot Width: +360' at OHWL (944.3') & + 356' at 75' setback List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. PC Minutes 5/21/12 Exhibit B. Notice of PC Action 5/25/12 Exhibit C. 60-day Extension to 8/20/12 Exhibit D. PC Staff Report and Exhibits dated 5/14/12 Exhibit E. Addendum to Bluff Analysis 6/4/12 Application Summary: The applicant has requested the following variances in order to construct a residence on this vacant lot: -average lakeshore setback variance -rear (street) setback variance to allow setback of 30' where 50' is required -variance to allow construction 15 feet from the top of bluff where a 30-foot setback is required -variance to locate the home 5 feet into the defined 20-foot bluff impact zone Planning Commission Recommendation: On May 21, 2012 the Planning Commission voted 5 to O to recommend a combination of approvals and denials, as follows: 1. Approval of an average lakeshore setback variance. 2. Denial of the bluff setback variance. 3. Denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure. 4. Allowance for limited grading within the bluff impact zone to allow for a walkout door. 5. Approval of a street setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear (street) property line, 5 feet closer than requested by applicant. 6. Approval of left and right side setbacks of 25 feet where 30' is normally required to allow for a house/garage footprint of approximately 2150 s.f. Applicant did not request these variances. Note that the PC recommendation offers applicant additional unrequested relief to the property line setbacks while denying the structural bluff impacts. Applicant has not indicated acceptance of these conditions. Additionally, the potential for granting side setback variances was not specifically included in the legal notices for either hearing, so that the adjoining neighbor to the immediate west who is potentially affected may not be aware of the 25' setback recommendation. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. Additional Background #12-3547 June 6, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Please review the May 14 staff report and the draft minutes of the May 21 Planning Commission meeting. The minutes provide additional insight as to the basis for the denials and recommendations. Staff and Planning Commission indicated a preference for no variance to the 30' setback from top of bluff, and for limiting encroachment of the bluff impact zone (first 20' from top of bluff) to minimal grading to allow for a functional walkout door. In order to provide applicant additional buildable area, staff and PC recommended that the setback to the street be allowed at 25' (30' proposed by applicant, SO' required) and to allow a 25' setback for both side lot lines where 30' is normally required. Applicant had provided various pieces of additional information between the March and May PC meetings, specifically regarding slope stability. This information was considered by staff and the PC in determining a final recommendation. Initial review by staff in March included a single transect of the slope to determine whether it is indeed a bluff (it is). Recent inquiries by a builder on behalf of the applicant resulted in staff completing two additional slope transects to determine whether area directly north of the proposed building site was still within the bluff. See Exhibit E. The slopes at each of the three transects indicate the feature is a bluff, with an average slope to a point 25' above the lake being at least 30.0%. The defined top of bluff actually increases in elevation as one moves north: 978' at cross section AA; 984' at BB; and at or above 988' at CC (probably on neighboring property). Applicant has at staffs request extended the review period to August 20. Neighbor Notification There is a concern that the neighboring property owner to the west technically has not had the opportunity to weigh in on the side setback variance that would potentially affect that property. While that owner was notified of the initial public hearing, the notice did not indicate that a side setback variance and an increased street setback variance were under consideration (because they weren't at that time). The City Attorney has suggested that the neighbors be notified of the changes recommended by Planning Commission and that an additional public hearing be held at the June 25 Council meeting. Staff is prepared to send a notice to the neighbors immediately so that they have a 10-day notice of the hearing. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should consider whether to adopt the PC and staff recommendation, and review with the applicant whether he is willing to accept a variance package as recommended by the PC and staff. Based on Council's conclusions and direction, Staff will prepare a resolution for Council adoption. If Council concludes that the 25' side and street setbacks are potentially acceptable, direct that a public hearing be noticed for your June 25 meeting. * MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 21, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. attick indicated under current code that would not be allowed. Council Exhibit A noted in that situation they would likely have to use the public landing to launch their boat. Schoenzeit s ed perhaps the recommendation should be that the Planning and 3 should b viewed by the City Council. Landgraver stated in · view Item No. 1 should be eliminated, that he does not have an opinion on stated in his view Item No. 3 is r sonable. e and that perhaps the language in Item No. 2 Mattick noted that Item No. 2 is not spec1 between property owner and renter. Landgraver commented he is fine Leskinen indicated she is fin Schwingler stated he is · enforce. that Item No. 2 will be difficult to Item No. 2 is also dependent upon complaints being receive . Leskinen oved, Schwingler seconded, Application #11-3503, City of Orono, Zo · g Code Text Amen ent -Lakeshore Residential Zoning Districts: Dock Rental, to accept the e as written in S tion 1(6), with Item No. 3 being allowed as an exception. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 3. #12-3547 JOHN AND PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, VARIANCES, 7:35 P.M. -8:16 P.M. John and Phoebe Stavig, Applicants, were present. Gaffron noted this item was tabled at the March Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant time to provide additional information. The applicant is requesting bluff setback, average lakeshore setback, and a rear/street setback variance in order to construct a home on an undeveloped property. A variance to build within the bluff impact zone is also requested. The applicant has provided an engineering report from Carl Anderson Engineering that suggests the slope stability is adequate for construction of a residence at the applicant's proposed location and that the potential for erosion is mitigated by existing vegetation. In reviewing that rep01t, Staff would note that the comment on Page 4 of the report that "the slope of the hill immediately below the top of the bluff line near the location of the proposed structure is significantly less than the 30 percent slope threshold marginally found in areas near the wetland that cause this to be defined as a bluff' does not appear to be -----------------Page 6 t I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 21, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. consistent with the contours shown on the survey. Based on the survey, the slopes within the first 20-25 feet down slope from the driveway bed range from 28-32 percent for the length of the proposed house . Gaffron noted the issues in this application relate not only to slope stability but also aesthetics. Gaffron pointed out there may be a way to construct a house if they are granted a 25-foot setback to the west and south where normally 30 feet is required and a 25-foot setback to the street where a 50-foot setback is required. By building in that area, it would allow them to construct a house consisting of 1,440 square feet and a garage of 710 square feet , which is approximately a 2 ,150 square feet. Gaffron indicated they could do some regarding within the bluff impact zone to perhaps create a walkout in the setback area. Gaffron indicated the neighbor's tennis comt would be in close proximity to the house but that it likely will not be a huge impact since it would be used sporadically . Based on that option, Staff recommends the following: 1. Approval of an average lakeshore setback variance; 2. Denial of the bluff setback variance ; 3 . Denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure; 4 . Allowance for limited grading within the bluff impact zone to allow for a walkout door . 5. Approval of a setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear ( street) prope1ty line; 6. Approval of left and right side setbacks of 25 feet to allow for a house/garage footprint of approximately 2150 square feet. Gaffron noted Staff has outlined some issues in the report that the Planning Commission should discuss. Levang asked if the house has been moved forward essentially compared to the proposal from the applicant. Gaffron stated the house has been moved forward five feet to the street and slightly narrowed. Landgraver asked whether this option has been discussed with the applicant and his engineers. Gaffron indicated it has not been discussed with the applicant, and that the intent of it was to show that some kind of house could be constructed if some variances are allowed. Gaffron noted this would avoid the need to grant some type of variance to the bluff. Schoenzeit asked if the City has any liability if the homeowner does not follow some of the City's recommendations and the house experiences problems. Gaffron stated in his opinion the City would not be at fault if the Planning Commission approves something as long as they do not make any statements about guaranteeing slope stability . ----------------Page 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING j) fe)() Monday, May 21, 2012 0" o/ ______________ 6_:_30-o'_c_Io_c_k_p_.m_. ____________ -'-,H-~ If' ? Schoenzeit stated the applicant needs to understand the risks associated with constructing a house in this location. John Stavig, Applicant, stated two months ago a lot of the discussion from the Planning Commission centered around the stability of the road and the unique nature of the driveway bed. Following discussions with Staff, Stavig indicated he has gained an understanding of the intent of the regulations and that they have attempted to address the intent of the regulations. The 20-year plan talks about land forms being highly varied in Orono, different compositions of soil, the ability of each soil type to adequately accommodate development varies considerably in Orono, and how there should be careful examination of the property to determine the most appropriate land use. The minutes from the last meeting focused on that the Planning Commission looks at these cases on a case by case basis and that they would hate to send the applicant on an expensive goose case. Stavig indicated he tried to focus on what was discussed at the last meeting and had an engineer look at the stability of the roadbed. Stavig stated his engineer feels that positioning the structure immediately above the existing driveway provides the most stable location. At the last meeting there was a discussion about potential placement of the structure on the property. Stavig stated in his view this property is unique and there are some unusual circumstances relating to the driveway bed. The engineer's comments regarding how the road bed has been stable for 100 years confirms that this is a good location for the house. The extensive vegetation immediately below the driveway bed would not be impacted and will help screen the house. Stavig noted if you look at the back of the proposed house, you can barely see it from the lake and you cannot see the shed or the other buildings. Stavig stated he appreciates Staff's willingness to try to come up with a solution but that Planner Gaffron's option creates a significantly smaller house in comparison to the other homes in the neighborhood. Stavig noted the tennis coutt is shared by four homes and being less than 30 feet from the tennis court would be an issue. Pushing it toward the south is also an issue. Stavig stated having the house forward would make the house out of character with the other existing homes in terms of size and would necessitate constructing a 2-1/2 story house, which would be more visible. The proposed home will be located more than 300 feet from the shoreline and they are offering this as the best location. Stavig noted they would be meeting the 30-foot setback with their proposal and that in his view they have addressed the erosion issues and complies with the spirit of the regulation. Schoenzeit asked whether there have ever been any other improvements to this property aside from the gravel driveway bed. Schoenzeit asked whether there has ever been a house on this prope1ty. Gaffron indicated it has not except for the little shed . Stavig stated the original house to the south has always had common ownership with this property and has been taxed separately since 1969. Hennepin County refuses to lower the taxes on the prope1ty even with the restrictions that are imposed on the prope1ty. Stavig noted he has paid over $200,000 in taxes on this parcel and that it is taxed at almost the same rate as his other lot with lakeshore. -----------------Page 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 21, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen asked if the applicant is at all interested in the 25-foot setback since it appears the house would still be fairly a good sized house. Stavig stated the square footage they are proposing is 1,600 square feet and that Gaffron's proposal would result in a smaller house . Schoenzeit noted Mike Gaffron' s drawing is approximately 2 ,150 square feet. Gaffron indicated it would be closer to 2 ,300 square feet , which would include the garage. Stavig stated he does not want to build closer to the tennis court or the road. Stavig commented he has a concern with constructing the house 30 feet from the road. The house would also have a smaller footprint under Planner Gaffron's proposal, which would not be consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. Leskinen commented that unfortunately there are some constraints on the lot that may limit the size of the house. Stavig stated his proposed house is already smaller than the other homes on the street and that he would have a concern with downsizing it even fmther and possibly having to move additional dilt. Stavig noted the City Engineer and his engineer both say that the best location for a house is immediately above the road bed. Levang asked whether the applicant is amenable at all to the plan proposed by Mike Gaffron. Stavig indicated he is not. Stavig indicated he would be willing to construct a rain garden . The underlying issue is minimizing the erosion and making an investment in the property. Stavig stated it would be his issue if the prope11y experiences erosion. Schoenzeit asked whether the applicant has seen the comments from the DNR. Stavig asked if those are the comments from approximately two to three months ago. Gaffron indicated they are and that the DNR is recommending variances not be granted to the bluff setback. Schoenzeit stated it appears that some variances may be granted, but that the stability of the slope , aesthetics, and erosion present a pretty high standard that is typically not crossed. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7 :58 p.m. There were no comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. -----------------Page 9 MINUTES OF THE Monday, May 21, 2012 ~ v ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 0$ 6:30 o'clock p.m. A} ----------"'-'-+-+-<4p ? Landgraver asked whether there have been any follow-up discussions with Bolton & Menk following receipt of their letter. Gaffron noted the letter was received by him sometime last week or a little earlier. Gaffron indicated he had a discussion beforehand about the City's philosophy and how that should be balanced against this request. Gaffron stated there are a number of reasons why the Planning Commission has to differentiate this case from another case that might come along in the future. Gaffron indicated there is always a risk when working in a bluff area that more trees are removed than what would be desired and that it has been the City's position that they avoid construction in the bluff area. Landgraver stated he has a concern when the DNR says do not build within the bluff area and then there are two engineers that are saying it is okay to go up to the roadway. Schoenzeit asked how the applicant will provide the City comfort that he will have a competent contractor do this project. Stavig indicated he is willing to abide by the City's restrictions and inspection requirements. Schoenzeit commented this is a risky project and that it is a difficult lot to construct on given the substantial engineering that will be required. Schoenzeit noted if a bulldozer is parked in the wrong spot and there is a 10-inch rain, the bulldozer will end up in the lake. Stavig stated if you view the property, it is a relatively flat area and that the engineering report goes through how to remove the trees and addresses the other issues that were raised. Schoenzeit commented the reports are compelling and that in some ways the applicant is asking the City to allow him to take the risk. Stavig stated he does not see it as being that treacherous of a project and that he would be happy to supply photos of the site. Stavig indicated he is willing to comply with the City's stipulations and that he has attempted to address the City's concerns regarding stability. Landgraver stated the main concern is that if the slope or bluff goes, it is gone forever . Levang asked if Bolton and Menk visited the site. Gaffron indicated he is not sure whether they have personally visited the site. Levang stated the way she reads their repo1t is that they typically do not take into consideration other outside engineering repo1ts and that they are not willing to guarantee the stability of the slope. Schoenzeit stated the homeowner is the one who would be accepting the risk. From a precedent standpoint, the engineering reports that have been submitted are what separate this application from other applications. Leskinen commented she is concerned about the precedent as well since this is new construction on the _________________ Page 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 21, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. lot and construction within a bluff setback area has not been done before. The intent of the regulation is to protect the bluff. Leskinen stated it would be a different situation if there had already been a home on the parcel. Leskinen stated the point has been made that the additional engineering work is very compelling and that she is struggling with some of the same issues that have already been expressed. On one hand the DNR is saying do not construct in this area and on the other the applicant's engineer is saying the slope is stable enough to construct on. Leskinen asked whether there is any way a compromise can be reached to limit the impact on the bluff impact zone. Stavig indicated they have attempted to put f01th the best plan for the prope1ty in accordance with the engineer's recommendations. Having a roadway bed there for 100 years speaks to the stability of the area to sustain construction. Gaffron asked whether the applicant would be constructing the house or whether the property would be sold to someone else. Stavig indicated his initial inclination was to sell the property but that he is not sure at this point. Schwingler commented he is also struggling with the same issues and that it is a difficult prope1ty to work with. Landgraver stated he is in line with Staffs recommendations. Leskinen stated if the possibility exists that the homeowner will not construct the proposed house, it is likely that will create some new issues if the future owner wants to make some changes to the plan. Levang moved, Landgraver seconded, Application #12-3547, 790 Brown Road North, to recommend approval of an average lakeshore setback variance, denial of the bluff setback variance, denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure, allowance for limited grading within the bluff impact zone to allow for a walkout door, approval of a setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear (street) property line, and approval of left and right side setbacks of 25 feet to allow for a house/garage footprint of approximately 2,150 square feet, per Staff's recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. #12-3551 CARL TSENG AND KIM YUEH CHA UN, 11505 LONG LAKE BO AKD'l!llli,LJ!;S AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:18 P.M. -8:55 P.M. 1. rea variance to allow construction on a lot of 11,951 square fee ________________ Page 11 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ZONING FILE: 12-3547 Council Exhibit 8 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 DATE OF NOTICE: May 25, 2012 TO: John & Phoebe Stavig 780 Brown Road N Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: May 21, 2012 COPIES: The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend as follows : 1. Approval of an average lakeshore setback variance. 2. Denial of the bluff setback variance. 3. Denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure. 4. Allowance for limited grading within the bluff impact zone to allow for a walkout door. 5. Approval of a setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear (street) property line. 6. Approval of left and right side setbacks of 25 feet to allow for a house/garage footprint of approximately 2150 s.f. VOTE: 5 FOR O AGAINST Applicant's next meeting is tentatively scheduled as: June 11, 2012 This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 PM . If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Mike Gaffron, Assistant City Administrator at mgaffron@ci.orono.mn .us or at 952.249.4622 . .. I Jun 0612 08:02a ~ ~~- Stavig 952 Formal Request for Extension of Review Period Council Exhibit C With regards to Zoning Application #12-3547, for 790 Brown Road North, we hereby request a 60-day extension to August 20, 2012 of the statutory application review period. Applicanf'· 1 1 • ' J \,... 2) Return as soon as possible: Mike Gaffron City of Orono Planning & Zoning Department 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 mgaffron@ci.orono.mn.us (;,•'S°•fls, Date (}->' -/}__ Date Phone: 952.249.4622 Fax: 952.249.4616 Date Application Received: 02/22/2012 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/22/2012 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/22/2012 60 Day Extension Sent 3/21 Expires: 6/21/12 To: From: Date: Chair Schoenzeit and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. City Administrat~ May 14, 2012 Council Exhibit D Subject: 12-3547, John & Phoebe Stavig, "790" Brown Road N / PID 34-118-23-11-0003 -Variances -Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1A, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acres/200' Lot Area: 62,247 square feet (1.42 acres) Lot Width: +360' at OHWL (944.3') & + 356' at 75' setback Application Summary: The applicant is requesting bluff setback, average lakeshore setback and a rear/street setback variance in order to construct a home on an undeveloped property. A variance to build within the bluff impact zone is also requested. This item was tabled at the March 19 PC meeting to allow the applicant time to provide additional information. Staff Recommendation: Planning Staffs position on this application has changed only slightly as a result of the additional information submitted by the applicant. Staff recommends: 1. Approval of an average lakeshore setback variance. 2. Denial of the bluff setback variance. 3. Denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure. 4. Allowance for limited grading within the bluff impact zone to allow for a walkout door. 5. Approval of a setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear (street) property line. 6. Approval of left and right side setbacks of 25 feet to allow for a house/garage footprint of approximately 2150 s.f. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. Exhibit E. Exhibit F. Exhibit G. Exhibit H. Applicant's Updated Narrative/ Letter of Request 5/9/12 Applicant's Engineering Field Report 4/30/12 City Engineer Comments on Latest Submittal Staff Sketch Notice of PC Action 3/21/12 Extension Notification 3/21/12 PC Minutes 3/19/12 PC Memo and Exhibits of 3/9/12 Additional Information Provided FILE# 12-3547 May 16, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Applicant has provided an engineering report from Carl Anderson Engineering (Exhibit B) that suggests the slope stability is adequate for construction of a residence at the applicant's proposed location, and that the potential for erosion is mitigated by existing vegetation. In reviewing that report, staff would note that the comment on Page 4 of the report that "the slope of the hill immediately below the top of the bluff line near the location of the proposed structure is significantly less than the 30% slope threshold marginally found in areas near the wetland that cause this to be defined as a bluff' does not appear to be consistent with the contours shown on the survey. Based on the survey, the slopes within the first 20-25 feet downslope from the driveway bed range from 28-32% for the length of the proposed house. The City Engineer has reviewed the submitted information and his comments are attached as Exhibit C. Please review. The applicant has suggested in his revised narrative (Exhibit A) that reducing the street setback from his proposed 30' to 25', and reducing the side setbacks from the required 30' to 25', will have negative impacts completely out of character with the neighborhood. The staff sketch (Exhibit D) suggests that a residence 25' from the street lot line could be constructed with only minor triangular 5' encroachments into the 30' side setbacks, yielding a footprint including a triple garage of around 2150 s.f. Planning Commission should consider whether the potential visual impacts of 25' street and side setbacks are significant, and whether such a scheme would be more appropriate than granting variances to the bluff setback requirement. Staff's initial suggestion that the size of the footprint be reduced to near 1500 s.f has been reconsidered in light of reducing the side setbacks. The ability to construct a house of approximately 2150 s.f. footprint would then seem feasible. Applicant has suggested that an excessively tall house would result from moving the structure 5 feet closer to the road. Staff believes that locating the house to meet the 30' bluff setback rather than the 15' setback proposed does not make it infeasible to set the house at the same floor elevations as proposed. It does mean that some excavation between the roadbed and the house (and potentially into the bluff impact zone) would be needed to have all or a portion of the east fa~ade of the house as a walkout, as opposed to having it be a lookout. A very limited excavation within the bluff impact zone might not be detrimental, and it would provide some usable flat yard area. Some of the noted trees along the west side of the old road bed might be saved under this scenario, most of which are within the 20' bluff impact zone where trees greater than 6-inch diameter require City approval to remove and require replacement. The applicant's potential lower garage area may be reasonable only if it does not require the establishment of a new driveway to access it, which could impact existing trees and have stormwater management impacts. The biggest issue would be managing runoff from a driveway that would have to traverse the slope around the side yard. We realize the potential storage space under the garage may be valuable given the footprint constraints of this lot. Bluff Protection As noted in the March staff report, protection and preservation of bluff areas within Orono has been a key aspect of Orono's Shore land regulations since adoption of the DNR shoreland rules in 1992. The bluff impact zone (20') and bluff setback requirement {30') are meant to limit FILE# 12-3547 May 16, 2012 Page 3 of 3 potential negative impacts to the bluff and the vegetation which stabilizes the bluff from slump, erosion and slope failure. Encroachments into the sensitive areas increase the potential for irreversible damage to occur. Regarding bluff areas in general it is staffs position that, particularly in new construction situations, all bluff setbacks should be met, and variances should not be granted. Buildability If no variances are granted, this lot will not have a buildable envelope sufficient to construct a single family residence. Whether the applicant has a reasonable use of the property if it cannot be built on is debatable, but there is no question that the lack of sufficient buildable area is a practical difficulty. In the interest of creating a usable buildable area within the property, staff has proposed a set of setback parameters which we believe should be acceptable to the City while protecting the bluff and bluff impact zone and not encroaching on the bluff setback. Whether the applicant or the neighborhood finds this set of conditions to be acceptable is not known; further, the immediate neighbor to the west has not had the opportunity to react to the 25' west side setback proposal. If this is the direction Planning Commission desires to move toward, we should make an effort to gain input from the neighbor to the immediate west, perhaps if necessary via notice for a continued hearing at the Council level rather than tabling for a month. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances proposed by the applicant, if granted in one form or another, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of variances in one form or another? 4. If variances are granted to the bluff standards, should methods suggested by the City Engineer be implemented to further protect the bluff area from homeowner impacts which in the future could cause stabilization issues for the slope? 5. Planning Commission should specifically determine whether granting variances to allow 25-foot street and side setbacks is out of character with the immediate neighborhood. Have the immediately adjacent owners provided input as to the potential side setback variances affecting them? 6. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following: 1. Approval of an average lakeshore setback variance. 2. Denial of the bluff setback variance. 3. Denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure. 4. Allowance for limited grading within the bluff impact zone to allow for a walkout door. 5. Approval of a setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear (street} property line. 6. Approval of left and right side setbacks of 25 feet to allow for a house/garage footprint of approximately 2150 s.f. Description of Request-UPDATED MAY 9, 2012 790 N. Brown Road PC Exhibit A In response to the Planning Commission's questions and suggestion in the March 19th meeting, I have attached a soil report dated April 30 th (the 11 Report") from Carl Anderson, P.E., P.G., a licensed professional engineer and licensed professional geoscientist with experience in municipal zoning issues related to erosion. Based upon the field survey and drilling of multiple test probes on and immediately below the driveway bed, this Report summarizes 11that existing soils at this site have sufficient stability to allow construction of a home at the site indicated on the Gronberg and Associates survey without the risk of any material soil erosion." The Report also finds: • 11 Below the topsoil, the lean clay become increasingly stiff with depth and can be expected to provide adequate soil bearing capacity for single family residential dwelling footings, designed for clay." • 11There was also no evidence of any erosion on or near the driveway bed. The fact that the driveway bed has shown no signs of erosion in over a century adds support to the conclusion of this analysis that the soils at this site have sufficient stability to allow construction of a home at the site indicated on the Gronberg and Associates survey." • 11The proposed location of a walkout structure on the Gronberg survey is well situated to minimize required grading and take advantage of the steady and gradual slope above the bluff line and to position the rear wall of the foundation just above the stable 11 shelf" created by the construction of a driveway bed more than a century ago." • 11 Given the unique contour created by the construction of the driveway bed, positioning the structure further away from the bluff zone may actually create a greater potential for erosion of soil above the driveway bed. Positioning the structure immediately above the driveway bed 11 shelf" appears to be the most stable position for a structure near the allowed building envelope in the Gronberg survey. Having a relatively flat and demonstrably stable 15 foot wide area immediately behind the proposed structure alleviates concerns over erosion immediately behind the structure." • 11The large number mature and developing trees add significant stability to the soil below the driveway, mitigating potential concerns over erosion." • 11the slope of the hill immediately below the top of the bluff line near the location of the proposed structure is significantly less than the 30% slope threshold marginally found in areas near the wetland that cause this to be defined as a bluff" • "the area at the bottom of the bluff, often a concern for lakeshore bluff management, is not at risk for erosion from waves, ice or even standing water, as a result of thickly developed vegetation throughout the wetland area." Additionally, based on the suggestion of planning commission and city staff members, we have evaluated the alternative potential placements for a building site on the Lot: • Seeking a side lot variance toward the east would position the house closer to both an existing driveway located along the Lot boundary and the steeper area of the bluff and areas above the bluff, thereby worsening any potential concerns over erosion. • Seeking a side lot variance toward the west would position the house closer to the neighboring property's tennis court, which nearly touches (within 5 feet) the Lot boundary near the buildable area of the Lot. • Seeking an expanded front lot variance (beyond the reduction to 30' requested) would position the house so near to the shared cul de sac and neighboring tennis court as to make it completely out of character with the neighborhood and a potential eyesore to adjacent neighbors. Forcing a house to be placed in this location effectively renders the Lot unbuildable. • Seeking an expanded front lot variance (beyond the reduction to 30' requested) would position the house above the natural walkout grading of the Lot, thereby causing excess grading of soil and/or forcing the construction of an excessively tall house that could serve as a potential eyesore to adjacent neighbors that is out of character with the neighborhood. • Reducing the footprint of the structure to 1,500 s.f. in total (including garage), as proposed by city staff, would create a house dramatically smaller (less than half the size) than any other home in the immediate neighborhood and/or force the construction of an excessively tall house that could serve as a potential eyesore to adjacent neighbors that is out of character with the neighborhood. As stated in our initial application, we are seeking approval of a variance request that meets the objectives of new regulations imposed after the Lot boundaries were established, while providing reasonable allowances for the unique circumstances to meet the intended and approved use of the Lot. The proposed thoughtful positioning of the modest (approx. 1,600 s.f. main level, plus garage) house minimizes the potential for erosion by taking advantage of the stability from the unique driveway bed, the natural contour of the land above the bluff and the protective tree vegetation immediately below the driveway bed. Description of Request -ORIGINAL DATED MARCH 13, 2012 790 N. Brown Road We are requesting approval for a reasonable building footprint on PID 34-118-23-11-003 (the "Lot") adjacent to our primary residence. The Lot was created in its current form in 1969 as part of a single-family home subdivision and has been assessed and taxed at a rate equivalent to buildable vacant lakeshore for more than forty years (see Exhibit A). It is a uniquely shaped property on Long Lake with hills, wetlands and lakeshore. A combination of new regulations since the Lot boundaries were established, some of which only marginally apply, has made the buildable footprint extremely small and impractical to support the intended and approved use. This creates a hardship consistent the Minnesota State Statute 462.357. We are seeking approval of a variance request that meets the objectives of these new regulations, while providing reasonable allowances for the unique circumstances to meet the intended and approved use of the Lot. The proposed footprint and structure are modest in size (approx. 1,600 sf main level, plus garage), consistent with the character of the neighborhood and accommodate as well as possible the numerous new regulatory restrictions on this Lot. The Lot is technically "buildable" despite current regulations and would not absolutely require a variance. Being forced to build an extremely small, shallow, tall, odd and irregular house(s) within this extremely narrow and irregular footprint, however, would substantially alter the essential character of the locality and negatively impact adjacent landowners. The Lot and the relating subdivision was submitted and unanimously approved by the Village of Orono Planning Commission on October 20, 1969. It was subsequently submitted and unanimously approved by the Village of Orono Village Council on November 25, 1969. At the time it was approved, the lot was in complete compliance with the Municipal Code of Orono adopted on January 1, 1968. The lot was a 2+ acre parcel developed for the sole purpose of supporting a single-family home. The lone restrictions at the time were 30' side and 50' front/back setbacks. Since its approval, the Lot has become subject to expanded Shoreland Setback restrictions, Bluff Setback restrictions, Bluff Impact Zone restrictions and Average Lakeshore Setback restrictions. Since we acquired the property in 2002, this Lot has been categorized at "vacant-land lakeshore" and taxed at a value that clearly implies an expectation for the placement of a residential home on the property. Although the estimated market value for taxing purposes has declined from a peak of $720,000 in 2007-08, the property continues to be taxed at a market value of $585,000. In fact, today we received a notice from the City of Orono at 2750 Kelley Parkway informing us that the 2013 estimated market value for taxing purposes will continue to be $585,000. The allowable building footprint is primarily limited by the Bluff Setback and Bluff Impact Zone restrictions. We believe these regulations are overly restrictive for this Lot and are mitigated by the following: i) Prior to the implementation of regulatory restrictions, the "Bluff Impact Zone" was significantly improved and has not resulted in any erosion. This hillside area was leveled for a driveway and cleared of all vegetation sometime between 1870 and 1910. As a result, this is very different from the typical situation of protecting against erosion of undisturbed land. It is important to note that no material erosion has occurred from this driveway bed in more than 100 years. The proposed building footprint maintains at least a 15' setback from the downhill side of this driveway bed. Precluding any building in an area above an improved road bed that has a slope of considerably less than 30% seems inconsistent with the spirit and intent of these regulations. ii) No grading will be required at the rear of the proposed building footprint, and only a minimal amount on each side as the natural grading of the proposed sight is ideally suited to a walkout basement. iii) It is not clear that the 30% threshold definition of a "bluff" exists throughout the Lot. Ambiguity in the definition and variations in the calculation of any "bluff" has resulted in calculations that range from 28.9% to 31.2% by the surveyor of this Lot. Differing lines can be drawn and varying calculations are possible based upon potential locations of a structure on the Lot. While the landowner reserves the right to challenge the determination of whether a "bluff" exists, this proposal would position the house nearly 135' from the lakeshore and 60' further from lakeshore than if the 30% threshold were not met throughout the entirety of the Lot. The proposed variance meets, and in many ways exceeds, the intent of the regulation for a Bluff Setback. iv) In the area near the proposed building footprint, the degree of slope is significantly less than the rest of the lot and well below the 30% threshold. City inspectors and council members are encouraged to stand on the driveway bed and make their own assessment. The city's own drawings depict a significantly lower slope near their defined Top of Bluff. v) This is a wooded hill protected from erosion by trees that will be maintained on the hill to prevent erosion. No trees will be removed on or below the driveway bed. We are also requesting a reduction of the Front Setback variance to 30'. The property is at the end of a private wooded road and the proposed changes would not change the character of the neighborhood. In fact, we are seeking approval of a significantly more restrictive set of setback measurements than what exist for the adjacent property's tennis court. This variance request meets the "practical difficulties" criteria consistent the Minnesota State Statute 462.357: ■ We propose to use the Lot in a reasonable manner consistent with its intended and approved use, which has been effectively prohibited by a combination of new zoning ordinances. ■ Circumstances are unique to this Lot and were not created by the landowner. ■ Approval will not alter the essential character of the locality. ■ The special conditions that apply are peculiar to this Lot and do not generally apply to other properties. ■ The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. ■ The proposed building footprint is in harmony with the intent of the broad range of shoreland ordinances to preserve water quality, prevent erosion and protect the sensitive resources. There are no hardcover or septic concerns with this proposed variance. Sewer lines were installed in this subdivision in 2004 and can be completed to serve this Lot (with additional assessments), thereby eliminating any need for placement of a septic system. Easement rights will also need to be granted to the adjacent 780 property as the line was terminated on the vacant lot. We are seeking to either market or build a new primary residence on this Lot. While we recognize that "economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties", the denial of this variance and the cumulative effect of the excessive taxation on this Lot will force us to sell both of our lots. Upon purchasing this property in 2002 and throughout the nearly ten-year period of ownership, we have understood that this was a "buildable" Lot. We have been taxed at a sharply increasing rate consistent with this understanding and have received no notification from any city, county or state officials to suggest otherwise. We believe that a refusal by the city to allow a reasonable variance that takes into account the unique circumstances of this Lot and abides by the intent of the regulations would result in a taking of real property. John & Phoebe Stavig March 13, 2012 (revised May 9, 2012) Exhibit A Assessment Year Estimated Market Value 2001 $300,000 2002 $300,000 2003 $490,000 2004 $545,000 2005 $630,000 2006 $675,000 2007 $720,000 2008 $720,000 2009 $675,000 2010 $585,000 2011 $585,000 2012 $585,000 CARL ANDfRSON fNGINffRING 1625 SOUTH SECOND AVENUE -ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 OFFICE AND CELLPHONE: 612 518 5317 ENGINEERING FIELD REPORT PC Exhibit B Client: John and Phoebe Stavig 780 North Brown Road Orono, MN 55356 Site: 790 North Brown Road Orono, MN Date of Report: April 30, 2012 Background: Site Visit: April 9, 2012 You are applying for a Bluff Setback Variance for your property at 790 North Brown Road, Orono. The site occupies the bluff above the west end of Long Lake with slopes to the wetland area north and west of the lake. Exhibits prepared by your engineer and land surveyor Gronberg and Associates, demonstrate the configuration of the property including the location of the proposed structure , bluff line and other pertinent features as defined by the local bluff ordinances imposed after the lot was originally plotted in 1969. The City of Orono 2010-2030 Community Management Plan 1 indicates that "Orono's land forms are highly varied as the result of four separate glacial scourings . . . Due to the range in type and location of deposited materials , the composition of the soils is complex and highly varied ... Consequently, the ability of each soil type to adequately accommodate development varies considerably in Orono. Careful examination of each site is needed to determine the most appropriate land use for individual properties." Carl Anderson Engineering was asked to examine soil conditions at the site and comment on the soil stability near the bluff zone and its ability to support the proposed structure in the Gronberg survey. A soil study was accomplished by examination of soil and aerial maps augmented by direct examination of the onsite soils by use of augured test probes. Geotechnical Observations: The map exhibit on the right was prepared by superimposing an aerial photograph showing soil boundaries onto a recent aerial photograph of the subject site copied from the Hennepin County property information web site. The property is outlined with a cyan colored , double line border, the soil boundaries are bold yellow lines . Other lot lines are narrow yellow lines. The soil boundaries were copied from map sheet 43 of the "Soil Survey of Hennepin County Minnesota ", published in 1 http://docs .ei .orono.rnn.us/CompPlanUpdateFinalPlanUpdated091310/20102030CMPPostadoptionSummarywithMaps .pdf April 1974 by the USDA Soil Conservation Service. The overlay fit of the two maps was accomplished by aligning tree-line boundaries, roads and the waters edge of Long Lake. The soil mapping units, formerly called Hayden loam, have been renamed Lester loam by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Hayden -now Lester soils are well known within Hennepin County as competent soils both for home construction and road building. These soil units were formed from glacial moraine consisting of glacial till which is an undifferentiated mix of sand, silt and clay. Locally, Hayden or Lester soils are often found to be lean silty clay. The prominent soils at the subject site are labled "L22F" and "L22C2". The L22F map unit is described as "Lester loam, morainic, 25 to 35 percent slopes". The L22C2 unit is described as "Lester loam, morianic, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded". The L22F map unit is similar to L22C2 except for the greater slope of the surface . Near the waters edge are "L24A", "Glencoe loam, depressional, O to 1 percent slopes" and "L 16A", "Muskego, ponded, Oto 1 percent slopes". The Glencoe soil unit has approximately 8 percent organic matter and the Muskego has approximately 75 percent. These two soil units are unbuildable without extensive soil correction. Soil Probes To verify and further examine soil conditions, four hand auger soil probes were made at the site . The locations of the soil probes are plotted on the above map, prepared from the Gronberg survey exhibit showing the site boundaries, ground slope and the proposed structure location. It was noted that the soil boundary between the two Lester soil units is generally consistent with the "bluff line" shown on the survey. Test probes 1 and 3 were put down within the area of the old driveway above the bluff line. Test probes 2 and 4 were located within the steeper slope below the bluff line . The soil logs were recorded as follows . Test probe 1 Surface 979 feet Oto 1.5 feet -black loam (OL) 1.5 to 3 feet -gray brown loam (CL) Test probe 2 Surface 976 feet Oto 2.5 feet -black loam (OL) 2.5 to 3 feet -gray brown loam (CL) Test probe 3 Surface 981 feet 0 to 1 foot -black loam (OL) 1 to 3 feet -buff colored loam (CL) Test probe 4 Surface 977 feet 0 to 1.5 feet -black loam (OL) 1.5 to 3 feet -buff colored loam (CL) The designations: CL and OL are based upon the Unified soil classification . CL refers to inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, and at this site: lean clays. OL refers to organic silts and here: organic silty clays of low plasticity. Using the AASHO classification system, the Lester soils are generally A-4 or A-6 . Findings and Assessment: The observed soils were found to be consistent with Lester loam . The black loam at the surface is slightly organic silty clay topsoil. At each probe, the topsoil showed a gradational color change to the underlying soil materials , indicating these soils have been little disturbed except by say, wheel rutting along the old roadway . There was no evidence that imported soil materials such as sand or gravel were used to improve the old driveway surface. There was also no evidence of any erosion on or near the driveway bed . The fact that the driveway bed has shown no signs of erosion in over a century adds support to the conclusion of this analysis that the soils at this site have sufficient stability to allow construction of a home at the site indicated on the Gronberg and Associates survey. Below the topsoil , the lean clay become increasingly stiff with depth and can be expected to provide adequate soil bearing capacity for single family residential dwelling footings, designed for clay. The photograph on the right shows the old driveway looking westerly . The proposed house site will be just beyond the bent over tree. This photograph is included to illustrate the extent of tree cover. The frequency of trees shown on the test hole location map above the old driveway is generally repeated below the driveway. The large number mature and developing trees add significant stability to the soil below the driveway, mitigating potential concerns over erosion. The proposed location of a walkout structure on the Gronberg survey is well situated to minImIze required grading and take advantage of the steady and gradual slope above the bluff line and to position the rear wall of the foundation just above the stable "shelf" created by the construction of a driveway bed more than a century ago. Per the Gronberg survey, only minimal grading will be required on the sides of the structure, and virtually no grading will be required in the front or rear of the structure. Given the unique contour created by the construction of the driveway bed, positioning the structure further away from the bluff zone may actually create a greater potential for erosion of soil above the driveway bed. Positioning the structure immediately above the driveway bed "shelf" appears to be the most stable position for a structure near the allowed building envelope in the Gronberg survey. Having a relatively flat and demonstrably stable 15 foot wide area immediately behind the proposed structure alleviates concerns over erosion immediately behind the structure. Additional factors mitigate the concern for erosion from the proposed structure on the Gronberg survey: (i) the slope of the hill immediately below the top of the bluff line near the location of the proposed structure is significantly less than the 30% slope threshold marginally found in areas near the wetland that cause this to be defined as a bluff, (ii) the area at the bottom of the bluff, often a concern for lakeshore bluff management, is not at risk for erosion from waves, ice or even standing water, as a result of thickly developed vegetation throughout the wetland area. Recommendations: The survey shows that the basement floor is planned for elevation 981 feet. Assuming the footings will be about 4 feet lower for frost cover indicates a required depth of excavation to about 977 feet for footing placement, and refilling to 981 feet. The survey also indicates that about a dozen trees will require removal for the house foundation. It is recommended that these trees and their root systems be completely removed and the resultant openings backfilled with lean clay developed from the basement excavation. The lean clay should be spread in half foot lifts and compacted to 95 percent of maximum density up to the planned walkout grade of the rear yard (allowing for surface topsoil). When the walkout area has been raised to its planned grade, the rear footing line should be re-dug through the compacted fill to footing grade. All excavations will require silt fencing to prevent down slope erosion protection. The rear yard fill in the walkout area should be immediately protected after excavation, with commercial netting and straw. Your engineer and surveyor should design all runoff discharge from the new house, yards, walks and driveways. The use of rain gardens or small retention ponds is recommended, and can be readily designed for one or both sides of the proposed structure with minimal grading. With careful attention to slope protection during and after construction, it is my opinion that existing soils at this site have sufficient stability to allow construction of a home at the site indicated on the Gronberg and Associates survey without the risk of any material soil erosion. I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Carl E. Anderson, P. E., P. G. Registration Number 10736 ,, PC Exhibit C @ E:3C>L TC>N & ~ EN K, I NC® Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 • Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Phone (952) 448-8838 • Fax (952) 448-8805 www.bolton-menk.com May 14 , 2012 City of Orono Attn: Mike Gaffron PO Box 66 Orono, Mn 55323 RE: Land Use Application 12-3547 House Construction 790 Brown Road North/ PID 34-115-23-11-0003 Engineering Review #2 Dear Mike: As requested, we have reviewed the Engineering Field Report by Carl Anderson, dated April 30, 2012, and the updated Variance Request, dated May 9 , 2012, regarding the proposed Land Use Application for the vacant lot at 790 Brown Road North. Traditionally, the City has not considered information such as the slope stability analysis that has been provided by the applicant when reviewing proposed encroachments into slope setbacks as defined by City Code . This is because even with the technical information that has been provided, slope stability can still not be guaranteed. It is my understanding that the City has past examples where extreme weather events have led to the failure of slopes that were believed to be stable. This uncertainty is just one of the reasons the City has adopted the slope setbacks that have been enforced on other proposed projects . With that understanding, we offer the following comments in addition to the information we have submitted previously for your consideration: '/ 1. The proposed location of the walkout structure is located to minimize grading and potential erosion. Positioning the structure immediately above the existing driveway bed provides the most stable loc ation with regard to the downhill slope. 2 . If the lot is determined buildable, the following items should be considered to prevent down slope . 0 erosion : a . Silt fence should ·be placed at the downhill edge of the old driveway bed prior to any work , including tree removal. b. Disturbed slopes should be seeded and protected with erosion control blanket immediately after grading is complete. Sodding is also acceptable. c. All runoff from the new house, yards, walks and driveways should be reviewed for potential erosion issues due to point discharges . The use of rain gardens to collect the new runoff is recommended to limit the peak runoff rates, disperse point discharges, and prevent erosion. ® 790 Brown Road North, Orono, MN March 6, 2012 Page2 Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. D~ "P. 'fi1d:::: David P. Martini Principal Engineer \ ·\ '\ I I- ~ 0 z I 1 t I I ~3D '~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: ---· -· ·--· ... "-"".....,....,. PC Exhibit D ------- --------- ---....._ --------... -......_ ·---......_ ---, ....._ Tract F, Registered Land Survey No., 1275, files of Registrar of Titles, Henn1 This survey ·intends to show the ·boundaries of the above described property, the location of the existing building setback area currently in effect for this Tr and the location of an existina shed thereon. the O H W line for Lona Lake . c CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ZONING FILE: PC Exhibit E 12-3547 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 DATE OF NOTICE: 21 March 2012 TO: John & Phoebe Stavig 780 Brown Road N Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: 19 March 2012 COPIES: The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend tabling your request until the April 16th Planning Commission meeting to allow for potential exploration of slope stability and consideration for plan revisions . Revised plans and information, if applicable, should be submitted by noon on April 2 nd in order for staff review and consideration prior to the April 16th meeting. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next meeting is tentatively scheduled as: April 16, 2012 This is a Planning Commission meeting. The meeting begins at 6:30 PM If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Assistant City Administrator, Mike Gaffron at mgaffron@ci .orono .mn .us or 952.249.4622 . 21 March 2012 John & Phoebe Stavig 780 Brown Road N Long Lake, MN 55356 SUBJECT: Zoning Application #12-3547 CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 PC Exhibit F On February 22, 2012 the City of Orono considered your land use application for property at 790 Brown Road N (PID 34-118-23-110-0003) complete. Your application was first heard and tabled by the Orono Planning Commission on March 19, 2012. The application will not have an opportunity for final City Council review prior to the initial 60-day review period expiration. This letter is your notification that the City is extending the time period for City action on application 12-3547 under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 3(f). The time period for action on this application is extended until June 21, 2012. Please contact Mike Gaffron at 952.249.4622 or mgaffron@ci.orono.mn.us if you have questions on this matter. Please note, after today I will be out on maternity leave; you may contact either Christine Mattson at 952.249.4620 or Mike Gaffron at 952.249.4622 in my absence. Sincerely, City of Orono ~ ... Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 19, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. PC Exhibit G Curtis stated her understa ~g of the concern was the appearance of the home~s. The application tonight is for a conditional use perm1t~o conduct grading on the site and that the City doe ot have landscaping requirements for single-family R es. Curtis indicated she is not aware whe r the applicant has spoken with the neighbors regarding the ap , ication. Holmers indicated he does not have a colo ed homes but that they will be cottage style homes. Schoenzeit asked what landscaping is being contem Holmers indicated they will attempt to save many trees a ossible but that they have to accommodate a pond for the drainage. Holmers in~tea he does not have a ma! landscaping plan at this time. Schoenzeit noted the applicati~~r a conditional use permit and tli the applicant is allowed to use his property as allowed under s;ate statute. Schoenzeit noted the Planning c mission needs to ensure that all the conditions are met,,(or a conditional use permit. Landgraver mo/ d, Leskinen seconded, to recommend approval of Applicati n #12-3546, Todd Holmers on J>ehalf of Sandy Beach, LLC, 1545 Maple Place, granting of a con · onal use permit, subject to/onditions of City Staff and the City Engineer. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 4. #12-3547 JOHN & PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, VARIANCES, 7:14 P.M. -8:04 P.M. John Stavig, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting bluff setback, average lakeshore setback, and a rear/street setback variance in order to construct a home on an undeveloped property. A variance to build within the bluff impact zone is also being requested. The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1. An average lakeshore setback variance. The location of thee average lakeshore setback line for this property is difficult to ascertain as the property exists on a partial point and the northerly adjacent lakeshore home is significantly behind this property in orientation. The result when using the closest lakeward point of the home to the south places the average lakeshore setback line completely off of the subject property. When using the point of the southerly home closest to, or more impacted by, the subject property places the average lakeshore setback line within the required 50-foot rear setback. Either of the lines results in the subject lot having no conforming buildable area with respect to the average lakeshore setback. A variance may be requested. 2. A bluff setback variance. The applicant is requesting a 15-foot variance to allow construction of the home 15 feet from the top of bluff where a 30-foot setback is required. Additionally, the proposal would place the home five feet into the required 20-foot bluff impact zone as well. The applicant's proposal includes a "possible" lower garage beneath the upper main garage. -----------------Page 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 19, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. 3 . A variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure or grading. A setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear property line. The proposal includes a 20- foot variance to allow a setback from the rear or street lot line of 30 feet where a 50-foot setback is normally required. The subject property was platted in 1969 as part of RLS 1275 and has remained undeveloped . A bluff area exists on the property and combined with the SO-foot rear setback requirement results in a limited legal building envelope. In order to prepare the prope1ty for sale, the applicant is requesting bluff setback, average lakeshore setback, and rear/street setback variances to create a more reasonable building pad. A variance to allow structure within the 20-foot bluff impact zone is also requested. Protection and preservation of bluff areas within Orono has been a key aspect of our Shoreland regulations since our adoption of the DNR shoreland rules in 1992. The bluff impact zone and bluff setback requirement are meant to limit potential negative impacts to the bluff and the vegetation which stabilizes the bluff from slump, erosion, and slope failure. Encroachments into the sensitive areas increase the potential for irreversible damage to occur. The applicant's potential lower garage area would require additional grading and potentially greater impacts to the area adjacent to the home. At a minimum, staff would suggest the lower garage be eliminated from the plan. Regarding bluff areas in general, it is Staffs position that in particularly new construction situations, all bluff setbacks should be met and variances should not be granted. In order to meet the required bluff setback, the home footprint may need to be reduced and/or moved closer to the street. The proposal is for a 2,354 square foot home and garage footprint. City Code states that each developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of principal structure (including garage). It is possible that a combination of a greater variance to the rear setback, combined with a reduction in the proposed footprint to 1,500 square feet, would result in elimination of the bluff variances. Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance if the Planning Commission determines the existing lake views from the home at 800 Brown Road North will not be encroached upon by a home on the subject prope1ty, and approval of a setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear property line. Staff recommends denial of the bluff setback variance and denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure or grading. In addition, Staff suggests the Planning Commission consider recommending a reduction of the total footprint of the home from 2,354 square feet to a footprint closer to 1,500 square feet. Thiesse asked if the property that is being used for the average lakeshore setback has property on the lake. Curtis indicated in order for that property to be considered as it relates to the average lakeshore setback, it would need to. Thiesse commented that the survey does not appear to depict that. Curtis pointed out it is an L-shaped lot. Thiesse asked if the fact that it is an L-shaped lot is the only reason why it is being included in the determination of the average lakeshore setback. ----------------Page8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 19, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Cu1tis illustrated the location of the home and the second piece ofthe property . Under the definition in the code, it would be called an adjacent lakeshore lot. Cuttis stated that is the reason why Staff is recommending approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. Schoenzeit asked for some background on the bluff regulations. Gaffron stated prior to 1992, the City did not have an ordinance that protected bluffs but they did have some subdivision regulations that define the dry buildable area of the property to exclude slopes that are in excess of 18 percent, which are still in place but rarely used. This is an existing lot of record and is a situation that the City does not encounter often. Gaffron indicated the City has had a couple of situations on Notth Shore Drive and Tonkawood Road where the City expected the properties, when they were being rebuilt, to meet all the required setbacks as much as possible. The bluff impact zone, which is the first 20 feet from the top of the bluff, is an area that should not be violated with any vegetation removal. The next IO-foot area constitutes a bluff setback, and grading within that area is not as critical. The DNR opposes all development in the bluff impact zone since it may contribute to destabilization of the bluff. Gaffron noted the City had a situation two summers ago that involved a bluff on North Shore Drive that experienced catastrophic failure and it took quite a bit of engineering to reconstruct the slope. Gaffron indicated this specific site meets the criteria of a bluff. There have been some discussions about whether the entire width of the property should be considered a bluff. The applicant's engineer has outlined the areas he feels should be defined as a bluff. To determine the top of the bluff, Staff bases it on the point where the slope changes from greater to 18 percent to less than 18 percent. Gaffron stated in his view this is clear ly a bluff and should be subject to all the applicable regulations. Landgraver noted there is an old driveway bed and asked how that factors into this situation . Landgraver asked whether the Planning Commission should ignore the driveway bed. Gaffron stated as it relates to the top of the bluff as defined on Exhibit L2, it is at the lakeshore side of the old driveway bed. From Staffs perspective, the driveway bed does not change the stability of the slope and does not have an impact on the way the top of the bluff is determined. John Stavig, Applicant, stated they purchased both of the lots in 2002, with the long-term intention of eventually selling off this lot. Stavig indicated they are attempting to get approval for what they feel is a realistic and reasonable proposal to construct a modest house on this lot. The lot is slightly over two acres. Stavig indicated at one time the City would have allowed building down to the 75-foot setback line. Stavig stated they have paid property taxes on the area included in the bluff. Stavig stated the assessed market valuation for the property is $585,000, which is a decrease from $720,000, and we are now being told the lot cannot support much more than a garage or a trailer. Stavig reiterated that in his view this is a reasonable proposal. Staff has been ve1y responsive to our questions and we are hopefully we can come to a reasonable solution. Stavig noted the driveway bed was completely left out of Staff's report, which is an important consideration in his view. The driveway bed is at least 102 years old and was originally constructed sometime between 1870 and 1910. There is no erosion whatsoever in that area. The lot itself clearly is ----------------Page 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 19, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. much steeper on one side, which is a bluff area, but the other areas of the lot appear to be at a lower level in terms of the severity of the slope and could be constructed upon. Virtually no grading would be required on the sides of the lot. Stavig indicated they have attempted to propose as small of a house as possible in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. In his view the driveway bed is a structure. According to City Code under the definition of a structure, the driveway bed would meet those criteria. Stavig stated they are proposing something that would leave the driveway bed. Their proposal is very reasonable, especially since there are no hardcover issues, septic issues or side lot issues. Stavig noted this lot was buildable back in 1969 and that they are hoping for a reasonable resolution. Schoenzeit asked how the applicant's plans would be impacted if the area is determined to be a bluff. Schoenzeit commented the Planning Commission does not see a lot of bluff situations in Orono so their experience with them is minimal. Schoenzeit noted there have been other government agencies making comments on this application encouraging the City to enforce the existing codes . Stavig stated if it is determined a bluff, he would argue that the driveway bed should be considered a structure under Section 78.1. Schoenzeit stated to his understanding a structure has to be six feet off the ground. Stavig stated a structure is an edifice or building of any kind, which he would argue that it is, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of patts joined together in some definite manner which requires a location on, below or above the ground, land or water, or attached to something having a location on the ground, land, or water. Thiesse stated he would prefer to defer determination of whether the driveway bed should be considered a structure to later if that becomes necessary. If the roadway is determined to be structure, it would need to be removed prior to a house being constructed on the lot. Schoenzeit noted the applicant would be over on structural coverage if the driveway bed is considered structure. Stavig stated if it is determined to be a bluff, he would argue that a nonconforming structure exists on the property and he would attempt to push the property setbacks futther back toward the bay. Levang asked why the applicant stated that all the code would allow would be a trailer or a garage when the applicant is proposing a structure that is 1,500 square feet. Stavig stated he has paid approximately $200,000 in propet1y taxes on this lot, and that his comment was in response to a comment by Staff. There are variances being considered to allow the structure to be closer to the cul-de-sac, which would make it out of character with the neighborhood and would be less appealing to some of the immediate neighbors. Gaffron stated on Exhibit L2, the hashed area is an area that is left over if all the setbacks are met, which results in a fairly skinny area . Gaffron stated he would not be surprised if it was commented on by Staff as being an area that a trailer could fit into. __________________ Page 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 19, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit commented the Planning Commission would like to work with the applicant. Schoenzeit asked if a variance is granted to the cul-de-sac, what the updated buildable area would be. Curtis stated if the house is moved further back and complies with the rear setback and bluff setback, he would be left with a 29-foot depth. Gaffron stated they calculated it at approximately 3,500 or 3,700 square feet but that it would be in a strange configuration. Gaffron illustrated on Exhibit L2 that if the 30-foot setback from the west is extended 20 feet closer to the road to meet a 30-foot or a 25-foot setback, it would leave an area of roughly 3,700 square feet. Schoenzeit commented it appears that a building would fit into that area. Stavig noted they are requesting a 25-foot setback in the front and that the 1,500 square feet would also include a garage. Schoenzeit commented there appears to be a building envelope available to the applicant that would meet the bluff setbacks. Stavig stated the house would be 700 to 800 square feet because the 1,500 square feet would also include a garage . Schoenzeit stated the building envelope would be 3,700 square feet if there is a variance to the cul-de-sac. Thiesse commented a 1,500 square foot house would be out of character for the neighborhood and noted that this lot was originally developed and approved for construction. Thiesse stated Exhibit Ll shows that the applicant is being penalized by the 40 percent. Thiesse noted it is an established tree line bluff. Gaffron stated Staff is going to take the lower point of the 50-foot segment that is less than 18 percent versus one that is over 18 percent. The top of the bluff is at 978', which is below the driveway. You have steeper slopes as you go closer to the shoreline and then a flat area. The bottom of the bluff is down at the shoreline and not 20 or 30 feet in where it is fairly flat. Gaffron stated the survey shows that the top of the bluff pretty much follows the lakeside of the driveway bed and that in his opinion the applicant is not being penalized. Thiesse commented this is a unique situation and asked if any of the catastrophic bluff failures were in a well defined mature tree bluff or a graded area. Gaffron stated in one case there was a catastrophic failure that happened on the property next door first and then they constructed retaining walls. In that case the house was required to be constructed 30 feet from the bluff, so it did not contribute to that bluff failure. Most of the failures have been rebuilt residences on bluffs. There was also a catastrophic failure on the north side of Long Lake approximately seven or eight years ago where there was an existing house that was rebuilt using the same footprint. Gaffron noted there is no existing footprint in this situation . Thiesse stated the old roadbed means something to him, and asked if the applicant hires an engineer that conducts a global stability check, whether that would help . -----------------Page 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 19, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated there is nothing in City Code that provides for that type of analysis. If the Planning Commission would like to consider that, that is a subjective process to deal with objective facts and could perhaps inse11 some more objectivity into the process. Gaffron stated that is a decision the Planning Commission would have to make. Stavig stated they would be constructing above where the driveway bed is and that there has been no movement in that area for over 100 years. Schoenzeit commented the additional information might be helpful to the Planning Commission. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Schoenzeit stated Staffs recommendations follow along very nicely with City Code, but that he would recommend tabling the application and perhaps collecting some further information regarding the nature and stability of the bluff, which would perhaps allow the granting of a variance. Thiesse stated he does not want the applicant to incur additional expenses if this application is not going to be approved. Thiesse commented he does not want to go against Staff's recommendations but pointed out that the majority of the bluff setback requirements relate to maintaining slope stability. Thiesse stated this situation is unique and that in his view slope stability is not an issue. Levang stated she is hesitant to go against the recommendation of the DNR. Thiesse asked why she is hesitant to go against that recommendation if the applicant can prove slope stability is not an issue. Landgraver commented it is a unique and mitigating factor, but fundamentally you hesitate to open the door to unique and mitigating factor on bluffs. Landgraver stated in his view all bluff areas will have extenuating circumstances and that he is reluctant to table it to allow the applicant to compile additional information on whether the driveway provides some stability to the slope. Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with Commissioner Landgraver and that she would be very hesitant to allow anything to encroach into the bluff setback zone. Leskinen stated the applicant could decide on his own to obtain additional information prior to the City Council meeting, but that she would not be willing to recommend the applicant obtain that information. Thiesse stated that is where he is having difficulty since it is a one-size fits all, and pointed out the reason for the line being placed there is to maintain the slope stability. If someone can prove that the line is actually in a different spot, then it would not be a bad idea for the applicant to obtain that information . The applicant purchased a piece of property that was deemed to be buildable but that it is not buildable to the standards of that neighborhood. -----------------Page 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 19, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Levang commented she understands the applicant's desire to construct a home on that lot but that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to ensure the City codes and ordinances are adhered to. Levang commented she does not get the impression the applicant is flexible on this application. Stavig stated in his view the proposal they attempted to put forward a proposal that is very flexible. The driveway bed defines the top of the bluff and the flat area of at least 15 feet has stood still for over a century. Their proposal is to stay behind that and go further forward to make sure that no erosion issues are created. Stavig commented he hopes that is a flexible approach since it is not where they would like to locate the house. Stavig noted there have been bluff setback variances granted previously in Orono and that in his view this is a reasonable request. The top of the bluff as defined by the roadbed is flat for 15 feet and they will stay behind that. Stavig stated the other adjoining lot also has bluff areas that they have maintained over the years. Stavig stated in his opinion their proposal is within the spirit of the regulation, which is not to erode the bluff. The area is marginally a bluff and is defined by the roadbed. They are placing the house in a different area out ofrespect for the bluff. Levang asked whether they would be willing to downsize the house. Stavig stated downsizing the house would require it to be two-story, which would be out of character of the neighborhood. Staff has rejected that. Stavig stated they have also attempted to ask for as few variances as possible. If erosion is the concern, Stavig indicated he is not sure how their proposal would impact that since the driveway bed has existed for over a century. Leskinen asked if the City can grant a bluff setback variance if the DNR recommends denial. Gaffron stated the City can still grant a variance since it is merely a recommendation from the DNR. Curtis commented typically the DNR will say they do not oppose it or the City will receive no comment back. Every application for a variance in the shoreline is under the DNR's review and they generally do not comment on the majority of them. Stavig asked whether there have been some approved in the past. Stavig stated it is his understanding the City granted one in 2006. Gaffron stated Staff has not done a complete analysis of how many bluff setback variances have been granted. Gaffron stated there likely have been some variances granted to allow a rebuild, but that he does not recall any that were granted to a vacant lot. Curtis noted the 2006 application was a rebuild. Landgraver stated he does not have the ability to opine on stability of slopes, but by the same token, the applicant has proposed a smaller footprint house close to the edge of the street, which is out of character with the neighborhood and that he is not sure if the neighbors have had a chance to consider this application. Landgraver indicated he is leaning towards tabling the application for the applicant to consider obtaining the additional information, which is another expense that he would incur with no guarantee of results. _________________ Page 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 19, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schwingler stated they Planning Commission does look at these on a case-by-case basis and that this is a unique situation. Under Code the applicant has practical use of the property and that he has a 100-plus year old driveway that has not had any issues. Schwingler commented he would hate to send the applicant on an expensive goose chase. Schoenzeit stated it appears from the discussion that if the roadway is stable, that might influence the Planning Commission. There appears to be some support on the Commission for obtaining additional information on the stability of the slope, and the applicant has the choice to have the Planning Commission table it or vote on the application. Schoenzeit stated there may be some value in putting some science behind the stability of the bluff and the practical difficulties of the lot. Stavig indicated he is willing to look into that. Schoenzeit commented it is a complicated endeavor to construct a house on a unique piece of property and that unfortunately some properties do require additional expense. Schoenzeit asked whether the applicant would like his application tabled since it is unlikely the application would be approved. Levang noted the applicant also has the option to have the Planning Commission vote on his application and then go before the City Council. Stavig indicated he would like his application tabled. Curtis stated if the application is tabled tonight, the application would be back before the Planning commission in April if the additional information is submitted on time. Schoenzeit moved, Levang seconded, to table Application #12-3547, John and Phoebe Stavig, 790 Brown Road North. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 4.#12-3548 ORONO SCHOOL DISTRICT, 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH, VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:04 P.M. -8:14 P.M. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting approval in order to construct an open-sided 924 square foot pavilion with a 330 square foot open deck 20 feet from the delineated wetland edge, approval of two future 426 square foot observation platforms, and after-the-fact approval for three raised observation platforms already constructed along a wood chip nature trail within the 150-foot lake setback and where a 50-foot wetland buffer and 20-foot structural setback is required. Conditional use permit approval is required for permits as the school use is a CUP within the RR-lB zoning district. Orono Schools recently received funding from the MCWD to construct walking trails with raised observation platforms along the edge of the wetland surrounding Lake Classen, which is classified by the DNR as a natural Environment lake. General development lakes such as Lake Minnetonka require a 75- foot structural setback. Natural environment lakes require a 150-foot setback for structures. Additionally, in order to further the school's environmental learning program, the applicant also requests approvals to construct a 1,254 square foot open-sided pavilion or shelter adjacent to the wetland edge. The platforms and the pavilion are shown within the 150-foot lake setback. The platforms were constructed and installed over the fall. The applicant's narrative outlines the background of the environmental learning program as well as their variance and CUP request in more detail. -----------------Page 14 I- Date Application Received: 02/22/2012 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/22/2012 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/22/2012 To: Chair Schoenzeit and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planning & Zoning Coordinator 1\AV 9 March 2012 Date: Subject: 12 -3547, John & Phoebe Stavig, "790" Brown Road N / PID 34-118-23-11-0003 Variances Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-lA, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acres/200' Lot Area: 62,247 square feet (1.42 acres) Lot Width: +360' at OHWL (944.3') & + 356' at 75' setback Application Summary: The applicant is requesting bluff setback, average lakeshore setback and a rear/street setback variance in order to construct a home on an undeveloped property. A variance to build within the bluff impact zone is also requested. Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends the following: 1. Approval of an average lakeshore setback variance. 2 . Denial of the bluff setback variance. 3. Denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure or grading. 4. Approval of a setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear property line. 5. The Planning Commission should consider recommending a reduction of the total allowed footprint of the home from 2,354 square feet to a footprint closer to 1,500 square feet. Pertinent Zoning Code Sections • Sec . 78-305. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. • Sec. 78-1211. Definitions. • Sec. 78-1217. Classification of public waters. • Sec . 78-1279. Placement of structures on lots . • Sec . 78-1282 . Driveways, stairways, lifts and landings. • Sec . 78-1403. Lot coverage. Other Pertinent Code Sections • Sec. 82-86. Vested rights. PC Exhibit H List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. Exhibit E. Exhibit F. Exhibit G. Exhibit H. Exhibit I. Exhibit J. Exhibit K. Exhibit L. Exhibit M. Exhibit N. Background Application Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Applicant's Narrative Proposed Survey Partial Survey-Buildable Envelope Submitted Hardcover Calculations Average Setback Aerial Views MN DNR Comments City Engineer Memo Sewer Availability Memo City Code Excerpts Staff Bluff Analysis (confirming surveyor analysis) Property Owners List Plat Map FILE# 12-3547 9 March 2012 Page 2 of 5 The subject property was platted in 1969 as part of RLS 1275 and has remained undeveloped. A bluff area exists on the property and combined with the SO-foot rear setback requirement results in a limited legal building envelope (±5' x 120'). In order to prepare the property for sale the applicant is requesting bluff setback, average lakeshore setback, and rear/street setback variances to create a more reasonable building pad. A variance to allow structure within the 20- foot bluff impact zone is also requested. The neighborhood was served with City sewer in 2004. This property wasn't assessed for sewer or provided with a sewer stub as part of the 2004 project. If developed, the property will need to connect to sewer. In addition to the cost to install a sewer stub and connect to the lot, a connection charge of $8,250 (based on the 2012 Fee Schedule) would be due. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width: LR-1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) 200' Actual 62,247 s.f. (1.42 acres) +360' at OHWL + 356' at 75' setback Setbacks: LR-1A Required Proposed Street/Rear 50' 30' North Side 30' 30' South Side 30' 30' Lakeshore 75' 120' Top of Bluff 30' 15' Bluff Impact Zone 20' 5' Average Lakeshore Nearly the entire property is ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. Structural Coveraj?e· Total Lot Area 62,247 square feet (1.42 acres) Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone 0-75 35,076 s.f. 75-250 27,171 s.f. Total Structural Coverage Allowed: 9,337 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2,418 s.f. (3.8%) FILE# 12-3547 9 March 2012 Page 3 of 5 Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0 s.f O s.f.* (0%) (0%) 6,792.7 s.f. 3,334 s.f. (25%) (12.2%) * Although none is proposed, a stairway would be permitted for access to a dock according to City Code Section 78-1282. Rear/Street Yard Setback Variance The proposal includes a 20-foot variance to allow a setback from the rear or street lot line of 30 feet where a SO-foot setback is normally required. Bluff Impact Zone and Bluff Setback Variance The applicant requests a lS-foot variance to allow construction of the home 15 feet from the top of bluff where a 30-foot setback is required. Additionally, the proposal would place the home five (5) feet into the required 20-foot bluff impact zone as well. The applicant's proposal includes a "possible" lower garage beneath the upper main garage. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance The location of the average lakeshore setback line for this property is difficult to ascertain as the property exists on a partial point and the northerly adjacent lakeshore home is significantly "behind" this property in orientation. The result when using the closest lakeward point of the home to the south places the average lakeshore setback line completely off of the subject property; when using the point of the southerly home closest to, or most "impacted by", the subject property places the average lakeshore setback line within the required SO-foot rear setback. Either of the lines result in the subject lot having no conforming buildable area with respect to the average lakeshore setback. A variance may be requested from City Council or City Code Section 78-1279{6)(a) provides an administrative approval option should each affected neighbor provide written approval of the plan. Practical Difficulties Statement The applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider 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. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in FILE# 12-3547 9 March 2012 Page 4 of 5 instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Discussion The subject property was platted in 1969 and has remained vacant and owned by the adjacent, adjoining property owner for the most part. City Code Section 82-86 protects a subdivision for up to two years following final plat approval from changes to the comprehensive plan or zoning controls to affect the use, density, lost size, etc. This period may be extended by the City, however after this time period changes to the comprehensive plan and codes shall apply to all properties. Regarding the average lakeshore setback, the code offers the property owner the option to pursue administrative relief provided the neighbors provide written approval. If the written approval is not an option for whatever reason, staff finds the City may grant a variance citing practical difficulties. Protection and preservation of bluff areas within Orono has been a key aspect of our Shoreland regulations since our adoption of the DNR shoreland rules in 1992. The bluff impact zone (20') and bluff setback requirement {30') are meant to limit potential negative impacts to the bluff and the vegetation which stabilizes the bluff from slump, erosion and slope failure. Encroachments into the sensitive areas increase the potential for irreversible damage to occur. The applicant's potential lower garage area would require additional grading and potentially greater impacts to the area adjacent to the home. At a minimum staff would suggest the lower garage be eliminated from the plan. Regarding bluff areas in general it is staff's position that, particularly in new construction situations, all bluff setbacks should be met, and variances should not be granted. The private road serving this neighborhood is approximately 20 feet in width and does not have a full, 80-foot diameter paved cul-de-sac at the end as would be required today. The road basically ends at the driveways of the three end homes. The proposed 20-foot encroachment into the rear setback may not appear to be as significant as if a paved cul-de-sac existed. The five existing homes along this private road each meet the required SO-foot street setback requirement; the Planning Commission should determine whether granting a variance to allow a 30-foot setback is out of character with the immediate neighborhood. In order to meet the required bluff setback the home footprint may need to be reduced and/or moved closer to the street. The proposal is for a 2,354 square foot home and garage footprint. City Code Section 78-1403 states that each developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of principal structure (including garage). Perhaps combination of a greater variance to the rear setback combined with a reduction in the proposed footprint to 1,500 square feet would result in elimination ofthe bluff variances ... Further, the applicant's assertion that the property has been taxed as a "buildable lot" should have no bearing on the Planning Commission's review of the zoning related issues associated with this application. Issues for Consideration FILE# 12-3547 9 March 2012 Page 5 of 5 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? 4. Should variances be granted, are there methods to further protect the bluff area from homeowner impacts which in the future could cause stabilization issues for the slope? Easements, covenants, etc? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends the following: 1. Approval of an average lakeshore setback variance if the Planning Commission determines the existing lake views from the home at 800 Brown Road N will not be encroached upon by a home on the subject property. Alternatively, the applicant has the option to pursue an administrative average lakeshore setback variance with written approval from the owner at 800 Brown Road N. 2. Denial of the bluff setback variance. 3. Denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure or grading. 4. Approval of a setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear property line. 5. The Planning Commission should consider recommending a reduction of the total footprint of the home from 2,354 square feet to a footprint closer to 1,500 square feet. PC Exhibit A City of Orono Variance Application Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Main : 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Application # ef 2:= !LJ~ Date Received: -i:J '2i{]z...... D...J.. A MIA / Staff : _OV_v_~ __ ,v_ L-~ __ _ Fee: $700 "t: -------- Renew a I: $350 --------After-the-fact: $1,400 Double Fee Escrow Fee: $600 I $2,500 This application form must be completed in full. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORrN\TION: ( '\ Site Address: w7 t10 Bti,...., ,J (2..,f?t> N ~a.:ru-J\"'D)Cl-eS.S ~" "~S,'-rl e'b J Property Identification Number (PIN): -~1---''l_l_.1 .X------=Z"----'3'------11---'o~o....:::o ...... :?'---------------- Date Property Acquired (month/year): (, I o 4 }i11 Yes, I own the adjacent parcel~ Zoning District: LR,-1 ~ ~ -7Ko N, ~{l.ow~ '2.ol?z> -34111"6. 2-sffoo-o,2_ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) Name: 01,l-~ 7' ~ 'P f-t.-;,E~ M .r/"(VlG Phone(home): 9<"2.•L/7(,-11,, Phone(work): l-ti..-"1.-5-2'-t.!(£ Complete Address: 7go N , B/2.o~ H R.01':'l> City, State & ZIP Lo,.i ~ LAIL£" M_. 5S:sS"C Email: ;[.S--r.Av•G @. "'4rJ\N. @u Fax: C,t1..-{,2'-1-Zo~l,. OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) Name: o"tl 1> +-Pt·h,£:.E,€ r,t\/1{; Phone (home): q<;z -'{1f,,,-I If, Phone (work): Complete Address: 7g0 rJ. ol2owN 8-?Rb City, State & ZIP L.:>rib L-A-1(.c M,J S:~~SJ Email: :rsTAv't t.. e_, uM,J . E?i>Vt' Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): RECE IV ED FEB 2 2 2012 CITY OF ORON O 3 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. APPLICANT AND/OR OWNER: • Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, .. • Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payme.nt) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and , · • Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • Acknowledge the Escrow Agreement.is completed and signed. • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees. to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. • Applicant andfor Owner acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicanVowner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. • Some or all of the inforrn.ation that you are asked to provide on this application is classified by State law as either private or confidential. Private data is information which generally cannot be given to the public but can be given to the subject of the data. Confidential data is information which generally cannot be given to either the public or the subject of the data. Our purpose and intended use of this information is to annually update our records and records of other governmental agencies required by law. If you refuse to supply the information, the application may not e issued, Applicant's Signature: I -I~ · /"t... Applicant's Signature: Owner's Signature: {-I?· t t..- Owner's Signature: / -I 7 • ,.,_ RECEIVED #3547 FEB 2 2 2012 i : CITY OF ORONO -13-# 3 PC Exhibit B PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficulties. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of these difficulties criteria as they relate to the request, if they do not apply, write NIA in the space provided: 1. "The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter." C,1>.J.)r/2,.v.c.·Thr of' t..f F. ,\,ut..'1 (+.Al\f IN ~ 1bfNr1"1.., 2, 3. 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." 5. "Practical difficulties include, but are 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 allowed under this Chapter for property In the zone where the affected person's land Is located." #3547 3 RECEIVED JAN 18 2012 CITY OF ORONO 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family · dwelling." J "1_1£ 8. land in question are peculiar to such property or 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." PltePtAr-11( tj \/e.o.>-t \AN l~\,t~ \H L-»t-k'O~.J f\:tl\ C .,,..,r. u It.. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." (2..:,p~a.,.'f\,f o..,."'b ~~~ ..,-~ ~ A- 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." lo Tl'rf(...,~ °F )>f.l ... r-<=i(.)..T'1, Practical Difficulties Statement Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): I 3 RECEIVED JAN 18 2012 CITY OF ORONO Description of Request 790 N. Brown Road PC Exhibit Cl We are requesting approval for a reasonable building footprint on PID 34-118-23-11-003 (the "Lot) adjacent to our primary residence. The Lot was created in its current form in 1969 as part of a single-family home subdivision and has been assessed and taxed at a rate equivalent to buildable vacant lakeshore for more than forty years (see Exhibit A). It is a uniquely shaped property on Long Lake with hills, wetlands and lakeshore. A combination of new regulations since the Lot boundaries were established, some of which only marginally apply, has made the buildable footprint extremely small and impractical to support the intended and approved use. This creates a hardship consistent the Minnesota State Statute 462.357. We are seeking approval of a variance request that meets the objectives of these new regulations, while providing reasonable allowances for the unique circumstances to meet the intended and approved use of the Lot. The proposed footprint and structure are modest in size (approx. 1,600 sf main level, plus garage), consistent with the character of the neighborhood and accommodate as well as possible the numerous new regulatory restrictions on this Lot. The Lot is technically "buildable" despite current regulations and would not absolutely require a variance. Being forced to build an extremely small, shallow, tall, odd and irregular house(s) within this extremely narrow and irregular footprint, however, would substantially alter the essential character of the locality and negatively impact adjacent landowners. The Lot and the relating subdivision was submitted and unanimously approved by the Village of Orono Planning Commission on October 20, 1969. It was subsequently submitted and unanimously approved by the Village of Orono Village Council on November 25, 1969. At the time it was approved, the lot was in complete compliance with the Municipal Code of Orono adopted on January 1, 1968. The lot was a 2+ acre parcel developed for the sole purpose of supporting a single-family home. The lone restrictions at the time were 30' side and 50' front/back setbacks. Since its approval, the Lot has become subject to expanded Shoreland Setback restrictions, Bluff Setback restrictions, Bluff Impact Zone restrictions and Average Lakeshore Setback restrictions. Since we acquired the property in 2002, this Lot has been categorized at "vacant-land lakeshore" and taxed at a value that clearly implies an expectation for the placement of a residential home on the property. Although the estimated market value for taxing purposes has declined from a peak of $720,000 in 2007-08, the property continues to be taxed at a market value of $585,000. In fact, today we received a notice from the City of Orono at 2750 Kelley Parkway informing us that the 2013 estimated market value for taxing purposes will continue to be $585,000. The allowable building footprint is primarily limited by the Bluff Setback and Bluff Impact Zone restrictions. We believe these regulations are overly restrictive for this Lot and are mitigated by the following: i) Prior to the implementation of regulatory restrictions, the "Bluff Impact Zone" was significantly improved and has not resulted in any erosion. This hillside area was leveled for a driveway and cleared of all vegetation sometime between 1870 and 1910. As a result, this is very different from the typical situation of protecting against erosion of undisturbed land. It is important to note that no material erosion has occurred from this driveway bed in more than 100 years. The proposed building footprint maintains at least a 15' setback from the downhill side of this driveway bed. Precluding any building in an area above an improved road bed that has a slope of considerably less than 30% seems inconsistent with the spirit and intent of these regulations. ii) No grading will be required at the rear of the proposed building footprint, and only a minimal amount on each side as the natural grading of the proposed sight is ideally suited to a walkout basement. iii) It is not clear that the 30% threshold definition of a "bluff" exists throughout the Lot. Ambiguity in the definition and variations in the calculation of any "bluff" has resulted in calculations that range from 28.9% to 31.2% by the surveyor of this Lot. Differing lines can be drawn and varying calculations are possible based upon potential locations of a structure on the Lot. While the landowner reserves the right to challenge the determination of whether a "bluff" exists, this proposal would position the house nearly 135' from the lakeshore and 60' further from lakeshore than if the 30% threshold were not met throughout the entirety of the Lot. The proposed variance meets, and in many ways exceeds, the intent of the regulation for a Bluff Setback. iv) In the area near the proposed building footprint, the degree of slope is significantly less than the rest of the lot and well below the 30% threshold. City inspectors and council members are encouraged to stand on the driveway bed and make their own assessment. The city's own drawings depict a significantly lower slope near their defined Top of Bluff. v) This is a wooded hill protected from erosion by trees that will be maintained on the hill to prevent erosion. No trees will be removed on or below the driveway bed. We are also requesting a reduction of the Front Setback variance to 30'. The property is at the end of a private wooded road and the proposed changes would not change the character of the neighborhood. In fact, we are seeking approval of a significantly more restrictive set of setback measurements than what exist for the adjacent property's tennis court. This variance request meets the "practical difficulties" criteria consistent the Minnesota State Statute 462.357: ■ We propose to use the Lot in a reasonable manner consistent with its intended and approved use, which has been effectively prohibited by a combination of new zoning ordinances. ■ Circumstances are unique to this Lot and were not created by the landowner. ■ Approval will not alter the essential character of the locality. ■ The special conditions that apply are peculiar to this Lot and do not generally apply to other properties. ■ The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. ■ The proposed building footprint is in harmony with the intent of the broad range of shoreland ordinances to preserve water quality, prevent erosion and protect the sensitive resources. There are no hardcover or septic concerns with this proposed variance. Sewer lines were installed in this subdivision in 2004 and can be completed to serve this Lot (with additional assessments), thereby eliminating any need for placement of a septic system. Easement rights will also need to be granted to the adjacent 780 property as the line was terminated on the vacant lot. We are seeking to either market or build a new primary residence on this Lot. While we recognize that "economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties", the denial of this variance and the cumulative effect of the excessive taxation on this Lot will force us to sell both of our lots. Upon purchasing this property in 2002 and throughout the nearly ten-year period of ownership, we have understood that this was a "buildable" Lot. We have been taxed at a sharply increasing rate consistent with this understanding and have received no notification from any city, county or state officials to suggest otherwise. We believe that a refusal by the city to allow a reasonable variance that takes into account the unique circumstances of this Lot and abides by the intent of the regulations would result in a taking of real property. John & Phoebe Stavig March 13, 2012 Exhibit A Assessment Year Estimated Market Value 2001 $300,000 2002 $300,000 2003 $490,000 2004 $545,000 2005 $630,000 2006 $675,000 2007 $720,000 2008 $720,000 2009 $675,000 2010 $585,000 2011 $585,000 2012 $585,000 i \ \ ))))))')1,·,,, ~ ~-~ . ._i ,\ \\ \\\\\\\,'.,\\ ~ ' ·,, \ \ \ I \ I I I \ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN D. STAVIG OF TRACT F, R.L.S . NO. 1275 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LONG LAKE /,,, ... ---... , I ' (._'.) 1--. (._..) ~- ! ' I \ I ' ' \ ' \ -'Ii,~~ I--: ~ s;,]Gl:'t;,&. Z S,iC,8'%1yO,. <l,V;, l'j\ 0 ~\ -c-i---, I 1'r-r>: ',, \ ', '--, '· I ' Q(SQEI) RE'IISIOH OAT< ,,.,.,.,. ~ Tract F, Registered Land Survey No., 1275, files of Registrar ofTlUes, Hennepin County, MiMf.tsota Thls survey Intends to shoW the boundaries of the abOve desaibed property , ~ ~~~~~~exi~~~~ ~~~~~~~e~1,::e~:r~e::: topography northerly of the old driveway, and topography from field shots southerly ,.QJ the old driveway. It doe$ not pUJ"pOlt to show any other improvements or enaoachments. • : Denotes tree to be removed . o ; Iron matker -96&-: E»sting contour nne · ~ Denotes proposed contOU" line Denotes proposed spot ell!v.ation rings .shown are based upon an assumed datum OCsatt>TIOH \ \ \ ', ··, \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I I I \ I I I \ ,-, ! \ , \ I I I I ·I I I I I I '1..- I I I \ I I I + I HEREBY CERTIFYlliATTHIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPOR 2-.ZM2 POSS IBtE HOUSE, GRADING AHO TREES lN THA.T AREA SHOWN OAAWN $ GRONBERG & ASS.OCIATES, INC. WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVJSION AN~ I ~~;:~~~;~~~~':eSl:~:G::ESO";°A.LAN1c,1--0 ,-T[--< $CM.£ 1"=30° Cl<O<[l) 11·358 . CONSUL TING ENGINEERS. LAND SURVEYORS, SITE PLANNERS 446 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE, LONG LAKE, MN. '66356 952-473..(141 L..!:2£[_ 1-<;.12 """N). 11•358 I ., "U (") m X :::; er ;:::;: 0 \ \ \ -~ '" \, \ " \ I \ 1 \ i \ I \ \ I \ \ \ \ I \\ 1'. \ ' \ \ \ ' \ \ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN D. STAVIG OF TRACT F, R.L.S. NO. 1275 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LONG LAKE ', " '\ "\ \ I I i /----/ '--- / "', I ' ,r i I \ I I I \ \ \ p, u \ 29~ \ I I I I ! I I 1-- 0::: 0 z ;) I I I IL-I ..... ,_, .... ~\JVl'f I T, IVlll~l'tL.vV In ~ ~EL DRIVEWAY LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Tract F, Registered Land Survey No., 1275, files of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota This survey 'intends to show the boundaries of the above described property.- the location of the existing building setback area currently in effect for this Tract, and the location of an existing shed thereon, the O H W line for Long Lake, city 1-VOC{ f 1 ((L~ N0-fL15 I'-::;~ I LONG LAKE PC Exhibit E PC Exhibit F Address : 7 "J (l 4 l~WtV l(OAII M Date:. 2 /2..2./ll. Prepared by: _ __::.~-'-A-'-'-~-'-~~.,,--'--(A.--'-~--'-f --"A....,J'.'-''J''-'O~C=-=-l...,A'"""n".-"--:J""".,--'/'-A/-C._. _. ___________ _ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK 'zoNE: (CIRCLE ONE) <Ev 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X = () S.F. Length Width X = S.F. X = S.F . B . Garage X = S.F . C . Driveway X = S.F . X = S.F . D. Sidewalk X = S.F . X = S.F . E. Patio/Deck X = S.F. X = S .F. F. Landscape X = S.F . Underlain X = S.F . By Plastic X = S.F. G. Retaining Walls X = S.F. H. Other X = S.F . TOTAL HARDCOVER lN ZONE (!)S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE :J _f,, 076" A 0 + B X 100 = .1~ '17 {:, S.F. B Q % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE (including existing hardcover fo be retained) A. House ______ x ______ = S.F . Length Width X = S.F. X = S.F. 8. Garage X = S.F. C. Driveway X = S.F. X = S.F. · D . Sidewalk X = S .F. X = S .F. E . Patio/Deck f X = S.F. X = S.F. F. Landscape X = S .F. Underlain X = S.F. By Plastic X = S.F . G. Retaining Walls X = S.F. H. Other X = ______ S.F . TOT AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE . 0 S.F. A ------TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE .JS, o 7£: S .F. B A (ti + B J ..S-,,e,'1( X 100 = 0 % -21 - I -- J~llN b,5TA·\/'lq t(Z....A-cr F l<.t-5-d: 1-.,/22./11-12,.75 HARDCOVER CAL~ION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' · 5~' · 250-500' 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House Sff6..D X = L11 S.F. Length Width X = S.F. X = S.F. B. Garage X = S.F. C. Driveway X = S.F. X = S.F. D. Sidewalk X = S.F. X = S.F. E. Patio/Deck X = S.F. X :::: S.F. F. Landscape X = S.F. Underlaln X = S.F. By Plastic X = S.F. G. Retaining X = S.F. Walls H. Other X = S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE I q °! S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ~'112L S.F. B A IC/ q_ + B Z7l7l X 100 = o.73 % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House X = 2~54-S.F. Length Width 0 X = S.F. Ci C'-.1 z X = S.F. w -0 c:, > C"-1 0:: --N 0 B. Garage X = S.F. w u N LL <l!k co 0 C. Driveway X = S.F. w w ~ 0:: u.... X = S.F. 0 D. Sidewalk X = S.F. X = S.F. E. Patio/Deck X = 1, ~ S.F. X = S.F. F. Landscape X = S.F. ~ Underlain X = S.F. By Plastic X = S.F. G. Retaining X = S.F. LC\ Walls "" H. Other S.F. X = TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 3~34 S.F. A * TOTAL PROPERTY AREA l ZONE 1-7t"J..l S.F. B. A 333 + B 27 /11 X 100 = /2.•l7 % Melanie Curtis From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Melanie, Gleason , John (DNR) Uohn.gleason@state.mn .us] Wednesday, March 14 , 2012 12:18 PM Melanie Curtis Comments on Variance Application PC Exhibit H Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the variance application for the property just north of 780 Brown Road North (PID 34-118-23-11-0003) on Long Lake. The DNR opposes variances to bluff setback requirements and opposes all development in the bluff impact zone. The bluff setback standards are included in the state shoreland rules for consumer protection. Bluffs are sensitive landscape features and development on or near the edge of the bluff may contribute to destabilization of the bluff. Development on or near a bluff edge may increase erosion rates of the bluff, due to increased storm water runoff from the site and vegetation alterations. Not only might this cause sediment to enter the lake, the geotechnical stability of the bluff itself may be compromised, and might result in mass wasting and slope failure of the bluff itself. Such a failure endangers public safety and substantial property damage may also occur. Therefore, we oppose the variance requests related to the bluff setback requirements on Long Lake . As an alternative, we would suggest moving any proposed structure further away from the bluff to meet the setback requirements, even if a variance is then required to the rear setback. We do not oppose a variance to the rear setback requirement. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Jack John (Jack) Gleason I Area Hydrologist -West Metro I MnDNR I 1200 Warner Road I St. Paul, MN 55106 I T: 651-259-5754 I Joh n .Gleason@state.mn .us 1 E3C)L TC::>N & l'v-1 EN K., I NC-® Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 • Chaska, MN 55318-1172 March 6, 2012 City of Orono Attn: Melanie Curtis PO Box 66 Orono, Mn 55323 RE: Land Use Application 12-3547 House Construction Phone (952) 448-8838 • Fax (952) 448-8805 www.bolton-menk.com 790 Brown Road North/ PID 34-115-23-11-0003 Dear Melanie: As requested, we have reviewed the submittal package for the proposed Land Use Application for the vacant lot at 790 Brown Road North. The Variance Application, Certificate of Survey, and Hardcover Calculations are dated February 22, 2012. Based on our review, we offer the following comments for your consideration: 1. This property is zoned LR-IA (Lakeshore Residential), which requires a minimum front setback of 50 feet (Sec. 78-305). The current Survey shows a proposed front setback of 30 feet. Therefore, a variance is required to reduce the minimum setback by 20 feet ( 40% ). 2. The current Survey shows a proposed Top of Bluff setback of 15 feet. Per Sections 78-1211 and 78-1279 , the minimum bluff setback required for structures is 30 feet from the top of bluff. Also, the bluff impact zone is defined as 20 feet from the top of bluff, and no structures can be placed within this zone. Therefore, variances are required to reduce the Top of Bluff setback by 15 feet (50%) and to allow a structure within the Bluff Impact Zone. 3. This property is not provided with a sanitary service stub. The existing service stub , directed toward this lot, is intended for 780 Brown Road North. If the lot is determined to be buildable, the applicant will need to install a new connection for Lot 790 and provide an easement for the service to Lot 780. Also, the applicant will be required to bear the costs of the SAC fee, connection permit, and grinder station for connection to pressure sewer. Plans detailing this connection would be required as part of a Building Permit Application. 4. If the lot is determined buildable, the applicant will need to submit a Building Permit Application, including proposed Building Plans, a Certificate of Survey meeting Building Permit requirements, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and all applicable fees. 5. If the lot is determined buildable, the applicant will be required to obtain a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit for erosion control. A copy of the permit should be submitted to the City after MCWD approval. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. D~?,,r]~ David P. Martini Principal Engineer PC Exhibit I I MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis Chris Mattson Street files, 780~and "790" Brown Road North Mike Gaffron January 19, 20 Sewer Availability for "790" Brown Road North PC Exhibit JI The vacant property at "790" Brown Road north was not assessed for sewer as part of the 'Homestead Road' sewer project (see attached Resolution No. 5243 and Assessment Roll as well as Public Works Director Greg Gappa's maps of the project area). The property is not provided with a sewer stub. Per the attached as-built maps, there is a clean- out ("termination flushing connection") located in the cul-de-sac near the boundary between 780 and 790, and a single connection stub aimed at 790 intended to serve 780, perhaps because the connection for the sewer at 780 may be intended to stay north of the driveway, which puts it into the adjacent commonly-owned lot at 790. The current Sewer Connection Charge which would be due if 790 is determined to be buildable is $8,250 (2012 Fee Schedule) which would be due prior to issuance of a building permit. The property owner would bear the costs of a SAC fee, connection permit and the costs of the grinder station needed to make the connection to this pressure sewer. City permit records indicate 780 has not yet been connected to the sewer. When 780 is connected to the sewer, if its connection route extends through 790, an easement should be created or the two lots should be combined. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5 2 4 !3 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WEST FARM (HOMESTEAD) AREA SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of sanitary sewer in the West Farm ( Homestead) area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Cmmcil of Orono, Minnesota: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby fOlmd to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2005 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.25% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2005. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at anytime thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. Partial prepayment may be allowed in accordance with ordinances which are existing or which the City may choose to adopt in the future. Page 1 of 2 J~ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ ___,;:5a.....;.;:2;_4=; -'~""'"'!,~-- 4. The Clerk shall f01ihwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 25th day of October, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 2 of 2 Assessment Roll for West Farm (Homestead) Sanitary Sewer Project Date: 25 October 2004 Municipality: ORONO Levy Number: Total Project Assessment: $44,800.00 PID Number 27-118-23-43-0016 27-118-23-44-0016 34-118-23-11-0002 34-118-23-11-0001 34-118-23-11-0007 34-118-23-12-0006 34-118-23-12-0005 Total Assessment Total Principal $6,400.00 $6,400.00 $6,400.00 $6,400.00 $6,400.00 $6,400.00 $6,400.00 $44,800.00 Municipal Code: 38 Levy Description: West Farm (Homestead) Sanitary Sewer Project Interest Rate: 6.25% Number of Years Payable: 15 Property Owner's Name J Cerny & I Cerny J. W. & J. A. Pierpont J. D. & P. M. Stavid R. D. Benson & B.A. Luikens V. & D. Stein H. & I. Hutter T. M. Schultze & M. L. Steil Property Street Address 1849 West Fann Road 1801WestFann Road 780 Brown Road N 776 Brown Road N 800 Brown Road N 770 Brown Road N 7 44 Brown Road N Property Owner's Mailing Address 930 Harbor Lane N Plymouth MN 55447 1801 West Fann Road Long Lake MN 55356 780 Brown Road N Long Lake MN 55356 77 6 Brown Road N Long Lake MN 55356 800 Brown Road N Long Lake MN 55356 770 Brown Road N Long Lake MN 55356 7 44 Brown Road N Long Lake MN 55356 Cl, ~ ~ ~ L,.. ~ I ~-i-l I I I I ~4 I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I ......., HOMESTEAD RO~ z 0 -5U-_- ~ --:::::i I CONNECT! TO EX. 4" F<DRCEMAt 0~ j' I I I 1 1/4" SERVICE & URB STOP (TYPICAL) I I ,-,o I I fo;-- I (7) SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS ORONO, MINNESOTA FIGURE 2 HOMESTEAD ROAD SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION 13903141 F02.DWG DATE: 10/03/03 COMM: 13903141 (D (1D) 1801 0 100 ~ Scale In feel --j~ 0 (17) __ \ T~INATIDN -- FLUSP{ING 200 I C~Ne __ .. \ .. ·--~·· RM;--:'f"_.-,~-~-0~=~=,n \ ~ -790 (3) ~ ~ (2) 780@ • r1 • Bonestroo ~ Rosen€! ,~iw Anderlik & • \J • Associates Engineers & Architects L, V\ IW t>~01ECT v"c~w.1 1000 990 970 960 950 ··g./~ \\ w.a \\J,. + / \ I ( 16 l \ I \ ', 0, 11 -) \ \ [ ~ \ 27' TO EDGE \OF BIT. • _ \ \ \, -.. 1 ,-.; t, ·I I 44'-1 1/4" HOPE, SDR11 ' \\ (/) 155 1 1/4" CURB STOP & BOX ', , ' '. \ \ \ " , NOTES: '-, 1 SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO FOR USE WITH ', . SEMI POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT GRINDER ----· · '"'-PUMPS AS MANUFACTURED BY EONE OR :::.:::~ ·······...J .,-. ' :tO : : ·"' ·O'> .. 9+00 ·O :o .IX) ·O, APPROVED EOUAL. ::~: : :co : .. . ·O'> .. 10+00 ,IX) :6i ,IX) ·O, : 485': :..; : '.': HOPE: : DR1 .. : : DIREC {)NAL: ORI L: : ·rt),. :1.0 :. -CO •• ·O) •. 11+00 .,-. :en .IX) ·O, 12+00 : :l(i ' .. en . ,a, :~t .,,l'l;'J_,J __ _ •.. "f':""LL. •. --(I) .. : :LO : : .. O'). --en .. 13+00 -IX) :IO .a, ·O, ··O .. ::m: '.a, .a, 14+00 :;; :m ,a, ,,., ' :l"Q :. .a, ' ·O,. 15+00 ·O,' :N : . .a, . ·a> . 16+00 ··W ::-.t ' .a, ··Ol ·O .. :N : . .a, . ·a> ' 17+00 .,., :m .o:, ·O, ·IO :co .OJ ·O> l I C. <D ::i GI"'"' .... " u >-.... .... I Ii: !Ort ~ ... ;: "' 0 ..c"' J, .. . 2'z "' ~ -:i::::.: 'l' ~ :I ~ -.... ,a cu "S "' C. ;= ~ <D I ,.J l/'I • x en~ tn ~ N ~ ~ I 13903141C401.DWG C4.02 PC Exhibit Kl Sec. 78-305. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the LR-1A district shall exceed 2 1/2 stories and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area (acre) Lot Width (feet) Front Yard (feet) Side Yard (feet) Side Yard Rear Yard (feet) 2 Adjacent to Street (feet) 200 50 30 50 50 Sec. 78-1211. Definitions. Bluff means a topographic feature, such as a hill, cliff or embankment, having the following characteristics (An area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance of 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): ( 1) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; (2) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the water body; (3) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater; and (4) The slope must drain toward the water body. Bluff impact zone means a bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff. Bluff, toe of the, means the lower point of a 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. Bluff, top of the, means that point on the cross section of a bluff below which the slope becomes more than 18 percent and above which the average slope for a distance of 50 feet or more is 18 percent or less. Sec. 78-1217. Classification of public waters. The public waters of the city have been classified below consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations, part 6120.3300, and the protected waters inventory map for the county: OHWL (feet) Protected Waters lnventorv I.D. # ( 1) Natural Environment (NE) lakes Lake Classen 974.5 162-P Dickey Lake 985.5 161-W French Lake (South 930.0 140-P Basin onlv) Lydiard Lake 970.9 159-P Lake Katrina --154-P Wolsfeld Lake --157-P (Medina) (2) Recreational Development (RD) lakes Long Lake 944.3 160-P Mooney Lake 988.0 134-P Tanager Lake 929.4 141-P Hadley Lake 961.4 109-P (Plymouth) (3) General Development (GD) lakes Forest Lake 929.4 139-P Lake Minnetonka 929.4 133-P Sec. 78-1279. Placement of structures on lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Structures shall be located as follows: ( 1) Structure and on-site sewerage system setbacks (in feet) from ordinary high water level: Setbacks Sewaqe Public Water Structure Treatment Classification Unsewered Sewered System NE 150 150 150 RD 100 75 75 GD 75 75 75 Tributary 100 75 75 (2) Additional structure setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the water body: Setback from: Setback (in feet) Top of bluff 30 Unplatted cemetery 50 Right-of-way line of 30* federal, state or county highway and local public and private roads * Except for detached garages on lakeshore lots as regulated in section 78-1435 and except for structures subject to less restrictive side yard adjacent to street setbacks as regulated in the various zoning districts. (3) Bluff impact zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways, landings and lock boxes, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. (4) Uses without water-oriented needs. Uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. (5) Fences, docks, retaining walls. No fence shall be placed within the shore setback zone. Portions of dock located landward of the OHWL shall be considered as a landing, subject to the regulations for landings per section 78-1282. Retaining walls shall not be placed within the shore setback zone. (6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. a. In instances where the average lakeshore setback can not be met, administrative approval may be granted at the discretion of the planning director provided no lake views of an adjacent lakeshore lot are obstructed and adjacent neighbors provide written approval. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series,§ 1(10.56(16)(C)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 11 3rd series,§ 1, 5-24-2004) Sec. 78-1282. Driveways, stairways, lifts and landings. (a) A driveway no wider than eight feet is permitted in the shoreland or tributary setback zone if the property has no other frontage on or access to a public or private road. (b) Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways, lifts and landings shall be allowed in the shore setback zone and must meet the following design requirements: (1) Stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width. (2) Landings for stairways and lifts shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. (3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. (4) Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion. (5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical. (6) Facilities necessary to provide shore area access to physically handicapped persons shall be allowed, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of subsections (1)--(5) of this section are completed in addition to the requirements of the Minnesota Regulations, chapter 1340. (7) A building permit shall be obtained for construction of stairways, lifts and landings regardless of whether such improvements are constructed above, at or below grade. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series,§ 1(10.56(16)(F)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 59 3rd series,§ 2, 5-11-2009) Sec. 78-1403. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0--1.99 acres in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15 percent of the lot area. Exception: Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. The following shall be included in calculation of lot coverage by structures: ( 1) All roofed structures more than six feet above grade level. (2) Tennis courts, patios, decks, and all similar open structures when partially or fully enclosed by fences, railings or walls which extend more than six feet above grade level (If any portion of such structures extends more than six feet above grade level, the entire structure shall count toward lot coverage). (3) Building protrusions which are more than six feet above grade, including the building footprint, and the vertical projection of any parts of the building more than six feet above grade. (4) Bays or bay windows that increase the floor area (i.e., floor to ceiling) shall be considered lot coverage. Bays or bay windows that act solely as a window shall not be considered lot coverage. (5) All but the outer two feet of roof overhangs shall be included in the calculation of lot coverage. Sec. 82-86. Vested rights. No vested rights shall accrue to any subdivision by reason of preliminary or final subdivision approval except as stated in this article. For one year following preliminary approval and for two years following final approval, unless the subdivider and the city agree otherwise, no amendment to a comprehensive plan or official control shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout, or dedication or platting required or permitted by the approved application. Thereafter, pursuant to its regulations, the city may extend the period by agreement with the subdivider and subject to all applicable performance conditions and requirements, or it may require submission of a new application unless substantial physical activity and investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved application, and the subdivider will suffer substantial financial damage as a consequence of a requirement to submit a new application. In connection with a subdivision involving planned and staged development, the city may by resolution or agreement grant the rights referred to in this section for such period of time longer than two years which it determines to be reasonable and appropriate. (Code 1984, § 11.10(20)(8)) PC Exhibit LI q*< I,,. . l-tO,C> /e ... ,~1). llD /Oq .. 8>6 =r--------------------------------------·---------------------------- ~ C1'I C, CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR J OHN D. STAVIG OF TRACT F, R.L.S. NO. 1275 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ,J. o Y ■ 7 ;>D -~'--!....,/~5£---..::=--· LAKE PC Exhibit M rr=-u Hennepin County Mailing Label Map 1 l[]_ Provided By: Taxpayer Services Department 11 ~ I i2• 7) I I 27-118-23-+t (2') 34-118-23-12 l I 7) For more i nformation contact: Hennepin County GIS Division 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 gis .info@co.hennepin .mn .us Map Comments: k-118-23-11 ------I Tract F, Reg. Land Survey No. 1275 I Orono MN r(/. ___ _ Print Date: 1/18/2012 Map Scale: 1" = 180' Buffer Size: 150 feet #3547 (7) ) -~--=----/ Map Legend : Water Park Parcel CJ Buffer Region Selected Parcels JAN 1 8 201 Z .U. 2 CITY OF ORONdft ;,/ Major Roads Minor Roads ti ,, ,,k.. ~r ,. .l 11 PC Exhibit N RUN DATE: 1/18/2012 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM {PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) 38 27-118-23 44 0019 S C MULDOON & PD MULDOON 1801 WEST FARM RD SAMANTHA CAPEN MULDOON PAUL D MULDOON 1801 WESTFARMRD ORONO MN 55356 38 34-11 8-23 11 0003 JD STA VIG & PM STA VIG 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN & PHOEBE STA VIG 780 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTE ,, AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RE ' ORD · E 38 34-118-23 11 0001 RD BENSON & B A LUIKENS 776 BROWN RD N BARBARA A LUIKENS RICHARD B BENSON 776 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 11 0006 MARYL STEIL ET AL 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MARYL STEIL ET AL 744 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 DAT E: JAN 1 8 201 2 {--f-1---f,✓ ~~~"--""'-'~'-----"c._ RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 CITY OF ORONO RECEIVED JAN 1 8 2012 CITY OF ORONO 38 34-118-23 I I 0002 JD STAVID & P MSTAVID 780 BROWN RD N JOHN & PHOEBE STA VIG 780 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-1 18-23 11 0007 J M PENDLETON/ME PENDLETON 800 BROWN RD N JON M PENDLETON 800 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 #3547 # /~ A 8. 1-Uf=F ~. D J, ~lo ~ >-~~lP$ -+----- 12-> /1. l ~ 3,0 ~ 3~.~ _3_]o. rW~ ~ Ua S-> 3b~-'4- '-{~ '>--#'¥ '--1-~ _so.~) 3 3, 11o ~ ~ 5~-~ :;> ?J(r,-'1 , q1t,7-&,2->-, h 26</ (::;q_, ,er >-3-0. -B-/4 °/ldL 7~ > 1~,0/4 ~g 9-r-,4~ is' t () f; tf_, S" > 2. ~ Vi qz._,r-$ -z3 1/. lO( -.~ : -z. "2.. • '"Z:-x /lo H ,o=% JI~ > 33.~ ~ t2-J r ~ . 4 ,~~ , . 1 "l / xr,o Y. ,S) > ,~ t( Yo --I> H, ~ /: fl > ._/. - _1t;o JjJ~ ~I~ • 'l~. ~ '170: 25", I /IV. 9,~.~, -= 30_~, ¼ p ~ ,. ----~ ,, q~ ( $~~ ~ f P>io ~v <tBt.f f7o ~,.. [;:. ~-r ~t) ➔• I cc.. D -'-~-5: J_~ ,~ A-S-J-1.A-FF )> \ 3.o /.. >-/-Go ,o ~ > P?, J./ X, ~ * 1--/ •/ , I Council Exhibit E _ ._31 >---¥ e>-,-0-X 3t,. 3 .-i. -'L -___!:J_ 1 > ~¼-'17 ~, S-2.. >-W.lf f. -St;-'r-> 3~ 3 X 6-2...,~ > $'.="o Yo k ~ -4-o.o 7- _ 71.~ > ~, ,(,,~ 30--.4~ ~ > 2-8. ~ /. {) > z. '5" r-0 ¼- Joq ,s.2-•/c. lk ~ ---- --Jz's ~ l 0 rc l C 0 . I~~ , > "3~,!-/ ¼ J :;,.~ ) _j,;D ~e> .. S X C:"to -;. ", 1 ' 1N 1, .s-1~ J~• i./;,: -8l/4,l F ~ ~,~~1..lf k'r Nr., ~vLS 'Tl, I~ C -,-, ..,,.. -- B -q_~'-t. ~ -'13n.7 • 1 N Lro ' ~2--tl .% q~ -~ l/J./, '3 • 3~,,• IN /If.::>'= 3o.& i ---s -fJBJ ttt__ .f-u; ~ t,e s. S. -nl~ l 3 '/,:;, 'Fo ~ t ~ ::r---------------------------------------·~---------------------------- 1.,, U'I co r CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN ,D. STAVIG OF TRACT F, R.L.S. NO. 1275 ~,ENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LONG LAKE / I I I I I I I I I I \ I I I I --· -· ......... / '- / " I ,, ' ~?P I I I ',t .•. ~-Mh r ......... -___ •-----. ~lf:j.:!._ts::z_ -. ----------------------~ ---------:!-~ ~~--~-~~-~/~~-___ -____ -_ ---- ~ ~~-DP-esd.-~-~--------------------~-· ---•-- ----_711: erlJ-~~-~------------------>•--------------------------------- 1,' ------ :•,•i I' ----------~-. I. : i ---~--~ ---~---I ~ ~---•- ! : \ 1; I. I I : i -------~ -------l~J---- ' I • I -----------------,-,---- ~'.LI-==~==~==~~- --------- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 21,201 6:30 o'clock p.m. indicated under current code that would not be allowed. d in that situation they would likely have to use the public landing to la Schoenzeit stated rhaps the recommendation should be that the Planning Co and 3 should be revie d by the City Council. Landgraver stated in his vie tern No . 1 should be eliminated, but tha the 1,000 feet. Landgraver stat Schoenzeit stated it appears that Item o . 3 is acceptable and t perhaps the language in Item No . 2 could be tweaked as it relates to the 1,0 eet. Mattick noted that Item No. 2 is not specific to between property owner and renter. Landgraver commented he is fine with Items Leskinen indicated she is fine with Ite Schwingler stated he is in agree enforce. that Item No . 2 will be difficult to Schoenzeit noted Item . 2 is also dependent upon complaints being receive Leskinen moved chwingler seconded, Application #11-3503, City of Orono, Zo ·ng Code Text Amendment -akeshore Residential Zoning Districts: Dock Rental, to accept the de as written in Section ), with Item No. 3 being allowed as an exception. VOTE : Ayes 5, Nays . 3. #12-3547 JOHN AND..PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, VARIANCES, 7:35 P.M. -8:16 P.M. John and Phoebe Stavig, Applicants , were present. Gaffron noted this item was tabled at the March Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant time to provide additional information . The applicant is requesting bluff setback, average lakeshore setback, and a rear/street setback variance in order to construct a home on an undeveloped property . A variance to build within the bluff impact zone is also requested. ·. The app l icant has provided an engineering report from Carl Anderson Engineering that suggests the slope stability is adequate for construction of a residence at the applicant's proposed location and that the potential for erosion is mitigated by existing vegetation. In reviewing that report, Staff would note that the comment on Page 4 of the report that "the slope of the hill immediately below the top of the bluff line near the location of the proposed structure is significantly less than the 30 percent slope threshold marginally found in areas near the wetland that cause this to be defined as a bluff' does not appear to be Page6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 21, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. consistent with the contours shown on the survey . Based on the survey, the slopes within the first 20-25 feet down slope from the driveway bed range from 28-32 percent for the length of the proposed house. Gaffron noted the issues in this application relate not only to slope stability but also aesthetics . Gaffron pointed out there may be a way to construct a house if they are granted a 25-foot setback to the west and south where normally 30 feet is required and a 25-foot setback to the street where a SO-foot setback is required. By building in that area, it would allow them to construct a house consisting of 1,440 square feet and a garage of 710 square feet, which is approximately a 2,150 square feet. Gaffron indicated they could do some regarding within the bluff impact zone to perhaps create a walkout in the setback area. Gaffron indicated the neighbor's tennis court would be in close proximity to the house but that it likely will not be a huge impact since it would be used sporadically. Based on that option, Staff recommends the following: 1. Approval of an average lakeshore setback variance; 2. Denial of the bluff setback variance; 3. Denial of the variance to encroach into th~ bluff impact zone with structure; 4. Allowance for limited grading within the bluff impact zone to allow for a walkout door. 5. Approval of a setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear (street) property line; 6. Approval of left and right side setbacks of 25 feet to allow for a house/garage footprint of approximately 2150 square feet. Gaffron noted Staff has outlined some issues in the report that the Planning Commission should discuss. Levang asked if the house has been moved forward essentially compared to the proposal from the applicant. Gaffron stated the house has been moved forward five feet to the street and slightly narrowed. Landgraver asked whether this option has been discussed with the applicant and his engineers. Gaffron indicated it has not been discussed with the applicant, and that the intent of it was to show that some kind of house could be constructed if some variances are allowed. Gaffron noted this would avoid the need to grant some type of variance to the bluff. Schoenzeit asked if the City has any liability if the homeowner does not follow some of the City's recommendations and the house experiences problems. Gaffron stated in his opinion the City would not be at fault if the Planning Commission approves something as long as they do not make any statements about guaranteeing slope stability. -----------------Page 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 21, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated the applicant needs to understand the risks associated with constructing a house in this location. John Stavig, Applicant, stated two months ago a lot of the discussion from the Planning Commission centered around the stability of the road and the unique nature of the driveway bed. Following discussions with Staff, Stavig indicated he has gained an understanding of the intent of the regulations and that they have attempted to address the intent of the regulations. The 20-year plan talks about land forms being highly varied in Orono, different compositions of soil, the ability of each soil type to adequately accommodate development varies considerably in Orono, and how there should be careful examination of the property to determine the most appropriate land use. The . minutes from the last meeting focused on that the Planning Commission looks at these cases on a case by case basis and that they would hate to send the applicant on an expensive goose case. Stavig indicated he tried to focus on what was discussed at the last meeting and had an engineer look at the stability of the roadbed. Stavig stated his engineer feels that positioning the structure immediately above the existing driveway provides the most stable location. At the last meeting there was a discussion about potential placement of the structure on the property. Stavig stated in his view this property is unique and there are some unusual circumstances relating to the driveway bed. The engineer 's comments regarding how the road bed has been stable for 100 years confirms that this is a good location for the house. The extensive vegetation immediately below the driveway bed would not be impacted and will help screen the house. Stavig noted if you look at the back of the proposed house, you can barely see it from the lake and you cannot see the shed or the other buildings. Stavig stated he appreciates Staff's willingness to try to come up with a solution but that Planner Gaffron's option creates a significantly smaller house in comparison to the other homes in the neighborhood. Stavig noted the tennis court is shared by four homes and being less than 30 feet from the tennis court would be an issue. Pushing it toward the south is also an issue. Stavig stated having the house forward would make the house out of character with the other existing homes in terms of size and would necessitate constructing a 2 -1 /2 story house, which would be more visible. The proposed home will be located more than 300 feet from the shoreline and they are offering this as the best location . Stavig noted they would be meeting the 30-foot setback with their proposal and that in his view they have addressed the erosion issues and complies with the spirit of the regulation. Schoenzeit asked whether there have ever been any other improvements to this property aside from the gravel driveway bed. Schoenzeit asked whether there has ever been a house on this property. Gaffron .. indicated it has not except for the little shed. Stavig stated the original house to the south has always had common ownership with this property and has been taxed separately since 1969 . Hennepin County refuses to lower the taxes on the property even with the restrictions that are imposed on the property. Stavig noted he has paid over $200,000 in taxes on this parcel and that it is taxed at almost the same rate as his other lot with lakeshore. -----------------Page 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL~G COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 21, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen asked if the applicant is at all interested in the 25-foot setback since it appears the house would still be fairly a good sized house. Stavig stated the square footage they are proposing is 1,600 square feet and that Gaffron's proposal would result in a smaller house. Schoenzeit noted Mike Gaffron's drawing is approxim:ately 2,150 square feet. Gaffron indicated it would be closer to 2,300 square feet, which would include the garage. Stavig stated he does not want to build closer to the tennis court or the road. Stavig commented he has a concern with constructing the house 30 feet from the road. The house would also have a smaller footprint under Planner Gaffron's proposal, which would not be consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. Leskinen commented that unfortunately there are some constraints on the lot that may limit the size of the house. Stavig stated his proposed house is already smaller than the other homes on the street and that he would have a concern with downsizing it even further and possibly having to move additional dirt. Stavig noted the City Engineer and his engineer both say that the best location for a house is immediately above the road bed. Levang asked whether the applicant is amenable at all to the plan proposed by Mike Gaffron. Stavig indicated he is not. Stavig indicated he would be willing to construct a rain garden. The underlying issue is minimizing the erosion and making an investment in the property. Stavig stated it would be his issue if the property experiences erosion. Schoenzeit asked whether the applicant has seen the comments from the DNR. Stavig asked if those are the comments from approximately two to three months ago. Gaffron indicated they are and that the DNR is recommending variances not be granted to the bluff setback. Schoenzeit stated it appears that some variances may be granted, but that the stability of the slope, aesthetics, and erosion present a pretty high standard that is typically not crossed. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. There were no comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. -----------------Page 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSIO~MEETING Monday, May 21, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver asked whether there have been any follow-up discussions with Bolton & Menk following receipt of their letter. Gaffron noted the letter was received by hiip. sometime last week or a little earlier. Gaffron indicated he had a discussion beforehand about the City's philosophy and how that should be balanced against this request. Gaffron stated there are a number of reasons why the Planning Commission has to differentiate this case from another case that might come along in the future. Gaffron indicated there is always a risk when working in a bluff area that more trees are removed than what would be desired and that it has been the City's position that they avoid construction in the bluff area. Landgraver stated he has a concern when the DNR says do not build within the bluff area and then there are two engineers that are saying it is okay to go up to the roadway. Schoenzeit asked how the applicant will provide the City comfort that he will have a competent contractor do this project. Stavig indicated he is willing to abide by the City's restrictions and inspection requirements. Schoenzeit commented this is a risky project and that it is a difficult lot to construct on given the substantial engineering that will be required. Schoenzeit noted if a bulldozer is parked in the wrong spot and there is a 10-inch rain, the bulldozer will end up in the lake. Stavig stated if you view the property, it is a relatively flat area and that the engineering report goes through how to remove the trees and addresses the other issues that were raised. Schoenzeit commented the reports are compelling and that in some ways the applicant is asking the City to allow him to take the risk. Stavig stated he does not see it as being that treacherous of a project and that he would be happy to supply photos of the site. Stavig indicated he is willing to comply with the City's stipulations and that he has attempted to address the City's concerns regarding stability. Landgraver stated the main concern is that if the slope or bluff goes, it is gone forever. Levang asked if Bolton and Menk visited the site. Gaffron indicated he is not sure whether they have personally visited the site . Levang stated the way she reads their report is that they typically do not take into consideration other outside engineering reports and that they are not willing to guarantee the stability of the slope. Schoenzeit stated the homeowner is the one who would be accepting the risk. From a precedent standpoint, the engineering reports that have been submitted are what separate this application from other applications. Leskinen commented she is concerned about the precedent as well since this is new construction on the __________________ Page 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 21, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. lot and construction within a bluff setback area has not been done before . The intent of the regulation is to protect the bluff. Leskinen stated it would be a different situation if there had already been a home on the parcel. Leskinen stated the point has been made that the additional engineering work is very compelling and that she is struggling with some of the same issues that have already been expressed. On one hand the DNR is saying do not construct in this area and on the other the applicant's engineer is saying the slope is stable enough to construct on . Leskinen asked whether there is any way a compromise can be reached to limit the impact on the bluff impact zone. St avig indicated they have attempted to put forth the best plan for the property in accordance with the engineer's recommendations. Having a roadway bed there for 100 years speaks to the stability of the area to sustain construction. Gaffron asked whether the applicant would be constructing the house or whether the property would be sold to someone else. Stavig indicated his initial inclination was to sell the. property but that he is not sure at this point. Schwingler commented he is also struggling with the same issues and that it is a difficult property to work with. Landgraver stated he is in line with Staffs recommendations. Leskinen stated if the possibility exists that the homeowner will not construct the proposed house , it is likely that will create some new issues if the future owner wants to make some changes to the plan . Levang moved, Landgraver seconded, Application #12-3547, 790 Brown Road North, to recommend approval of an average lakeshore setback variance, denial of the bluff setback variance, denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure, allowance for limited grading within the bluff impact zone to allow for a walkout door, approval of a setback v ariance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear (street) property line, and approval of left and right side setbacks of 25 feet to allow for a house/garage footprint of approximately 2,150 square feet, per Staff's recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 4. 12-3551 CARL TSENG AND KIM YUEH CHAUN, 11505 LONG LAKE BO V ARIAN~.c,,~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:18 P.M. -8:55 P.M. Budzynski , Builder; and Don Pertinen, Desi~e 1. ~-~~~::::::: _________ Page 11 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. ) CITY OF ORONO ) CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Monica Fadness, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #12-354 7 was mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 11 th day of May, 2012. ~w~ Moni aA.Fadness CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (952) 249-4600 Fax (952) 249-4616 NOTICE The Orono Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Orono Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday , May 21, 2012, beginning at 6:30 p.m. on the matter of reviewing the following land use applications: 11-3503 City of Orono is considering two amendments to the zoning code regarding Accessory Uses in Residential districts concerning residential dock slips. The City currently prohibits the rental of docks associated with residential property. The City is considering alternate ordinance amendments regarding this issue . One amendment will contemplate removal of the current language prohibiting rental of residential dock slips; the other amendment seeks to clarify the current regulations which prohibit private, residential dock slip rental. Continuation of March 19 hearing. 12-3547 John & Phoebe Stavig , "790" Brown Road N, PID 34-118-23-11 -0003, LR-1A zoning district , request a 15 foot setback from the top of the bluff where a 30 foot setback is normally required and a 30 foot setback from the rear/street lot line where a 50 foot setback is normally required in order to construct a new residence on a vacant property . Continuation of March 19 hearing . 12-3551 Yueh Chuan Kung & Carl Tseng on behalf of lmpool, LLC , 1550 Long Lake Boulevard, LR-1A zoning district, request lot area and lot width variances in order to construct a new residence on a lot 0.27 acres in area and 99 feet in width where 2.0 acres and 200' width are normally required; lakeshore, side yard and street setback variances; 0-75' and 75-250' zone hardcover variances; a structural lot coverage variance ; and a variance for construction within a bluff and within the bluff impact zone. Continuation of April 16 hearing. 12-3554 Douglas & Ann Englund , 3884 Cherry Avenue, LR-1C zoning district, request lot area and lot width variances in order to construct a new residence on a lot 0.34 acres in area and 55 feet in width where 0 .5 acres and 100' width are normally required; and a variance for hardcover within the 75-250 ' zone. All persons wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend these meetings. This is not a final agenda and is subject to change prior to the hearings . Written comments are accepted and should be submitted to the City of Orono by May 15, 2012 if possible. Interested persons may review the applications at City offices. Fo r an appointment, please call (952) 249-4620. City of Orono By: Planning Com~ ~ Assistant City Administrator To be published in The Laker & The Pioneer Newspapers on May 5, 2012. Posted at: Orono City Offices Crystal Bay Post Office Long Lake Post Office Navarre Post Office RUN DATE: 1/18/2012 38 27-118-23 44 0019 SC MULDOON & PD MULDOON 1801 WEST FARM RD SAMANTHA CAPEN MULDOON PAUL D MULDOON 1801 WESTFARMRD ORONO MN 55356 38 34-118-23 II 0003 JD STA VIG& PM STA VIG 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN & PHOEBE STA VIG 780 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE: 1 38 34-118-23 I I 0001 RD BENSON & BA LUIKENS 776 BROWN RD N BARBARA A LUIKENS RICHARD B BENSON 776 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 11 0006 MARYL STEIL ET AL 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MARYL STEIL ET AL 744 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION PAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. ,/'---._ _ _) RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 CITY OF ORONO RECEIVED JAN 1 8 2012 CITY OF ORONO 38 34-118-23110002 JD STAVID & PM STAVID 780 BROWN RD N JOHN & PHOEBE STA VIG 780 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 11 0007 J M PENDLETON/ME PENDLETON 800 BROWN RD N JON M PENDLETON 800 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 #3547 # C 0 ..... ro u ..Cl ::I Cl. -0 ..... > ro "O t <:1'. C Q. Q) C C Q) I 0 >, c ::::J 0 u Cll 0 (/) Q) C C ~ 0 Q) Cll if) ~10 ~=CL .c Ow -a>I 2s ~ r- Q) 01 u Q) ~ 0 C ,::,:'.. e o a> O Cl.£ ::::J -E (/) -E Q) Cll ~ • , ~Uc.cs G;~3u.2 0 Q) .?:-c ~ ~ .o ::, a> _u U01cjj(l)(l) 01roo..om .S -g g_ ~ VJ Q)N (f)CQ) ..0 ·c 3: C '- -0 QJ ·-Cll co .c c~.c -u ~ ~ 1 -o":..c Q) -C S UC_ ::::J C Cll O O ~ <( (/) ..__ ~ u . ·-w ro Q_ Q)-5ia:~ .c.c=w.c :!::'.m.Ow-~ £ 6..Z o • ~ · r••, , "·-i~ ,; . :;• ,,.-.,;_-~· t\i~.. ' : ... ,: UJ.;' ,, . . JEGA~ !'!OT!9E ' ,; ' '< ,.. ' • • • ~true!~ new residerw ~ /:>J) a)d).0,;34 ' , f!TY OF 9,fl8Nij .. , , . 12-3547: John & Phq~be StavrQ , i;!Cres rn area ~n~ p.~ (ee\ I_n . wrdth ;' · ~7,50 J<!!ll~y ·F!aftwijy, :~i} ;, "790" Brown Road N , ,P)D 31-11 ~~' where 0 .5 acr~s 11~8 ',1 00'•}_'JIcjt_~,J re . " ·i~ 1 ·, P.Q .. ~~l\ ~f•J. · ·.;'."'' ·•·. 23-1 1-Q 00~, LR-1A ;,:o[)rng d!s!ric!, normally req~Ifed ; ar:ic;J-~· V,?f\~l')ce . Crx~tat '§i;tY,l\!lN 5~~~~ reqU fl !,i'~· 15 f<;>iil seiba~k 'ff0PJ the . for hardcqve(. W.ilp inif:\h!!1i 7'~J .r 0' ~ f'~O[)~ (~~2) 24~,i~Rq -, top of the bluff ~here a ~0 f~ot set-zone . .'-''' · ,,J , ,,,,: , ''.'. :,, • / fax -(~~2) 249-1616 back is normally f!)q4ini q ~nd a 30 ' -~ ' . ':'1; • ,.": ''.r; .!' ,, · · • : ,, , loo! setback from lhe·i-ear/street lot All R~rsons wish[m~·ro ·9e ner rq <,1re t. 1 :,1, NOTICp , ', , ,_, , ,!!fl~ ',:'1'18 [8 a 50 foot _setback is nor-enc;~~rageq to -~ttE!n~ !h~SEl :rn ~et-. :,. ,' 1 ' ., ' 1 , '•ii\ally required in order to construct irigs . .-This;i~ p'\Jt <,1 liflal agendei and · /1,The Org~o Pl j'l l')Aj17g Coinrnission . ".;i n_i:l)Y.,f,ll />jdence ~n 'a Ja~ant prop-i~· ~~~j ~<;:l to pk~n ci e prior 19 !he ' "'!'ii ' h9ld a p_uti!!c' t)eei'ring 1if1 :!he 8 e\ty._ ~o~t1ru~tion ~f fv1~rch } 9,,L ti.e~ripg~: "\l\'ri\il3fl _ cornme"n\s ;'.are 1 Orqno ,, q9u11~1I C::harnl:i ilfs •'~!-?7~9 :. ';.'hr,apng:' .. :,. i:/H\ .l · . ,,, ~• ~ , 1 ~scfiE\~d. ~Dd .si,ou!R P,~ sup('1 (!1 ed !Se !!f'!Y • fi~r~wa,y :,·on Mong,!-¥i ' ~i1¥i'' : .. ; /' ,,·: ;O :•l:,Y .),1·;" .,,f:i;,{p ,lh!!. S lty ,of, ~r9 np Q~ fyl f!Y• 15 , ~1 , ?912: ~~gjrirJin~ ~I 6 :30 f.7rTi'. Of}._ '.:.,,1 gc:~551 : yuen ~~U~I') !(unq & Cqf! ~[•. ?91 '?,f f),QS~_!P.!~-:J fl\er~s \79''.P,r r- fh_e m.:itter pf r~V)!)W~flQ 'P!l (ollO'fl;;t..iT s~f!g ,.pri behq\f' o: •l mp,09!,-;.lLG, }' S~Q~ 'ITlfy'f'El.V!ew ,!h~ \!Pp:rf:~trons at rng ,!a11g Wi!l .~Rplrc.;i)1pf1!l :' •·,:' .,, ·f)';;_"_;1[i50 Long 1-~ke !3oµlevarq ; Lfl0 1A ~• · .. Crty · 9ff19!)s . ,,. For, an •;,!ppom!rnent, (. · · zoning di strict, reque~\ lot ~f lljl; anq .• P!~€1S Ej cal! \9,52) ;?1~·1\i?0 ; : 11-3503: City of Orono.is •consider-lot width variances in order to ·con-' "·1 • · · · ·• · ing two' amendments to tti'e 'zbn'if!g ' struct a newresideflCEf qn a lot 0 .27 . City of Orono .' · ::, . ,coqe r!lgarding A,CG!)S ~?TY Uses·iri ' acres in area and·'gg feet in ~idlh ,, · By: Planning C9mrnis~ion R tr ~identia! di 5-tricl$. s oncii(ning . where 2.0 acrE1s and 200• V1idth are · ' • - residential dock slips . The City cur-normally requir~d; lakes~ore, side _·, _________ _ ren\ly< prp hibjts . the [E!nlf;l l of docks y~r~ <Jnd sireet ~etback yari.;inc~;,; fv1icpa ~! P. ~a,ffron 1 , associate d with residential prop·er-0:75' and 7[\-250' zone hardcover Assistant City Administrator ty. The Oity·is -corisiqering al!erna\e varianc,es; q ?lfUC!ural 'lot coverage,:/·'; .. ,: ,,._:Vi' . ,,,, .. ,.' ordinance qmendments regarding variance; and a variance for con-Posted at: Orono City Offices this issu,;1, Oi,e amendment will struction within a bluff and wi\hin Crystal Bay Pp l>I Offic~ . contemplate removal of the current ttJe bluff impact zone. Continuation , Long· Lake Post Offii:;e ·: '• --~ language prohibiting ren\(il of re$i· of i\pril 16 hearing. Navarre Post Office dential dock slips; the other amend-' · ' : •. i • · ' . . ment seeks to clarify the current ·12-3554: Douglas & Ann En,glµnd, (Published in The Laffer <J'nc! The , regulatiqns whieh prohibit private, .·\3884 Cherry Aveny~. LR-1C zon-Pioneernewspapers0_ay5, 2012) t residential, dock slip rerital." •·· ing district, requ!lst lot area and lot · Continuation of lvlarph 19, hearing, _ . Widtt] v.;iri11nce ey !n Qfder to con- • • . ~. ---"-· ., •• ;__::.:..... ¥ 'u Q) (/) a>w-ro ~ ·-::J ·s = ro (/) o-ro-3 ~::::imro Q) 0-Cll- .C ro-a> -0 :a ~ 'e_j Q) u C (I) 0 ,::,:'.. Q) -0 Q) 1 3 ~I t ,--Q) 0 -0 N QJ J 0 N c (j) Ol <{ = Ul (f) Cll rorowu .C C := -Ulco_ ·3 C ·-o_ o ~ ro -0 ·.:= ~ ~Em o_ ·-.c E=uo o ro a> u ::::Ju u (/) 0-.> C Cll o ro .C Ol ..__ • ..__ C o_ f'-- Q) ·;::; 0 o_ ::, (/) , ro-ro<( 0... ·.;:: . (".) ai (") (/) (/) 3; C Q) 0 C U Q) (/) .c -f-C -Q) <i E o_ • -6 ro N (j) o_ C: -0 (I) <( C 3 ,--Q) w (".) E C (".) ro -0 Q) c ·c o_ Q) .c f- (l] 13 (SJ J_ ,Q '£:.. Q q-- 0 (/) Q) = > .0 ::::J o_ -0 C ro E -o 2 Q) -: C :J ·~ u o_ ·;;;; (/) Q) 8 ::, (/) (/) (/) ro ro -3 3; -0 -0 Q) C -5 ro o ro . -:t:::-u; ,::,:'.. ro o.. w (/) ro (j) ·-o_ 3 .c (/) .c .S2 3 ~ i ~ Q) >, ro 1:'. ::, <ii (/) .c -~ ::n >, ::::i ro o_ -0 '-::, -ro (/) Ol C u '-::::J -0 70..0 QJ '-C ..c (j) ·- !:: (/) -;i:::: -0 := O roc ..o >-mro ::::i Cdaio ;:-\ -0 1 :S ~ ~ U) ~ ;;= ,n roro (/) 3 1:'. ro ::, 3 m -g m :S ro (I) 0 >, Cd -0 ~1 QJ :S (/) £ C 0 QJ E 0 -C '-0 3 (/) -0 C -ro o -0 >, w ro .0 u '-~ t'---(/) >, (1) '¢rv 1 -._, .... -~ ~ ~ . " C <i: «I <t -, O:· -4'.Q ci_<i o;m1~ ~: a:~ e f -<>Et. ::iE 111: ,0 ~ a:~o {: O O >-i z z ~ ~ t . ~- 1 i ~i ~ E 0 0 £ (/) ~ (/) ::J 'iij ·u C: ~ O E E :;:; ca 0 u 0 .c LI) u ·c LI)·-.-._ <I) Cl) i.,; Q. Cl) CD • t: a, a, "' , l'-E :;; Lti Q.) .. v'> >CU~ 0 t: Cl) .0 "' Cl) "' E :3: 0 Cl> Q.) E ~ 0 --> > >-,: 0 'iii .0 , "' .0 (/) "Cl .c -"' Cl) .iii g ~ o 8 C Q. ·--::, (1) Cl) ~ -g "Cl (/) -ro o..:i: ~'iij ca '-oo._c a:-g~:g1 .g ·-LI) u ·-~;;; ~ ~:g U)(l)'-niCO .!!!o 0 E::J.c "' .,,, u vig-E~ifl Cl) ·-Cl) 3; Cl> X .,,, 0 ::c "' "' .J "' ::;; a: '-~~ £ ~t!,£2, C 0 +-' ro l) .0 :J Q.. -0 +-' > ro "O :t: <( C a. Q) C C Q) I 0 >, c :J 0 0 (lj 0 (/) (l) C C 2 0 Q) ~ (f) (/) Q) 0 ~ ~E--o (/) -0... Q) 0 w 3: EQ)I o 25 ~f-~ C O Q) - o a.. E ::i -E (/) - E Q) ro ~ .. ~-Oc_c3 &i~3-o_g 0 Q) Z:-cC~..n :J Q)_::,::_ --0 -001aicu<ll DlCUO..oro -~ ~ ~ ~ U) Q)N Ul cQ) .o ·;:: 3 C '- -0 Q) ·-(lj OC_c C2_c -u ~ ~ 1! -0-:.c ClJ -C 3 -g~o6.'!l <(Ul >-:?_U . ·-Q) cu 0... Q)-5ia:";;; .c ..c=w.c ."!:'.ro..nw-~ E 6.Z o ' -0 Q) (/) QJQ)-CU I.... ·-::J ·s := ni (/) O-ro-3 ~:J(/)(1l Q) o-(lj- ..c (lj -Q) -0 ::0 = (/) (/) (lj (lj al Q) u ..C C = ·"'= C/l C 0.. 3 C ·-0.. 0 ~ cu -0:;:: J1 ~ £ ai 0.. ·-..c E::::-oo 0 cu Q) r~ 'A, · :'"_1,.~: ., -1';1\• •~~ , /•1:\, ~-ii ·:•:•:~:.'i !-,EGAP,~OTI{:!= "-. . struct a new reside!"]~~ qp ~_lci ).0,34 , . , fffY Of, 9FIQN8 . . 12-3547: Jo hn • & · Pho"'pe StaviQ ;' !,lCres in area a~('.j ~5 ff3e t ifl "{idth ·' ~75!)' ~!ll!e,y ~a_r~W'!Yr':f: "790 " Browr Road N,ePlp 34-11~-'-· where 0.5 apr~~ !3flcj ,100'·:,v jd\~ (He . ·• , t \,: : f'.Q. ~P,l'i 6~ . ·*t'''.'':,. 23-11-9993, LFj_-1 A zon ing cjislrigt, r:iormally req~j f e'q;; a·~~ <! ~arj,mce ·· l ,;,Ory~J<!I !;i<!Y; MN. 5~~~~---'., requf3~t ·& 15 fpot ~~tb?,9k 'frofl] the . tor harpc9ve~. ~!\h1 q ,t(l !l . 7?;~:>0' , ., 1; ,f>~ofll! (~52}'249,,1spq :· wV,: top of the bluff where a 30 foot set-zone. , · • · '.' •. · ,11\i .. t~ t · /: ? f~ic (~~2) 24~-46~§· :\• · ;i, back is normally ff39lj !r139 and a 30 . · . '\. '., :,'S', ;\ ',;- ··· . ' ' °:'• .-. ' ' . c~ ';'.· foCll setback from tre rear/streetlot All P,§!rS0flS w1 ~p,1nQ 10 qe hef1rcj are ?~ \. NRTIP!= :.r, ,,. ·• •,; ,:, . lipe·~tiere _'\ 50 foot setback Is nor-emc~urag(ld l ~•'fit1!3[)d tt=if3&e ,riieet-. . _,. Ii'• .,.. .. . ' . ' t-' rpally rl3q~1 (e d lfl ord,er \o c::onstruct ' ,rigs. Thi& !~ ry9\ a 11[1~1 agerda find /1 The Qrgiio' Pl~r\_ning•' ~9rnmiss!on ~ • ~ ~ew res jdf3[1C~ Clr!° a vacant prop-.. · i& &~Rj!l9t fo ~hi![19~ · P,[iqr to,, the w,,,. hold a p_ubhc .hef\nng ' !fl !h!l .' ,W'Y-.' ~911t I11~i!\ICln ,.()f '. t-:1~n,r -1 ~-,r tieanrg~. •!W.n!1~ri . comrnrrits . are : .Oronq :qouni;1l Chf!rpP(l rs '~\ 27.~Q-fii,1,:l h~a (lfl~-· :,, .-~,\f." '}, '} ' y' _,1! :· , . ijC C~pted_ <1n ~ §tl91.lid ·p~ 5uprnI~ed Ke!!ey ,,8ar,k~aY,~'0[1 .fv!pn[layi ~Mf!Y,.r~_•l,, ,:,,.'. ·<' v~ i;c,'(' .. hf . ~ •;r,,.tp i tne, JHIly,,Clf , l?r~rip qy fv1 ~y---J5,' 21, ?012 , p~girn!n~ <!\ ~:~Q P,-f"!l · ~rr ri 1~-35~1 :-Yu t:l h qt,ua~.Kurg & cw1 't ?O~'?J f P,OSS \P!!cl-. lpterfl§\eq ::R!;l r- the 111att~r of revieWi[1Q the )Q!ICJ'tVt£:YTs.!!rg ,on ' p~~a!f • 9f ,lll)P09!,:: LIA t: s9'n¢ fTWY reyi~iV tti ~· f3pP,:iC<\tiqns at ing land use 13pplic~tioris: .· ff·,:•,,.,'.i; ... 1.;i;iQ J_/il ng Lc1!<e !;!pi.Jll:litard ,,!-.R-11,\ · ;'City 1:>ttic§s . ·.•F-or ·an ·apppintrnent, . _ , . z9ning di strici, requ(lsl lot 11re :3 and , P!f-<\S f; c~!l (~92) ~4~-1§~Q. , 11-3503:CityofOrono.isconsider-lotwidthvariancesinorqertocon-·' · · '· '·' '' · .· ing two amendm ents to the zoning struct a new•residence·on a.lot d.27 : City of Qrono ·:-. ,coder f !c)garding Access ?ry Uses ill ' acres in area and 99 feet in widt~,f; , By : \lanning G9,mmis ~ion , , Residential districts concerning where 2 .0 acres and 200' width are re s'fdentiai dock 1slips . The City cur, normally required ; lakeshore , sid~ . . ' . renl!Y prohibits _ the ren\al of doc~s yard s1nd str~e!·!>elback y<j ri ~nc El s; . 11(1icha ~\ P. (laffron asso'ciated with residenti<1I proper-0-75' and -7q-250' zorie hardcover Assistant City Adrninisjratqr ty. The City js •consic;lering <1llernate ',, varianc,es ; a ~tructuiallot coverage .") i. •,\<';V; , _-' +: . · :. ordinance amendments regaroing variance; and a vqriance for con -· Posted at: Orono City_ Offices lhii, issue . . One amendment will struc)!on within a bluff and within Crystal ~ay Pp 9t Office · contemplate removal of the current the bluff impact zone . Continuaiio[l Long ·Lake Post Office ·: •·· lariguage prohibiting renla! of resi-cit April 16 hearing. N<!varre Post Offi ce dentialdock slips; the other amend- . men! Sf,l eks to clarify the current regulation~ 1Vh!ch prohibit private, residential dock slip rental.· i:;ontinu~ti~n of f0ar9,h 19 h~arjng . ~ .6 -0 Q) ffi ·-u , CU C C/l ::._ 0 ~ · 12-3554: Douglas & Ann Englund, ·1 3884 Cherry Avenue , LR-1 C ~on- ' ing district, requ13st lot are a .,and"io! width· variances in order · to con- (Published in The . Laker a'nd The Pionee r newspapers fviay 5; 4012) , . . . . t -.. , -. . .. -_ _._ \.i · ...... -' c Q) Dl <( 0 -0 Q) (/) Q) 3: N-1 f ..-Q) 0 -0 N Q) J 0 N ~-~,. . ;1 SJ C ..C (1) E ~ .2: ..n (/) -:J (/) 0 0.. Q) u u Q) -0 (.) ..C C ::, -m (/) E -o ,_ 2 (l) J_ ; .§ (.) 0.. (/) (/) cu cu - >, cu 1:'. ::, cB (/) -0 (1) .c .!£1 ..c -~ ..n >, :J m 0.. -0 '- :J co (/) -0 DJ Q) C -·-c -0 ·c ::J 0.. 0 '-C (J) ·- (/) £ C 0 (1J E £ C '- <") C: ~ ~. (I)~ i ~ cc . -;, ~- -ca: g ~ :, °. m w ~; a: ;j( f: ( -<C >-E (,. :ii: 'II: 0 i o::~o <, o~~: u :J'0-0 C/l 0-.> C (lj O cu ..c 01._. '-C 0.. r-, (l)-..:::: 0 0.. :J (/) . cu-co<1: ~I -0 QJ f Q 3: 3 -0 -0 Q) C -5 cu 0 -;t::: -0 O CU C .o >-Q)cu :J cuaio !:-\ -o l E -: 0 >, m -0 0 3 (/) -0 :,, t gj •i,,Z t 1 Q_ ·.;::::; (/) (/) :S: C Q) 0 C U Q) (/) ..c -f-C -Q) <i E • (Y) ai Cl) 0.. • -ci cu N -QJ 0.. ~ -0 Ul <l'. C 3 ..-Q) Q) (Y) E C (Y) cu .§ 0.. Q) ..c f- co q-- 0 co --:i=: '-_::,::_ (lj ~ Q) (/) m OJ ·-0.. 3 ..c (/) ..c -~ 3 ~ _c Q) <V 3 C ClJ (/) (/) >, J:: .n cu .g (/) 3 '-cu :J 3 Q) -g cu E co (/) =:: \~1 Q) ..c - C ,_ cu 0 -0 >, (J) cu ..n -0 ·;:: ~~ (/) >, (l) ~ E 0 0 E ci ..r::. U') 0 ·c U') ·-.-.... II) .,, <I) cu i.: 0. ~ ~ l§; oi ~ E :i ~ 0 <I) ".,, s:: cu >~·· 0 E O :t:: ~ ·-E ~ ni <I) °E o .._E3: E O O <I> <I> >, : ~ .~ i....o .~.o~ ,E'tl.c-co<I> c:·;g>-.... o -a.--.0£ g Cl) ~ ~] 'Cl II) +-' niC.3:<1>-ro .... oo~~ O::"~=coo .!!! U') .. .J:. ·,;::; ~ ~ (1) 0 ~ IJ)<h->,"'O ~Q)~~ra o~E;-£ _Q.:,Om ~ II) E .. LU 3: <I) ·x <I) o:i:inlro ..J ~ ::E a: -ra-- 'r"' 0..N C"') STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. ) CITY OF ORONO ) CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Monica Fadness, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #12-354 7 was mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 6th day of April, 2012. V11HUL!l {j),~ Monica A. Fadness CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (952) 249-4600 Fax (952) 249-4616 NOTICE The Orono Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Orono Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, April 16, 2012, beginning at 6:30 p.m. on the matter of reviewing the following land use applications: 11-3534 Estate of Arthur J . Nelson, 400 Willow Drive South, RR-1 B zoning district, requests approval of a subdivision to create three 2+ acre lots where one 12+ acre lot currently exists. 12-3547 John & Phoebe Stavig , "790" Brown Road N, PID 34-118-23-11-0003, LR-1A zoning district, request a 15 foot setback from the top of the bluff where a 30 foot setback is normally required and a 30 foot setback from the rear/street lot line where a 50 foot setback is normally required in order to construct a new residence on a vacant property. 12-3549 Margaret Peltola, 1550 North Arm Drive, LR-1 B zoning district, requests an after- the-fact variance for a 28 foot front setback where a 35 foot setback is normally required for a deck and entry porch. 12-3551 Yueh Chuan Kung & Carl Tseng on behalf of lmpool , LLC , 1550 Long Lake Boulevard, LR-1A zoning district, request lot area and lot width variances in order to construct a new residence on a lot 0.27 acres in area and 99 feet in width where 2.0 acres and 200' width are normally required ; lakeshore, side yard and street setback variances; 0-75' and 75-250' zone hardcover variances; a structural lot coverage variance ; and a variance for construction within a bluff and within the bluff impact zone. 12-3552 Jim & Sherry White, 3516 Ivy Place, LR-1C zoning district, request a 75-250' zone hardcover variance to permit 45.9% hardcover where 47.5% currently exists and only 25% is normally allowed , for construction of a deck. 12-3553 CraigBank Holdings, LLC and Langridge Associates, owners of property located at and adjacent to 1700 Fox Street (Parcel PIDs 03-117-23 41 0003 and 03-117-23 41 0005), RR-1 B zoning district, request a lot line rearrangement to separate a portion of the latter parcel for combination with the former parcel, resulting in no new buildable lots . All persons wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend these meetings . This is not a final agenda and is subject to change prior to the hearings. Written comments are accepted and should be submitted to the City of Orono by April 10, 2012 if possible . Interested persons may review the applications at City offices. For an appointment, please call (952) 249-4620. City of Orono By : Planning Commission /2- ichael P. Gaffr Assistant City Administrator To be published in The Laker & The Pioneer Newspapers on March 31, 2012. Posted at: Orono City Offices Crystal Bay Post Office Long Lake Post Office Navarre Post Office 2 RUN DATE: 1/18/2012 38 27-118-23 44 0019 S C MULDOON & PD MULDOON 1801 WEST FARM RD SAMANTHA CAPEN MULDOON PAUL D MULDOON 1801 WESTFARMRD ORONO MN 55356 38 34-118-23 11 0003 JD STA VIG& PM STA VIG 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN & PHOEBE STA VIG 780 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE: 1 38 34-118-23 11 0001 RD BENSON & B A LUIKENS 776 BROWN RD N BARBARA A LUIKENS RICHARD B BENSON 776 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 11 0006 MARY L STEIL ET AL 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MARYL STEIL ET AL 744 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 CITY OF ORONO RECEIVED JAN 1 8 2012 CITY OF ORONO 38 34-118-23 11 0002 JD STAVID & PM STAVID 780 BROWN RD N JOHN & PHOEBE STA VIG 780 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 11 0007 J M PENDLETON/ME PENDLETON 800 BROWN RD N JON M PENDLETON 800 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 #3547 # C 0 -C'Cl l) .0 :J a. -0 ..... > C'O 1J ~ ~ C 0.. Q) C C Q) I 0 ;::., c ::J 0 u cu 0 (fJ Q) C ,t; ~ 0 (l) cu u5 VJQ)W Ql iu'-5 I.g1 VJ ..... f-(l) 0 - -5 Q)UJ 3 cu(l)..co 0 >, -C 0 (fJ .:L. §o..cu'§ -E C ..... E (l) 3 (fJ 0 u O m .. 3:cc..cs:; VJcu..::.:::uo >.-..... ~ai :S~Q) _.o 'O OlO..o:l 'O oio:l~a2 C-oVJ<fJ~ ·w Q) s: Q) (/) .0 .~ Q) § Q) •·a C-ro §:5 QJ2 ..c l:'! ::J ..c 'D .S! QJo:l -c..c 'Dco::JS: C (1j O VJ <l: ..... ~ -.. 'fl. (l) • ~ 0... Cl.l~O:--- .c..C=W (l) .":::: cu .0 ~ -5 Q)..c ::J<l:..._ '.:l:'.-o....Jo LEGAL NOTICE . CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Pa tkw~y, e:o. Box ' 66 . . , Crystal Bay; MN ,55~2.3 Fll)on~ (95~) 249 -4600 fl!~ (~~2) . ·,249-4616 -, '.. . ', NOT ICE ' ., ty. The City. is c9r1 9iq ~rjng alternate 23-11-0003, LR-1 A zoning district; · acceptecj ijnd should bf l\Ubmitted · ii orq1nancEI ain~ntjm \j nts regarding r13que s.t a 15 foot setback from the to tHe City of Orono by Mar.ch 13, • this issue. One amendment will · top of the bluff wher13 a 30 foot is 2012 if possi b!e . Interested per- contetri-plate remova l of the current n&'rrially required and a 30 foot sef-·•· §D ni(may review the app li catio ns at lan guag¢ prqhibitjng rental of res!-~ac k ~fro m th e reaf{street ior line ';f"~ity ;office~ .. fDH!f] appointment, denti~! qock ~l ip ?-; the 'ott,er amend-wher~ a. 50 foot setp~c;k .is. no rrn <1 1-: 1 plea~El 9<1 U (~p2) \!49-462~ ... men! seeks to c!arify the current ly. rE;Jq4 [red in orgEl r to ~o nstruct <!. . .. · ; . · , regul ~Jjo ns which pro tiib/t priv;it13,, new· re ~iden ce oh 'a vac·ant proper-· · (iii~ of Oro no · , 1 · '··•· resid eniial dock slip rental. ty. .... •'• ·· · · f!y:. Pl anning ·commissio11 . 12-3546: Todd Hoi[l'ie rs, •cin behalf 12-354 8: Orono Public Schools,:; · The Orqno··Pl <1 nning .·µohlmi!:i~ion . ot-.;,andy Bl;laeh , LLC; .. P!O§ 08-685 Qld ·C:rystal _Bay Rp!!l d N,, f!R-. .. . will hpld <!,,publiq. ~e~ring in· \he 117-23°33~0030; Q~-117723-33-1!3 zoning district, r13q~e~\~ f1 crn-,. ty1el~ni ~ ~urti~ Orono Council Chambers at 2780 0031 ; 08-117-23 -33-0032 ; 08,1.17 -· ditional use pe'rmit as well as wet-··•. Planning & Zoning Coordinator ~~Hey .Parkway on Mf!rch_ 1'91 20 12, : 23-33-0033; 08-117_,~~-33 -0034 ; Ian? and wetland ~utter setba.ck 1 : ', ,; ; . . , . • :' : .• tiegmmng at _6.30 i;>.m. on the mat;· ,. ;ind O&, 1171~3-;,3-~0S~ '<<!·k.a. ,the . · vs1rian ~es .. m' prder_ •t9f c9nstrµct ; , ,f/ostep ·at:,Oronp City Offices ter . of_ (~ii!Eiyi ing II]~ !Pl!9"!'J ng lfi!ld properties aqja9,ent ;to '.~ 54,!i Maple , . 9t:>se r,v11tj 9n P!~tforp1 s ~nd ~n 9P§~ , , ·Crystal B~y p,9~\ Offi ce i.Jse ,~pplip~t j9 n~:· • ::, !.>; . · Place), LR:10 : .~~~!~p ' ;,qi~\f].ci;-,··· g~v,i1io11,:~iJp i~:·~ht i;q_ fq?t :Vf~\l~[ld f Lonij ~akl;l Post 8ffi<;e 11 -35.03:_9 ty ,?f ,@rgrio \S cpris1d_er-reque ~!~ a . f?~9!1!Q fl ~l; 9s~.i8r.r~1t l ... £f~!lr ~r:~~Jor :~~\J fiH'?r~I ·pi).rpps 0 • • f'Jav ime Rost Off1 c~ mg ,!W?.' !)l!,!\l'1Qf11er]ts· to ;\fl e zoning . In . order to COl'\~Uct'. !r,i!'l<j'Jl llE)fijt!!!)n s·;: •; e11•,,1v :, f) '.f(f •,1~ift(J,'•.l ·•.•·,,;,~ +.,,_ · ' ; ,, ,·. ' i . _ : ~t~\tj,~~~fJ J;ffi~~~;~•i?~~;r~j ~~ ;'• . ;ll~:r~:,::;t;h:it;~~t~v~ri;a~::; :;~:.o~ia9{~1~'.,~it~~~ 1~~,t;;:~ ;. _···~~~~:o/~:wI;,:p;::e~;;ih Ti ,:rn$1deAt1lll ,~0\:k_.slips·.,Tt\e ·G1ty eur-,•·• ··mg •a ·stg rmwater,pond :,>••a.•.••.•· .·,,. ,,. , .. ,•;mg :.(Th1s ll>''lO!-·a•f1nal ··ager1e~•and ·. 2012). r!lntly ,prohibits the r!3 nlal of docks i-12-3547: John & · Phoebe Stavig , . ii,,"'s4tijec;t to change ,prior to the . afi~()da\r~ )V ilh r!lsid~nti_a !,Pr9per-. . "790" Bro~n.,,. Road N, ,f?IQ ,~4; 118· ·! hearing~. ·,,Written ·comments s1re ' 'O Q) (/) (I) Q) -(1j ~ ·-:::, ·::; = -;;; vi (J'o:l-3 ~ ::J (/) (1j (l) (J' (1j - -5 (1j O ~ =VJVJ~ COcoQlu ..C C = .":::: VJC C O.. s: ·-0.. 'Of~ (1j Cl) (1j >, ..... =u.oQl 0.. ·-..c E=uo 0 CO Q) u ::J'D'O CfJ 0-·> C co O (1j ..c O)~ .. .._ C O..r---. Q) ·.;:: 0 0.. ::J VJ . co .":::: co <( o..--VJ VJ ..... • (") S: C Cl)(") 'O (l) c j;j 1 j ,.J ~! d-- l .~I 'O Q) ·-u (1j C VJ O VJ ..... ..::.::: 0 'O Cl) VJ Q) Cl) C ..C 3: E -~ Q) ::J ::0 > o ::J 'cii u 0.. VJ Cl) Cl) 'O u ..CCU -co ::J E VJ 0 'O ... (I) ..... c -·-::J ..... u 0.. ~ ~ s: 3 'O 'O (I) C -5 co 0 (1j ...... :i:: cii..::.::: (1j 0.. Cl) >, co ~ ::, cil (/) 'O (l) ..c .~ .0 ::, ~I r ... Q) 0 'O C\J Cl) ..c VJ :a >, ::J (1j 0.. 'E 'O .2 C (1j co (/) 'O Ol (1) C c 'o ·c :::, o..c3 .._ C Q) ·- 0 ,t:: 'O CO C >, Cl) co C'O W 0 en -ol ~ : .;= NJ (1j (1j VJ . 3: 'E (1j ::, 0.. 3: (l)'O<U C\J ... 0 C\J 0 >, (1j 'O (D I c Cl) Ol <( 'O (1) N ·c 0 ..c :, <l: .!!! ..c -C I 0 Cl) E .8 E 0 s: VJ 'O C (1j 'O (l) .0 ·c u 0 >-C'O 'O Cl) 0 0.. • i::i cUcoC\JCl) (l)VJO..~-o ..c-VJ<(C f-CCJ.) 3: ... Q)E --:-, (l) (") <l:EcMco ·c 0.. Q) ..c I- co rc VJ co Cl) ·-0.. s: ..c VJ ..c -~ 3: u ..c Cl) co 3: C Q) .::: ..c C (j) -(1j Cl) ..c -~\\) Cf) ~D#,;W>., w:!'<t ; en 5 o z Cl) "' W w -z~ .l> I-z C') t en~ c .. a: • tlJ ·> c:( (.)..., ,lo (.) :::i ci.. i'l a:~.ri : . n. .. ,c:i::>-E ,, '. ~ a: §1 ~ a::~u ' _oo i zz~ .f.(/i)J i~J ~MMN" e 0 u ... 0 -U) ... G) II) ::, d .c II) u -C: II)·- ~~ ~ :g en Ill ..... ii Et.in 0 U GI '0 lit C:Gi >Gi_i.: 0 E _g i 2l :;:: E ~ E ii: (ti 8 O GI GI E >-->.:?: '-..c.l_g:g .E :E -5 ;:. ~ 2l .5 [ ·= ..c .2 g CU.!!aial-c~ -1110.:1:8,111 Ctl'-00 ... c: a:-gll!~1-~ ·-II) u ·-=; ~.$ ~:g U) •• ~ ca Ill "EgE3-5 4iii!}e~~ Gl •-GI ii: GI )( ... 0 j:j Ill Ill ...J Ill== a: -;-~ .:::.. 0..~- C 0 +-' co u .0 ::i a. -0 +-' > ro "O t <( C a. Q) C C Q) I 0 >, c :::i 0 u rel 0 (/) Q) C C ~ 0 Q) cu u5 (/) Q) o' >-.c -~ = (L ow :5 aJ I ~ ~ I- Q) Ol -0 Q) ~ 0 C _:,,: C O Q) 0 0..:5 :::i -E (/) - t:G>rel~--~ -0 CL: S: > C S: 0 (/) Cli O -0 ai >--cciii.o -_:,,: :::i OJ .-o -001QJ(lj0J 01Clia.aro C-cJ(lj(/)Vl ·-OJ a. OJ jg N \{2 C ~ ·;;:: > .!= (lj c-o Q)~.J:: o:5c o (/) :::i Q) -·-._ Cli.c-O.J:: OJ -c3: -g~o52 <( -~ ai ~ g Q OJ -5i a:-; L: L: = w L: --~n1~w.:: ~-5 a.Z o "LEGAL NOTICE residential dock slip rental. · Cl"fV OF ORONO . 2750 !(elley Parkway, . : · P:O. Box ~6 .;,_ . CfYlil<!I Bay, 1'/1~ 9532~ Phcin!? (~52) 249-_46PO Fax (95?) ; 12-3546 : Todd Holmers, ori behalf of Sandy Beach. Ll-C, Pips 08- 117-23-33-0030: , 0!j-117-23-33- 003 f · 08-117-23,33-0032 · 08-117- 23-33-0033-' 08-1°17-23-33-0034 ; · variances in order. to construct observation platjorms !!nd an.·open . , paiiilioh within th·e 50 foot wetland ) buffer area for educational purpos- es . ' .:249-4616 . . . ·.,,11 .! ., ,., NOTICE and 0~•117-23-3~-op3s (a.k .?. th€! properties adjac!)nt t9 _1545 Maple · -Pla'ce). l-R-1C zoning district, The --Orono· Planning ~ommission ' requests·a conditional use permit in will hold a .pl;lblic ,hearing in the . ord~r \o conduct land ·alterations in -prono-,COUflCil Charnb.ers aj ·2780 . E:lXCess of 500 .cubic;.y;;irds of mate' . Kelley Parkway on March 1@,· 2012 ; rial for ti,e purpo~es of creatir:ig \I ! peginnin(l at 6:3Cl p.rp . on \17 ,E! ma!-_·storrn~ater pond. , .. ·,, · ter ,!-)1 [f;l/ie~ing th~ follovying !;;i_iid _ . . All persons wishing to be heard are ~ncoliraged to attend t~ese meet- . ings. This is not a final agenda and . is subject io ch.ange prior to · the hearings . ·writ1en 'comments are accepted and should ~e submitted lo \[le City of Orono ~y ,March 13, 2012 if · po~sible . · Interested per- \lors ITJ1i!Y n:lyiey; the applications at City· offices. For an · appointment, ple·ase ca!! (9~?) 249-4620. • j .• (. " · use applications: -12-3547: John · & Phoebe Stavig, • \ ... , . "790" Brown Road N, PIO 34 .-118- 11 '3503:·City of Orono -is• cbnsider-i 23:1-1-6op3, LR-1A zoning district: City of-Orono _; i[!g iwo amei:iqments \o ')~e zoning . requesi a 15 . !opt seiback from ti,e . By : ,Planning Qommission ,c9de reg;;irdfn~l;A.~cess fil,y•l:Jdesl!ih ,'!top bfJt\i ~!bl0ff'.wh4re-·:a ~d'f~oi;is fFtW~•q::. ,;,,iUI.! ',_t:...,: .. ; .. lH , R~~i9 ~11\i~I ,J lj~!f[_Gt~ -,~C?,IJ<;IJfnigg.>, rigrJn~!lY fiE{A!:lirceg aEltt1i 30 fli0f i,i;ib, i, Mela11i~£Q,uf !i§D•}:·h ! trU ·,Ji r -r~s1g?ntjal •q~ck,slip~i Tt;e City cur-. b<!pk_ from the rear/street IC!) lire ·. Planning & Zo~ing Qoord!na\or . rently prp~!b \ts the rental of dopk~ . where a 50 foot setbp.ck is normal- associated vyith residentiar proper-, ly required in . cirder \o construct a lY: The (?ity 'i~ mmsidering a!teriiate . Tl8W r~~i~~rce on a vac;ant proper:, ordinance'•amendments regardin'g · ty.1 1 _, · . . : • · : this ·issue,i One ame11dment will ·, '···' ·. ·,, conter.nplaty.rernoval of the CL!rr~nt 12:3$4~:. Ororn;> Public . Schools, · ,lariguage ,prohib \!,ing rental of resi-685 Old Crystal Bay , Road N,: RR-. : deritial pock.~lips; \tie other amenc;t , . 1 B)oning (listrict, ri;iquests i. con- 1 rn\ln~ s~~ks; to cli,rify \he curr~nt ditional lisl:l permi! as well as wet-. rEjgulati gnl>, \'lhich prohib !_t Pf iVil\e,.,. li,n\1 ._ and \'IE:tland _ b!-lffer setbac!< ' -0 Q) ~ ~ -~ -s -·s := ~ (/) 0-cii -3:: Q):::i(J)(lj ~ 0-(lj - -OJ :5 (lj O ::n = (/) (/) (lj (lj (lj Q) 0 C --£ U) CO... -~ ~ ~ g- -0 -~ (lj >, Q) 0... -~ _o .c E::::-oc5 0 (lj OJ 0 :::i -0 -0 (I) 0-.> C (lj O rel .C Ol '-ai .!= a. r--- a. -s (/) ~ (lj :'.::: (lj <( a....., - (/) (/) ...: C0 3;:COJC0 OJ O a. ·-ci CO(ljC\JQ) OJ(j)O.~-o _c-U)<(C I-~ 3:: ,-OJE ,--;--., OJ(') <( E C C0 (lj ,& ·;;:: a. OJ ..c I- co .5 l ~i -0 Q) 'iii O .. (/) C (/) 0~ -OJ 0 -0 Q) (/) OJ 3:: C ..C Q) E ~ > -2 _o 'vi 0 :::i (/) 0 a. OJ OJ -0 8 L: C ::J ...., (lj (/) E -o 2 OJ ---C :J "i::'. 0 a. (/) (/)""'--(lj (lj 3:: 3:: -0 -0 OJ C ._ 0 -5 C1l C1l --~ oi~ a. OJ (/) C1l (I) ·-a. 3:: ..c (/) L: .2 3:: 0 L: Q) C1l S: C (I) >, C1l 'E :::, cil U) -0 OJ .c -~ :a :::i a. ...., ~ .;:: (/) (lj 3:: C\J-1 i ,-(I) 0 -0 C\J OJ ..c (/) '.E >, :::i (lj a. 'E -0 .3 C C1l (lj C/) -0 Ol (I) C :c '5 ·;;:::::, Cl. 0 ._ C ~1 0 C\J (I)·- -.i= -o -0 C1l C 0 >-(!)m >. C1l ID O C1l -o.c...., -0 1i f ml (I) -0 ...., L: C (lj ...., C1l C/) (I) L: ...., . Posted at: Orono City Offices , qryptar B~y !?Vil Office ·'_ ' · ,Lohg Lake 'Posi Office ·.·· · Navar're Posi Office . (P.ublished ·/n The La~er, @nt/ The pioneer , newspapers March 3,, 2012) . ' c (I) Ol <( -0 (I) N ·;;:: 0 ..c :5 <( -~ :5 0 -0 >, (I) C1l .o ·o ] v) :::i U) C 0 :;:; C'CI E a.. .E C Q) rts cc e 8 ... 0 -en ai fl) :, d .c Ll) (J • C: LI)·- ~ 8. a; c.o . :i:: en en m • ,._ iij E~u-i 'ij G)••fl> ._ >ci·· ~ .8 = ~ E m ~ l O OGIQ) (J -> > >< ;:o·iii .0 ·m.00 "tJ.C-ma, •-u>. ... u [.5:.o.Eg ! i1l-g~ f!o~El~ -g U?=;~:8 ·-Ll) (J ·-~ ;; .! >,:g fl) •• f! = m ~~EB-fi -.;;g.Eg~ GI •-GI 3:;GI><.., 0 JS m m ..J m :ii er -ca--.=, Q.~~ C 0 -ro (.) .c :::I C. -0 -> ro -0 ~ <t C 0. Q) C C Q) I 0 .c C ::J 0 u cu 0 Cf) QJ C C ~ 0 Q) cu U) Cf) QJ ' QJ >-.cO Ol cu --u Cfl-0.. QJ .cow 3: -OJ:r:o ~ ~f-jz c.Q QJ_ 0 0.£::i -E Cf) - EOJ<UKJ .. ~~C_c~ en Cll ~ U QJ >--cc.o -C .::,c Cll ::J QJ -U U Ol (I) Cll (l) oiCllo.ocu cu<U cn-:,: ·-Q) 0. Q) v, (l) N Cfl C (l) .0 ·c ~ C '- • 0 QJ ·-Cll OC.C C~.c -u ~ ~iu-:C QJ -C ~ UC_ ::J C CU O O Cfl <cn ... ~o . ·-QJ Cll 0.. (j)-5ia:---;;; .c .c = w .c ."!::::'. ct1 ..0 w ....... Q).c ::Jzo :::.::: -0. ,UQ)Cfl (l) (l) -Cll .!:::: ;.= .2 . ::J = Cll Cfl O"Cll-~ ~ ::J CJ) Cll (l) rr Cll - :S<Ua~ = Cf) Cf) -g Cll Cll (l) U .C C = :=:Cflco. ~ C ·-0. u .2 ~ ro .51! Cll >, ... .0 Q) .c -u o.._ 0 E := u 0 ni QJ u ::Ju u CfJ O" ·;; C Cll O Cll .C Ol ._ ._ C 0. t'--- (l):;:; 0 0. ::J Cf) • Cll .-='. Cll <l; o.-- Cf) Cf) ... -(<) ~ C (l) c<:> (j) 0 0. --ci CUCl)C\J(l) aicno.~u .C ...., Cfl <l; C f-C~.,_(l) ---:--ai (j) C") E <Ecc<:><U -~ '-;--::i--,.;,-n-,,----;,--,- ' LEGAL NOTICE CITY OF ORONO :::• •. 1:::; --. : .. •-t(i•:::..1"1""··-~1~-:;·.,•,';l ;•,«r::.), j, '',:-.,-1i'•~ '-";':! t 1,;.J ··-~ •• 1~,3?!4~;: Marg~r~! · P,el\i:il~;/Jp§Q · :gpQ5).t 'RA -1B : zoning district, . North. Arn, Drivet t::~'-' 1~~qfti11Q ,,qJ i r:,h f~H,U)'.~t i lot line rearrangement to 2('50 K~lley p~rkway, 'P.O. BQ?.C ,' .!ill _:-, . ;· Crystal !:lay, MN !i532~. · , , Phone (952) ~49-4600 :Fax (9!i2t ,. 249-;161!i i ' • tric;:t, reqyests an atte r\1!:i:!lff.~~)'yeyfi\ 1 ,:i~p~r~te ' it' P?r\ion of the latter par- ~ncE! tor .a 28 foot frp~t·•·sjt_ll~c;:k,~ ·,c;e! f~r ·f8,n,:ipmatio.n with the form~r ~ntilf~ 11: ~? foot setback ts· normal<'·' p,irce.1 1 r~~ulttng tn no new butld ' ,, ly r9.qµtred for a cjeck · ;irii:J ·•ll11try : .. a~l!l lqts.,' ~t~;, ' :;,, ';;t ¥E· ! JfJ}<<" ··. ' ~n;~r~~~~ wistJirig to be ·h~ard arii . "· ; NOTICE t 12~3551 :Yueh 'Chtiaq lxu~f~.'©ail en courage,d to .attend these meet: '' i Tseng ' on ' beh~if pi":_i~p,091 /P,i;;'' ·iii~~-',:f~is'is riot §1 final agenda'and The, Orono Planning Oornmissiqn ' 1550 !-bng Lakil° l:loul(lV~rd,, L.R~M ,' ' i§ ,. ~u bject to change prior to Jh~ ' will hold a publi~ .tiearin9 j n, tlie . zq11in9 cjistrict , request lo\ !_If~~; ~l\~'. "he 11r!ng~ .. ,•;Written qomments are Orono Counc il Chamb9rs ·_at 27~0 .•· Ip! Wi\'.l!li_ varianc\:l~ i11 order \o 800 ;\•'1,ecc~ptecj i!nd.1>hould be submitted Kelley .ParkWiiY on A~ri!_ 16, ?21 ,?t : · ~trµP,I ~ ney., r~~ip_i\[lf~1onJ lql ~!g't•," fp th~. !,i\y o_f ()rono by .April 10 , beginning at 6:30 p.m. on the "m~t, '\cre,ll : ''1 cireil:'~nd riij• f13et,'!fl ,:,V!tjltl · • 201 g, tf p9~~1b le< Interested per- ter of reviewing the following land · .where 2.0,acres ·a0il"200 • width are · · sons may rev.iew the aP,plicalions at u~e application$: ' ' . ' normally requir~d ; iake~tioie•: sid ~ G,it{~ffiiis:' Fqr an appointment, . yard and street ··setback var fat'1ces ; please call(952).249 :4620. · 1 H 3534 : Estate of -' Arthur J. 0-7:5' and 75-250' zo □e hardcov~i. · :· · · · · · Nelsctn, 400 Willow Drive, South, variancesd sltu6tural lot coverage City of QrQl'10 ' RR -'1 E3 zoning· district, reque~ts yaria17ce; and a ' variance, for con : Ely ;' Planning Commission approval of a subdivision to create structiori within a· bluff . and within . . . . . three 2+ acre lots wh\1ie one 12+ the.bluff i1J1 P,!!C! #>ne?,., ,, ,;--· acre lot currentl y exi~!S-: . . ·. ;' ·• · ·i : .·,, Y ~~,,\ ·,,,. ?; ,·}.: ' f 12·3~q~: Ji.rn & S,h r rrtWhite, 3~16 12-3547 : Johri U hoebe ' ~tay!Q, Ivy JP!~f e, ~R-1q ·~\>!'J!ng di~trict , '790':,_Brown Road N, P,11? 3H 1 ~,,; f~8P ~~t A; 7-§'fqQ\ 0JC\f]B ~a~9coy~r 23 -11 -0003 ,~LR -1A zoning district,:~ v.1fri!l_1'1qef, to perfllf~§-ij%o ~!!r~cgy- request a 15 foot ~!3lba9~ from .:th ~' er "'there ,471,?0/o' c~rr,~mt ly •exj sts ,top of 1he, bluff where ·~'~0 f99t :~eF: ~. arJd :oply · ?5%'. is "[iqi.n,i~!IY allow~d, back i~ n9rrna!ly r!Jqui t~d and ci ·i3,"l . !qr <;Qn~trycli Qng!, ~:~~\:f-,,. ;·· ·, .. ' !opt setbac)< frQf(l !~@ rear/strE)~t'!ot : · · . ' · · · · · . , . lin·e where a 50 foot setback is nor-12-35·5~: CraigBar,k Holdings , LLC mally required jn 9rde i to coristru~t and' LpnWid~E) ')'lssocj ~!~s, owner$. a ne'❖.', r~sidence on a. vacant prop ,. . 9! prpp~rty.lqt;at~d ~ttaflf! adjac13nt , erty. ':{ · . · .. •, , >, . 191!09if~ic St re~Hf'Wsel PID ~ 0;3 , ·1, · 117°?~~1 0003and.-Q(M17-23 41 .. 5 ----p 0 s: ~ :-g (j) Cll U Cf) C Cfl ..... 0 .::.c 0 u Q) Cf) Q) Q) C .C ~ E en (j) ::J = > -.0 ·-0 ::J Cf) u 0. ~ Q) u u £ C §l E Cll Cf) , OU --c) ,;:;}E ~,~J r;~ CJ I ~ ~ u ~u }E C .!= ·-~ Cll ._ o. 1 :i= ... -E (l) > Cll (l)~ ---s, 0. Q) .C ~~~ ~ Cll QJ f-I 0. :S: ~ .c Cf) ' u :> .c Cl) ~) I :C i[i ~ .....(,:::J-:S: C (l) ~, f ..-Q) ou C\J (j) .c Cf) .0 >, 7 -~ ::J Cll O.'E u.3 C Cll Cll CJ) >, ) i 6 cu U Ol (l) C CJ) ~ '::s- c '6 C ::J 0.<3 u (j) .c -~ :a ::J 0. ... C Q) ·-..... ;t::: u O Cll C >-(l) Cll Cll Ql 0 u .c ..... U) . .__, ..... >, ;.;: t1'\ ~ .gj Cf) :_; ~ .... Cll ::J :s: Q)ucu £ ~ CJ) .:::: J 0 C\J 'DI 0 ~ ~ 0 >, Cll u (oj (j) .c - Mi 6h~~i} i~tii~~ . A~~i~\arit .City Admin istrator Posieci°'~ii'Or6no Cit/Offices Cr ysi~'i Bay Pb$foffice,.' . . ,. Loilg La!<e'F!pst Office,· Ni varr~po~! Ofjice .i _ •1 ., (Published ' in · The taker and The Pioneer newspapers · March 31, :?012) , c Q) Ol < u Q) N ·.::: 0 .c -::J < -~ £ C ... ~ Cf) u C Cll u >, ti .0 ::J CJ) , . ( ,, , .. : .. '· '· ("~_ C: 0 :.= m E ... 0 -C: a, ~-1a < 0: e 0 0 0 .c ll) 0 ... • C: 0 ll) ·-; ~~ Q) ... ~ £! l§l .,; ~ ~ ~:;; 0 Q) .. fl> Cl) > ui .. E o :s:: ~ E .QlllQ) o ~ E ~ O OQ)Q) -> > >-~ 0 ·u; .a ·1t1.Ccn -C.C-lllQ) •-o>-._o [.E.0,2 g -S!4ij-ccn 1t1C.~G>- '-oo~~ 'C ll) = Ill 0 -~ LO Ill .c:.:; :t::T""'Q:10:S :~~~-g ~8E~.c -[:iog cncnE1t1w Q) ·-Q) ~Q)><- 0 ]i Ill Ill ...J Ill :E a: -cu--.!:,. o..~!:?.. C 0 ..... cu u .0 :J CL -0 -+- > cu 1J :t:: ~ C 0.. (l) C C (l) I 0 >, c ::J 0 u cu 0 l/) (l) C C ~ 0 (l) cu (/) l/) (l) w (l) ~-5 I .g1 l/) -1--(l) 0 --5 (l) (l) 3 ro(l)..c o 0 >, -C 0 l/) .:,c_ § ci ro = -E c 2 E (l) 3 l/) Ouoro .. 3 C C ..C 3 l/)cu.:,c.uO »-~Cai 3C(l)CU.Q u(l)o. •·u Olro__cg(l) 01roo.o - c "O l/) l/) .;'? 'cii (l) 3: Q.) l/) .0 .'::! (l) C (l) ._ C C .._ c o ~ ro 0-;:(l) .c l/) ::J ..c -u uj ro -~£ ~ ~ 0 6 3 <t l/) ~ ~ .!:! ·-(l) u Q_ (!)~er:-~ ..c ..c = w (l) ."!::'. -.0 ~ .c (l) ro ::i <( -~-5 Q._JQ ' "O (l) ~ ~ -~ 5 ' ·s ~ ro (/J O-cii-3: (l) ::i (/) Cl) ~ CT Cll - -(l) -Eroo:o = l/) l/) Cl) C1l ro (l) u C ·--;: l/) C Cl. -~ ~ ~ §- "O -~ ro >, -u 0. -.0 Q) ..c 0 E = u 0 Cl) (l) u ::i "O "O Cf) O" .> C ro O ro £ 0) .._ ~ ~ C 0.. f'--(l) ·.;:; 0 0.. ::i l/) ' ro -Cll<t ~-~ ~-(') 3CwM w on. ·ti CUroC\J(l) (l)l/)Q.~-o .C-ll)<tC 1--c(l) 3: .-(l)E ,--:-, (l) C') <EcMCll (y . r"< Q) .c I-- Cl) ... ··-::---.:,·:·, :.;~ •1_~:,.-----· --.:._. ·.. . ::;'.· ;.'-~{--~·T ~·;. ~;~~-~: .• -- .,, LE~~Lf-lOT!CE ,' ,.,f:. . . ,, ''/_ ...:;.,,• , •·,'to-17()C_l'F9x Stree)(Pa.r~e!PIDs03- ) . ·,•(;l'fY ,9FOf!C>J'IO .' -'. 12-3549:_ M;i_r9 WE!I Peltol;i!_ ;1 550 :·••117'?341 0903 arid 0,3'117;~3 __ 41 • 21~9K.e,!l~y parkwa¥, P.O. Bo)! .. ;-"!Qrt.h fr,m, C>nye, l~;1B ZOl)!f19 dis, · 999~): .. RR-1B ' ZOr\!'19 ,~1stnct, '· ·· . · · :,.,. _ _.:' · ~Ii -. ,_ . c• ,: _ : triclr requ~stli <in aft!j~-the ;fact v;iri, , .. request'a 1qt line r~arr;u1gemenl to ' '~rystal f!ay, M~ ~532~ ,_{•,·· "? a.11cfil J9'r !!! ~-13 . 'loo\ front, setbapk _., sepsirate··<!·portion of the J!ltler par- P~ori~ (!!5~) 249-4600 fill! (!15~);·~~:\l'!'hf![EHa! 35 foot ~E!!back' is riqrrn ~I-,. ee l fqr cqff!bination with the former .::::;""t;l"(;t~~·;::'it\:P':i ~tr~i1tf t:!t':)i!~;.:f ~ii1~]l2i&Jl~ \_11,1°!;" ,Qf?'}I?-\ f,'J,anrn119 ;, ~?fTln:]!~S.IOf!• ;_; :TS0,fl9i ci ff,.~~~fl !f : ?,i,_lt)lpo<>!,;. ~LC., J',,1,,; erc9yfa9~? · t? · ~tl~n~ the~f:l rT)e~j- ': 1'!'!11 :_ h9!d '.i!f p_~Pil9 .. h~~f:).'19 ' :!fl { \he j, :, 15~p : ~~nQ.\il~~-·~~Yl~\/a'f!'!,;_ l,f!-,1 fl,;:\. 1n9~:,-.i'J:tJ1~ 'll n,q\ ~ Imai ,;1g ~~d1:1 ·~nd . OronP., Coune;,1, ChambE1r~/at ·;1zao,t·· 1~9n1ng ,d 11tppt,,rnq4es,J:1ot :~r~a. a~d'.: ':' 1s ,, !=!Yb.J ~Ct tp '!)na11ge ·. pqpr .. t9 ;_ the , ~eil!lY -_Par~Yf!iV on . A~r.il 1 ~-?01 '2 .-"'-, lot ify,ai,n Y8tria.n?.e~ ir:i j r,der lei 9pn ; ,'/·P~\lfifi~S ." ;vyritten , commentr !Ire · p!;iginri1ng 11t •!3 :3!:) p.m.-on'.t~e m~h ,-str4(::J a fl!!~ r13s1peflC_f! on a l9t 0.27 ,;1, acql!Pll!d '!!flc1 sho~ld RI! ~uq[111tled ter of 'reviewing the following land li.cres in aiea and 99 feet in width . to thil City of Orono by f,pril 10, use applications:-·-.:;.,_ '· '·-·where2.o'ac'resand200l widthare : 2012 if possible.' ·Interested per- . . , . , ., . norrn~l!y r~q1i1red; li1~!l~hort1 , §i9e sqp~ may rr view \h~ appJipcjtipns at 11-3534: Estate of Arthur J. yard and street setback varian!)es; ·City offic!lS . For .an appointment , Nelson, 400 Willow Drive South , 0-75' and 75-250' zone hardcover please call (952) 249-4!320 . RR -1 B zoni11g district, requests variances ; a structural lot coverage · · approval of a subdivision to create variance; and a· variance for '. con : City of Orono three 2+ acrf:l lots where one 12+ struction within a bluff ·and ·within By : Planning Commission acre lot cu'rrently exists . · the bluff impact _zone : · 1 ?-3552 : ~im & Sherry White , ~516 · ·•• ~ichael p. Gattror:i · , • · 12~3547 : Ji>fin ·& Ph6eb1i' Stavig , ','79 0" Br own Road N, PID,~1 -11!!- 23-11-0003; LR-1 A zoning district, i-~quest a 15 foot seit>a6k from th'e top of the bluff wh~re a 30 ioot set- back is normally requir~d arid a 30 fooi'setback·from the rear/street lot · linev.iherea ~o foci seib~ck"is nor, malifrequirecl in pr9er tb _p9r(stn.i~i :3 ~eV{ resi~ence orf a '{aca,rt propc" Ivy Place, LR-1 C zoning · district, · · Assistant City Adrninistrc1tor : . r!lquest a 7~-250' ~one hardcover . , ··•·. . ·. . . · . . .. ' ' . , .. erty. · · ~ -~ ___,_ -~ ~ ·:--< ~ "O (l) ·-u C1l C l/) 0 l/) -.:,c_ 0 "O (l) l/) (l) (l) C .C: S: E ~ w ::i .0 > o ::i "vi u 0.. l/) (l) "O .C: C -ro E u 2 Q) :: C ::, ·;:: () 0.. (l) u () ::i l/) l/)l/)- (1) Cl) 3 3 "O Q) J_ I -5 I I ~ -0 C Cll ~ ..: ..2 Q) .:,c_ Q. Q) Cll (l) Q. 3: l/) .c 3: () Q) Cl) C: Q) l/) ·- .c: g .c: 4 3 valiance to permit 45.9% hardcov-Posted at:·orono City Offices · er wtiere 47.5%! currently exisis Cry~tal Bay Post Office and only 25% is rorma,lly allow~d, Long Lake Post Office for constructiori of a deck . · ' Navarre Post Office !! ::•·· <~<~·T. . -~ ·. : . '\:;?°_; .. ,• , . :12-35~3; GraigBarik 1-!oldings, LL¢ . ,:(f'~b/isti~_q in _ Jt,Je Laker an_d '.'The_ and . Langridge Assqciates, owners · ·-/Pi9ne~r . ·newspapers.--fl/larch 31 , of property located at and adjacent 2o·t2) ··, · · · · · .,,. '· >, Cl) ~ :::J ro (/) "O Cl) .c: l/) C\J-, f .-Q) ou C\J Cl) .c: -~ ::0 >, ~-, 6-"E (j "O .2 "-C C1l ' Cll (/) C ti ~ :::J C\J .- 0 C\J a..c3 ~ C (lJ ·- 0 ~ ~ o >-(l)ro >-::0 ::i Q. ro ~ ro VJ ~-0 -5 £_ -~, .... l/) >, ;;:::: ::--.; Cll Cll ('""'\ l/)'' s:"E .J Cll :::J 3: (l)-gnl (l) -5 Cll (I) £ .:::: c Q) Ol < -0 Q) N ·c 0 .c: :5 < ,!!! .c -C ~ 11 ~ 0 N -0 >, (U "O -0 Q) .0 ·c u !Ci >, en 'SI" e 8 ... 0 c:i .r: It)(,) ·c LI)_ -~ ~ Q) Cl) ... Q. ~ ~ i oi ~ et;~ (,) Cl) .. ~ C:Qi >Gi.i,: OE _8:::CI) ·-E ca ni Cl) «1 o ... E~ E O O QI QI -> > >, ,., 0 ·-.. .0 > ..0 Cl) 0-c.c.!!!n,cn -·-0 ~ Cl) C: =c~'-u -a.•-'°-Eg G>.!JGi]-0<.0 -n,Q.~Ql- (t'J ... ooE'~ 0:"Clt)=nio ,S! II) ftl ..r:: ~ :!:: .. Cl) 0 '6 Cl)~ ->-,:, ~Gi~=;ni o u E ::s ..r:: ... ~:::, 0 ~ ¾JcnE=w ~ Cl) 'i< Cl) o:Oniiv ....J~::ia: ---~-.-. =--Q.~~ . , MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 19, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. er understanding of the concern was the appearance of the homes. The plication tonight is for a conditio 1 use permit to conduct grading on the site and that the City doe ot have landscaping requirements for sin e-family homes . Curtis indicated she is not aware whe er the applicant has spoken with the neighbors regar · g the application. Holmers indicated he does not ha style homes . Holmers indicated they will attempt to save s many tre as possible but that they have to accommodate a pond for the drainage. Holmers indic ed he does not hav Schoenzeit noted the applicati 1s for a conditional use permit and t the applicant is allowed to use his property as allowed under te statute. Schoenzeit noted the Planning co ission needs to ensure that for a conditional use permit. Landgraver ved, Leskinen seconded, to recommend approval of Application 2-3546, Todd Holmers behalf of Sandy Beach, LLC, 1545 Maple Place, granting of a condition subje to conditions of City Staff and the City Engineer. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 4. #12-3547 JOHN & PHOEBE STA VIG, 790 BROWN ROAD NORTH, VARIANCES, 7:14 P.Nl. -8:04 P.M. John Stavig, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated thy applicant is requesting bluff setback, average lakeshore setback, and a rear/street setback variance in order to construct a home on an undeveloped property. A variance to build within the bluff impact zone is also being requested . The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1. An average lakeshore setback variance. The location of thee average lakeshore setback line for this property is difficult to ascertain as the property exists on a partial point and the northerly adjacent lakeshore home is significantly behind this property in orientation. The result when using the closest lakeward point of the home to the south places the average lakeshore setback line completely off of the subject property. When using the point of the southerly home closest to , or more impacted by, the subject property places the average lakeshore setback line within the required SO-foot rear setback . Either of the lines results in the subject lot having no conforming buildable area with respect to the average lakeshore setback. A variance may be requested. 2. A bluff setback variance. The applicant is requesting a 15-foot variance to allow construction of the home 15 feet from the top of bluff where a 30-foot setback is required . Additionally, the proposal would place the home five feet into the required 20-foot bluff impact zone as well. The applicant's proposal includes a "possible" lower garage beneath the upper main garage . Page7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 19, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. 3. A variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure or grading. A setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear property line. The proposal includes a 20- foot variance to allow a setback from the rear or street lot line of 30 feet where a 50-foot setback is normally required. The subject property was platted in 1969 as part ofRLS 1275 and has remained undeveloped. A bluff area exists on the property and combined with the 50-foot rear setback requirement results in a limited legal building envelope. In order to prepare the property for sale, the applicant is requesting bluff setback, average lakeshore setback, and rear/street setback variances to create a more reasonable building pad. A variance to allow structure within the 20-foot bluff impact zone is also requested. Protection and preservation of bluff areas within Orono has been a key aspect of our Shoreland regulations since our adoption of the DNR shoreland rules in 1992. The bluff impact zone and bluff setback requirement are meant to limit potential negative impacts to the bluff and the vegetation which stabilizes the bluff from slump, erosion, and slope failure. Encroachments into the sensitive areas increase the potential for irreversible damage to occur. The applicant's potential lower garage area would require additional grading and potentially greater impacts to the area adjacent to the home. At a minimum, staff would suggest the lower garage be eliminated from the plan. Regarding bluff areas in general, it is Staffs position that in particularly new construction situations, all bluff setbacks should be met and variances should not be granted. In order to meet the required bluff setback, the home footprint may need to be reduced and/or moved closer to the street. The proposal is for a 2,354 square foot home and garage footprint. City Code states that each developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of principal structure (including garage). It is possible that a combination of a greater variance to the rear setback, combined with a reduction in the proposed footprint to 1,500 square feet, would result in elimination of the bluff variances. Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance if the Planning Commission determines the existing lake views from the home at 800 Brown Road North will not be encroached upon by a home on the subject property, and approval of a setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear property line. Staff recommends denial of the bluff setback variance and denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure or grading. In addition, Staff suggests the Planning Commission consider recommending a reduction of the total footprint of the home from 2,354 square feet to a footprint closer to 1,500 square feet. Thiesse asked if the property that is being used for the average lakeshore setback has property on the lake. Curtis indicated in order for that property to be considered as it relates to the average lakeshore setback, it would need to. · Thiesse commented that the survey does not appear to depict that. Curtis pointed out it is an L-shaped lot. Thiesse asked if the fact that it is an L-shaped lot is the only reason why it is being included in the determination of the average lakeshore setback. Page 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 19,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis illustrated the location of the home and the second piece of the property. Under the definition in the code, it would be called an adjacent lakeshore lot. Curtis stated that is the reason why Staff is recommending approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. Schoenzeit asked for some background on the bluff regulations. Gaffron stated prior to 1992, the City did not have an ordinance that protected bluffs but they did have some subdivision regulations that define the dry buildable area of the property to exclude slopes that are in excess of 18 percent, which are still in place but rarely used. This is an existing lot of record and is a situation that the City does not encounter often. Gaffron indicated the City has had a couple of situations on North Shore Drive and Tonkawood Road where the City expected the properties, when they were being rebuilt, to meet all the required setbacks as much as possible. The bluff impact zone, which is the first 20 feet from the top of the bluff, is an area that should not be violated with any vegetation removal. The next 10-foot area constitutes a bluff setback, and grading within that area is not as critical. The DNR opposes all development in the bluff impact zone since it may contribute to destabilization of the bluff. Gaffron noted the City had a situation two summers ago that involved a bluff on North Shore Drive that experienced catastrophic failure and it took quite a bit of engineering to reconstruct the slope. Gaffron indicated this specific site meets the criteria of a bluff. There have been some discussions about whether the entire width of the property should be considered a bluff. The applicant's engineer has outlined the areas he feels should be defined as a bluff. To determine the top of the bluff, Staff bases it on the point where the slope changes from greater to 18 percent to less than 18 percent. Gaffron stated in his view this is clearly a bluff and should be subject to all the applicable regulations. Landgraver noted there is an old driveway bed and asked how that factors into this situation. Landgraver asked whether the Planning Commission should ignore the driveway bed. Gaffron stated as it relates to the top of the bluff as defined on Exhibit L2, it is at the lakeshore side of the old driveway bed. From Staffs perspective, the driveway bed does not change the stability of the slope and does not have an impact on the way the top of the bluff is determined. John Stavig, Applicant, stated they purchased both of the lots in 2002, with the long-term intention of eventually selling off this lot. Stavig indicated they are attempting to get approval for what they feel is a realistic and reasonable proposal to construct a modest house on this lot. The lot is slightly over two acres. Stavig indicated at one time the City would have allowed building down to the 75-foot setback line. Stavig stated they have paid property taxes on the area included in the bluff. Stavig stated the assessed market valuation for the property is $585,000, which is a decrease from $720,000, and we are now being told the lot cannot support much more than a garage or a trailer. Stavig reiterated that in his view this is a reasonable proposal. Staff has been very responsive to our questions and we are hopefully we can come to a reasonable solution. Stavig noted the driveway bed was completely left out of Staffs report, which is an important consideration in his view. The driveway bed is at least 102 years old and was originally constructed sometime between 1870 and 1910. There is no erosion whatsoever in that area. The lot itselfclearly is Page9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 19, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. much steeper on one side, which is a bluff area, but the other areas of the lot appear to be at a lower level in terms of the severity of the slope and could be constructed upon. Virtually no grading would be required on the sides of the lot. Stavig indicated they have attempted to propose as small of a house as possible in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. In his view the driveway bed is a structure. According to City Code under the definition of a structure, the driveway bed would meet those criteria. Stavig stated they are proposing something that would leave the driveway bed. Their proposal is very reasonable, especially since there are no hardcover issues, septic issues or side lot issues. Stavig noted this lot was buildable back in 1969 and that they are hoping for a reasonable resolution. Schoenzeit asked how the applicant's plans would be impacted if the area is determined to be a bluff. Schoenzeit commented the Planning Commission does not see a lot of bluff situations in Orono so their experience with them is minimal. Schoenzeit noted there have been other government agencies making comments on this application encouraging the City to enforce the existing codes. Stavig stated if it is determined ab luff, he would argue that the driveway bed should be considered a structure under Section 78.1. Schoenzeit stated to his understanding a structure has to be six feet off the ground. Stavig stated a structure is an edifice or building of any kind, which he would argue that it is, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner which requires a location on, below or above the ground, land or water, or attached to something having a location on the ground, land, or water. Thiesse stated he would prefer to defer determination of whether the driveway bed should be considered a structure to later if that becomes necessary. If the roadway is determined to be structure, it would need to be removed prior to a house being constructed on the lot. Schoenzeit noted the applicant would be over on structural coverage if the driveway bed is considered structure. Stavig stated if it is determined to be a bluff, he would argue that a nonconforming structure exists on the property and he would attempt to push the property setbacks further back toward the bay. Levang asked why the applicant stated that all the code would allow would be a trailer or a garage when the applicant is proposing a structure that is 1,500 square feet. Stavig stated he has paid approximately $200,000 in property taxes on this lot, and that his comment was in response to a comment by Staff. There are variances being considered to allow the structure to be closer to the cul-de-sac, which would make it out of character with the neighborhood and would be less appealing to some of the immediate neighbors. Gaffron stated on Exhibit L2, the hashed area is an area that is left over if all the setbacks are met, which results in a fairly skinny area. Gaffron stated he would not be surprised if it was commented on by Staff as being an area that a trailer could fit into. __________________ Page 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 19, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit commented the Planning Commission would like to work with the applicant. Schoenzeit asked if a variance is granted to the cul-de-sac, what the updated buildable area would be. Curtis stated if the house is moved further back and complies with the rear setback and bluff setback, he would be left with a 29-foot depth. Gaffron stated they calculated it at approximately 3,500 or 3,700 square feet but that it would be in a strange configuration. Gaffron illustrated on Exhibit L2 that if the 30-foot setback from the west is extended 20 feet closer to the road to meet a 30-foot or a 25-foot setback, it would leave an area of roughly 3,700 square feet. Schoenzeit commented it appears that a building would fit into that area. Stavig noted they are requesting a 25-foot setback in the front and that the 1,500 square feet would also include a garage. Schoenzeit commented there appears to be a building envelope available to the applicant that would meet the bluff setbacks. Stavig stated the house would be 700 to 800 square feet because the 1,500 square feet would also include a garage. Schoenzeit stated the building envelope would be 3,700 square feet if there is a variance to the cul-de-sac. Thiesse commented a 1,500 square foot house would be out of character for the neighborhood and noted that this lot was originally developed and approved for construction. Thiesse stated Exhibit Ll shows that the applicant is being penalized by the 40 percent. Thiesse noted it is an established tree line bluff. Gaffron stated Staff is going to take the lower point of the SO-foot segment that is less than 18 percent versus one that is over 18 percent. The top of the bluff is at 978', which is below the driveway. You have steeper slopes as you go closer to the shoreline and then a flat area. The bottom of the bluff is down at the shoreline and not 20 or 30 feet in where it is fairly flat. Gaffron stated the survey shows that the top of the bluff pretty much follows the lakeside of the driveway bed and that in his opinion the applicant is not being penalized. Thiesse commented this is a unique situation and asked if any of the catastrophic bluff failures were in a well defined mature tree bluff or a graded area. Gaffron stated in one case there was a catastrophic failure that happened on the property next door first and then they constructed retaining walls. In that case the house was required to be constructed 30 feet from the bluff, so it did not contribute to that bluff failure. Most of the failures have been rebuilt residences on bluffs. There was also a catastrophic failure on the north side of Long Lake approximately seven or eight years ago where there was an existing house that was rebuilt using the same footprint. Gaffron noted there is no existing footprint in this situation. Thiesse stated the old roadbed means something to him, and asked if the applicant hires an engineer that conducts a global stability check, whether that would help. ________________ Page 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 19, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated there is nothing in City Code that provides for that type of analysis. If the Planning Commission would like to consider that, that is a subjective process to deal with objective facts and could perhaps insert some more objectivity into the process. Gaffron stated that is a decision the Planning Commission would have to make. Stavig stated they would be constructing above where the driveway bed is and that there has been no movement in that area for over 100 years. Schoenzeit commented the additional information might be helpful to the Planning Commission. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Schoenzeit stated Staff's recommendations follow along very nicely with City Code, but that he would recommend tabling the application and perhaps collecting some further information regarding the nature and stability of the bluff, which would perhaps allow the granting of a variance. Thiesse stated he does not want the applicant to incur additional expenses if this application is not going to be approved. Thiesse commented he does not want to go against Staffs recommendations but pointed out that the majority of the bluff setback requirements relate to maintaining slope stability. Thiesse stated this situation is unique and that in his view slope stability is not an issue. Levang stated she is hesitant to go against the recommendation of the DNR. Thiesse asked why she is hesitant to go against that recommendation if the applicant can prove slope stability is not an issue. Landgraver commented it is a unique and mitigating factor, but fundamentally you hesitate to open the door to unique and mitigating factor on bluffs. Landgraver stated in his view all bluff areas will have extenuating circumstances and that he is reluctant to table it to allow the applicant to compile additional information on whether the driveway provides some stability to the slope. Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with Commissioner Landgraver and that she would be very hesitant to allow anything to encroach into the bluff setback zone. Leskinen stated the applicant could decide on his own to obtain additional information prior to the City Council meeting, but that she would not be willing to recommend the applicant obtain that information. Thiesse stated that is where he is having difficulty since it is a one-size fits all, and pointed out the reason for the line being placed there is to maintain the slope stability. If someone can prove that the line is actually in a different spot, then it would not be a bad idea for the applicant to obtain that information. The applicant purchased a piece of property that was deemed to be buildable but that it is not buildable to the standards of that neighborhood. _________________ Page 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 19, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Levang commented she understands the applicant's desire to construct a home on that lot but that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to ensure the City codes and ordinances are adhered to. Levang commented she does not get the impression the applicant is flexible on this application. Stavig stated in his view the proposal they attempted to put forward a proposal that is very flexible. The driveway bed defines the top of the bluff and the flat area of at least 15 feet has stood still for over a century. Their proposal is to stay behind that and go further forward to make sure that no erosion issues are created. Stavig commented he hopes that is a flexible approach since it is not where they would like to locate the house. Stavig noted there have been bluff setback variances granted previously in Orono and that in his view this is a reasonable request. The top of the bluff as defined by the roadbed is flat for 15 feet and they will stay behind that. Stavig stated the other adjoining lot also has bluff areas that they have maintained over the years. Stavig stated in his opinion their proposal is within the spirit of the regulation, which is not to erode the bluff. The area is marginally a bluff and is defined by the roadbed. They are placing the house in a different area out of respect for the bluff. Levang asked whether they would be willing to downsize the house. Stavig stated downsizing the house would require it to be two-story, which would be out of character of the neighborhood. Staff has rejected that. Stavig stated they have also attempted to ask for as few variances as possible. If erosion is the concern, Stavig indicated he is not sure how their proposal would impact that since the driveway bed has existed for over a century. Leskinen asked if the City can grant a bluff setback variance if the DNR recommends denial. Gaffron stated the City can still grant a variance since it is merely a recommendation from the DNR. Curtis commented typically the DNR will say they do not oppose it or the City will receive no comment back. Every application for a variance in the shoreline is under the DNR's review and they generally do not comment on the majority of them. Stavig asked whether there have been some approved in the past. Stavig stated it is his understanding the City granted one in 2006. Gaffron stated Staff has not done a complete analysis of how many bluff setback variances have been granted. Gaffron stated there likely have been some variances granted to allow a rebuild, but that he does not recall any that were granted to a vacant lot. Curtis noted the 2006 application was a rebuild. Landgraver stated he does not have the ability to opine on stability of slopes, but by the same token, the applicant has proposed a smaller footprint house close to the edge of the street, which is out of character with the neighborhood and that he is not sure if the neighbors have had a chance to consider this application. Landgraver indicated he is leaning towards tabling the application for the applicant to consider obtaining the additional· information, which is another expense that he would incur with no guarantee of results. __________________ Page 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 19, 2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schwingler stated they Planning Commission does look at these on a case-by-case basis and that this is a unique situation. Under Code the applicant has practical use of the property and that he has a 100-plus year old driveway that has not had any issues. Schwingler commented he would hate to send the applicant on an expensive goose chase. Schoenzeit stated it appears from the discussion that if the roadway is stable, that might influence the Planning Commission. There appears to be some support on the Commission for obtaining additional information on the stability of the slope, and the applicant has the choice to have the Planning Commission table it or vote on the application. Schoenzeit stated there may be some value in putting some science behind the stability of the bluff and the practical difficulties of the lot. Stavig indicated he is willing to look into that. Schoenzeit commented it is a complicated endeavor to construct a house on a unique piece of property and that unfortunately some properties do require additional expense. Schoenzeit asked whether the applicant would like his application tabled since it is unlikely the application would be approved. Levang noted the applicant also has the option to have the Planning Commission vote on his application and then go before the City Council. Stavig indicated he would like his application tabled. Curtis stated if the application is tabled tonight, the application would be back before the Planning commission in April if the additional information is submitted on time. Schoenzeit moved, Levang seconded, to table Application #12-3547, John and Phoebe Stavig, 790 Brown Road North. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 12-3548 ORONO SCHOOL DISTRICT, 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NO NCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:04 P.M. -8:14 P.M. Curtis state applicant is requesting approval in order to construct an ope 1ded 924 square foot pavilion with a 3 uare foot open deck 20 feet from the delineated wet d edge, approval of two future 426 square foot o ation platforms, and after-the-fact appro for three raised observation platforms already constructed ng a wood chip nature trail wit · the 150-foot lake setback and where a 50-foot wetland buffer and 20-foot ctural setback is requi . Conditional use permit approval is required for permits as the school use is UP within th -lB zoning district. Orono Schools recently received funding from th CWD to construct walking trails with raised observation platforms along the edge of the w and su nding Lake Classen, which is classified by the DNR as a natural Environment lake. Ge al development es such as Lake Minnetonka require a 75- foot structural setback. Natural envir ment lakes require a 150-ot setback for structures. Additionally, in order to fort the school's environmental learning pro , the applicant also requests approvals to construct a 54 square foot open-sided pavilion or shelter adjac t to the wetland edge. The platforms and th avilion are shown within the 150-foot lake setback. The p forms were constructed and i alled over the fall. The applicant's narrative outlines the backgrou of the environmenta earning program as well as their variance and CUP request in more detail. _________________ Page 14 March PC Subject: Background 12-3547, John & Phoebe Stavig, "790" Brown Road N / PIO 34-118-23-11-0003 The applicant requests bluff setback, average lakeshore setback and a rear/street setback variance in order to construct a home on an undeveloped property. A variance to build within the bluff impact zone is also requested. The applicant's property was platted in 1969 as part of RLS 1275 and has remained undeveloped. A bluff area exists on the property and combined with the LR-1A district, SO-foot rear setback requirement results in an approximate ±5' x 120' legal building envelope . Average Lakeshore Setback Variance The location of the average lakeshore setback line for this property is difficult to ascertain as the property exists on a partial point and the northerly adjacent lakeshore home is significantly "behind" this property in orientation . Because staff's analysis results in no buildable area, a variance may be requested from City Council or the applicant may explore the administrative option outlined in City Code Section 78-1279. Protection and preservation of bluff areas within Orono has been a key aspect of our Shoreland regulations since our adoption of the DNR shoreland rules in 1992. The bluff impact zone (20') and bluff setback requirement (30') are meant to limit potential negative impacts to the bluff and the vegetation which stabilizes the bluff from slump, erosion and slope failure. Encroachments into the sensitive areas increase the potential for irreversible damage to occur . Regarding bluff areas in general it is staffs position that, particularly in new construction situations, all bluff setbacks should be met, and variances should not be granted. The private road serving this neighborhood is approximately 20 feet in width and does not have a full, 80-foot diameter paved cul-de-sac at the end as would be required today. The road basically ends at the driveways of the three end homes . The proposed 20-foot encroachment into the rear setback may not appear to be as significant as if a paved cul-de -sac existed. The five existing homes along this private road each meet the required SO-foot street setback requirement; the Planning Commission should determine whether granting a variance to allow a 30-foot setback is out of character with the immediate neighborhood. In order to meet the required bluff setback the home footprint may need to be reduced and/or moved closer to the street. The applicant's proposal contemplates a 2,354 square foot total footprint. Staff suggests a combination of a greater variance to the rear setback combined with a reduction in the proposed footprint to 1,500 square feet (as provided in City Code Section 78-1403) would result in elimination of the bluff variances ... The PC should discuss the Issues for Consideration within the staff report 4 Staff Recommendation 1. If the Planning Commission determines the existing lake views from the home at 800 Brown Road N will not be encroached upon by a home on the subject property, staff recommends approval of an average lakeshore setback variance. 2. For the reasons outlined within the staff report, staff recommends denial of the bluff setback variance as well as the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure or grading. 3. Staff recommends approval of a rear yard setback variance to allow the home up to 25 feet from the rear property line. 4. Finally, staff recommends the Planning Commission should consider recommending setting a limit on the total footprint of structure for this property closer to 1,500 square feet . • J/JA111 ~V}~ -UJ;ifvt~0 '1(),ti't(S)') ! di,1f\1-~e:,w~ ~d~ 1W ~ OY1 r ~nvewa, id fA '~#Ure,// STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. ) CITY OF ORONO ) CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Monica Fadness, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #12-3547 was mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 9th day of March, 2012. '1Jrvu&GfJ.~ Moica A. Fadness CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (952) 249-4600 Fax (952) 249-4616 NOTICE The Orono Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Orono Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on March 19, 2012 , beginning at 6:30 p.m. on the matter of reviewing the following land use applications : 11-3503 City of Orono is considering two amendments to the zoning code regarding Accessory Uses in Residential districts concerning residential dock slips. The City currently prohibits the rental of docks associated with residential property . The City is considering alternate ordinance amendments regarding this issue. One amendment will contemplate removal of the current language prohibiting rental of residential dock slips ; the other amendment seeks to clarify the current regulations which prohibit private, residential dock slip rental. 12-3546 Todd Holmers, on behalf of Sandy Beach , LLC , PIDs 0 8·:.117-23-33-0030; 08-117- 23-33-0031; 08-117-23-33-0032; 08-117-23-33-0033; 08-117-23-33-0034; and 08- 117-23-33-0035 (a .k.a. the properties adjacent to 1545 Maple Place), LR-1C zoning district, requests a conditional use permit in order to conduct land alterations in excess of 500 cubic yards of material for the purposes of creating a stormwater pond. 12-3547 John & Phoebe Stavig, "790" Brown Road N, PIO 34-118-23-11-0003 , LR-1A zoning district, request a 15 foot setback from the top of the bluff where a 30 foot is normally required and a 30 foot setback from the rear/street lot line where a 50 foot setback is normally required in order to construct a new residence on a vacant property. 12-3548 Orono Public Schools , 685 Old Crysta l Bay Road N, RR-1 B zoning d istrict, requests a conditional use permit as well as wetland and wetland buffer setback variances in order to construct observation platforms and an open pavilion within the 50 foot wetland buffer area for educational purposes . All persons wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend these meetings. This is not a final agenda and is subject to change prior to the hearings . Written comments are accepted and should be submitted to the City of Orono by March 13, 2012 if possible. Interested persons may review the applications at City offices . For an appointment, please call (952) 249-4620. City of Orono -- By: Planning CommissiG.n ~ Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator To be published in The Laker & The Pioneer Newspapers on March 3, 2012. Posted at: Orono City Offices Crystal Bay Post Office Long Lake Post Office Navarre Post Office RUN DA TE: 1/18/2012 38 L?-118-23 44 0019 S C MULDOON & PD MULDOON 1801 WESTFARMRD SAMANTHA CAPEN MULDOON PAUL D MULDOON 1801 WEST FARM RD ORONO MN 55356 38 34-118-23 11 0003 JD STAVIG&P M STAVJG 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN & PHOEBE STA VIG 780 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM {PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE: 1 38 34-118-23 11 0001 RD BENSON & B A LUlKENS 776 BROWN RD N BARBARA A LUlKENS RICHARD B BENSON 776 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 II 0006 MARYL STEIL ET AL 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MARYL STEIL ET AL 744 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 CITY OF ORONO RECEIVED JAN 1 8 2012 CITY OF ORONO 38 34-118-23110002 JD STAVJD & PM STAVJD 780 BROWN RD N JOHN & PHOEBE STA VJG 780 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23110007 J M PENDLETON/ME PENDLETON 800 BROWN RD N JON M PENDLETON 800 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 #3547 # MEMORANDUM Date: March 1, 2012 To: Dave Martini, City Engineer From: Christine Mattson, Planning Assistant c: RE: Melanie Curtis, Planning & Zoning Coordinator Land Use Application 12-3547 "790" Brown Road North / PI D 34-115-23-11-0003 Attached is information regarding land use application 12-3547 for construction of a home on a vacant lot with a bluff. Attached you will find: • Variance Application • Description of Request • Hardcover calculation worksheets • Staff bluff confirmation/analysis • Sewer background • Email background -from Melanie to Mark Gronberg regarding the request • Survey, last revision date of 2-22-12 The lot is vacant and currently doesn't have an address; we are currently in the process of assigning the property the address of 790 Brown Road North. This application is scheduled to be heard at the March 19, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting. Please review the attached information and provide comments by Thursday, March 8, 2012. Please call Melanie Curtis at 952.249.4627 if you need additional information or if you have any questions on the attached information. Thank you, ?Jp.). ,. ¥ -~. I }hhjl, --~-q~ . , 1,< · ~o q7<.;, ~""""4-====--·•· ·········· ...... .... .. •·~···-··~·•~.5:9 ~--·-~-··=· ~----t,F~r-----=~ ;;(, ---~··· ··-· ___ ---'-----·. ·=·::::-------------~-----r~.---~3o, g --., -~. =rt ilr..i /{0 No 1 _lOQ ~~d {. I ' -~ l I '' qJ2-. ---,f-i-- 'ZS. <- 1 qo • ~ f"' . .. .. 'I 1/ . iF(QJ(_ ft,ft<..)-r ~~-r~:;~v;~e ~~e C~6'tl'S. ~~~ >JS,••-~ L.. }S,r "". ~ ~~" ~' wn ~ A---~s.·~~ o,=-.:$0' t:Jff-:· ~ _,---- ..a. w en co SURVEY FOR .CERTIFICATE OF ST A VIG JOHN D. LS. NO. 1275 OF TRACT F, R. . MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY, ~. ~lj 0 LONG LAKE V Melanie Curlis From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Melanie Curtis Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10 :26 AM 'Mark' Follow Up -Several admin@c i.orono .mn .us_20120131_ 105828 .pdf Good morning Mark -I hope I can get caught up on follow up I owe you on a few properties with one email. If I miss something please let me know. We can discuss any of these further if you would like. -Melanie Subdivision at The 3 lot configuration we lo9ketl at a couple we ago appears to result in a 30' wide ace ss outlo r a private drive for 2 ots and one lot acc~ing off of North Arm. It ears to be creating a situatio~th 2 back lots, ich is not permi d (Remember :l'le Dayton plat? Not exactly the e situation but ~icp;emise ... ). While the two akeshor ots would t nicall . et the dimensional requirements for ne · he rwould have frontage on North Arm. 1 hout / frontage on orth Arm one would have to be created as a back lot (with back lot dimensional standards) or all would have to access off of a 50' wid e private road outlet with culdesac. Without a private road for all three lots I think the property owner should focus on a 2 lot subdivision . Stavig Bluff: I understand you spoke with Mike yesterday briefly about the bluff analysis . Mike's analysis appears to agree with your analysis in at least the location of the top of bluff for the central portion of the lot. Thank you for humoring us on that as we are pretty cautious regarding bluff calculations etc ... I think going forward we can use the analysis you've provided. Having said that and as I indicated in our meeting, I am still hesitant to be too supportive of setback variances from the 30' bluff setback and 50' street/rear setback for development of the property. I would be really unlikely to support any bluff setback variance. Based on the building pad the property owner is hoping to market, a very substandard street/rear yard setback would be necessary. I know the street is a very narrow and does not have a formal culdesac, but I don't think there will be overwhelming staff support for much of a rea r setback variance either considering most of the neighborhood is more conforming and it would be out of character to encroach that close to the "street''. U. rearrangement/subdivision: One question that isn't clear for me .... Does the owner of the -intend to build anything on the portion of Outlet A they plan to acquire? Th way we see it is that because Outlet Is by de ition an outlet it cannot be developed,.. ithout su dividing it to make it b ildable . Our preference would be o replat the en ire property as described below in '#1 (and may e my attached dra ing will help explain). / The cleanest way is to replat the entire property (both Outlet A an-■■-and ne t. I I 2. he next potential wo,uld be to replat Outlet A int one new outlet and one new Lot to be comb ned wit with ONE ,cl eed & special lot combinatio agreement. / 3. An then there is t ile least desirable method ... A si le lot line re rrangement to break off new o ot from Outlo but this oes n~n_-buildable atus of eitlil er outlot.... The description would be somethin · xisting ~escription pl a Outlot A described as----" Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono , MN 55356 1 City of Orono Variance Application Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Main : 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Application # q 2:= ::Jj~ Date Received : '2,j '2i{Ji...- D..J,. A .l11 ,I' Staff: _t)v=--V-~-1---'V_IL-~ __ _ Fee : _$;_7_00 ______ _ Renewal : $350 ---'--"-..:__ ____ _ After-the-fact: $1,400 Double Fee Escrow Fee: $600 / $2,500 This application form must be completed in full. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application . Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFOR~ TION: ( . · \ Site Address: w7 tf O B'1.>w ,J Q.o/1?) fiJ;,{L-.U-Ni>)Cl.e~_s l4f'l1'~S,br'~J Property Identification Number (PIN): -=7--''l'-l_.1,&..._,,Z==----'3.c._l _I o=c.....=.o-=o:.....1"-------------- Date Property Acquired (month/year): l, I 02.. ~ Yes, I own the adjacent parcel~ Zoning District: L.Q.-1 lc ~ -7Ko N. -e,(l.ow,,J £2..o~ -3411 '£, '2-s II ooQ,2... APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) Name : :totl~ v +-~ t,t-~~ M &~vtG Phone(home): 9~7,.,.'-(7(,-11-., Phone(work): l,11,..-'-"1..S:-2'(,K£ Complete Address : 7go rJ . o/to1'1-, Ro~'?> City, State & ZIP Lo,J b &.f\lLE" MN 55:sS"l. Email: :X::-.S-rAv•G @. ~~~-e-6u Fax: l.1'1..-(,2.L/-Zo5:l.. OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) Name : o"tl 1> +-PH-0€.E:,c ,,t-\/1G · Phone (home): 9<;:2 -•f1t,, -I If, Phone (work): Complete Address: 7g0 ('J. e>l2owN B.,.:,/l?b City, State & ZIP . LorLb L.~E Nl,J 5s;3s::l Email: :fSTt<Y• t, e, u~,-1 . E?l,"'' Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 CITY OF ORONO #3547 Description of Request 790 N. Brown Road We are requesting approval for a reasonable building footprint on a lot adjacent to our primary residence. The lot was created in 1968 as part of a single-family home subdivision and has been assessed and taxed at a rate equivalent to buildable vacant lakeshore for more than forty years. It is a uniquely shaped property on Long Lake with hills, wetlands and lakeshore. A combination of new regulatory additions since the lot boundaries were established has made the buildable footprint extremely small and impractical to support the intended use. Since we acquired the property in 2002, this lot has been categorized at vacant-land lakeshore and taxed as a value that clearly implies an expectation to place a house on the property. Although the assessed market value has declined from a peak of $675,000 in 2010, the property continues to be taxed at a market value of $585,000. The allowable building footprint is severely limited as a result of the "bluff" setback restrictions. We believe these regulations are overly restrictive for this specific property and are mitigated by the following: i) The "bluff" line determined by the city was created by the construction of a driveway bed built into the hill sometime between 1870 and 1910. As a result, this is very different from the typical situation for which bluff setback provisions were developed to protect against erosion of undisturbed land. It is important to note that no material erosion has occurred from this driveway bed in more than 100 years. The proposed building footprint maintains at least a 15' setback from the downhill side ofthis driveway bed. ii) No grading will be required at the rear of the proposed building footprint. iii) The "bluff" is much more appropriately characterized as a hill. In the area near the proposed building footprint, the degree of slope is significantly less than the rest of the lot. City inspectors and council members are encouraged to stand on the driveway bed and make their own assessment. iv) This is a wooded hill protected from erosion by trees that will be maintained on the hill to prevent erosion. No trees will be removed on or below the driveway bed. I q We are also requesting a reduction of the front yard setback variance to i,5'. The property is at the end of a private wooded road and the proposed changes would not change the character of the neighborhood. In fact, we are seeking approval of a significantly more restrictive set of setback measurements than what exist for the adjacent property's tennis court. A sewer line was installed in this subdivision in approximately 2004, which can be completed to serve this property (with additional assessments}, thereby eliminating any need for placement RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 CITY OF ORONO #3547 of a septic system. Easement rights will also need to be granted to the adjacent 780 property as the line was terminated on the vacant lot. We are seeking to either market this lot or build a new primary residence. Upon purchasing this property and throughout the nearly ten-year period of ownership, we have understood that this was a "buildable" lot. We have been taxed at a rate consistent with this understanding and believe that a refusal by the city to allow a reasonable variance that takes into account the objectives of the regulations would result in a taking of personal property. RECEIVED FEB 2 2 20 1 '.2 CITY OF ORONO #3547 I Address : 7"/(l 4l#W M ~0 ;1 11 M Date:. 2 /2,,2./tl. Prepared by:. _ __::(;....:lt..:..;~c..:..,,v:~·8.:....:..(/t.~&:--'--l---';f-'-"-J' l'o:....:..O ..:C..:.l~A'-'~__,;:.,;"J'__..,:.....;=--A/''--.._c _. ___________ _ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK .ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) <Ev 75-250' 250-500' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X = Length Width X = X = B. Garage X = C. Driveway X = X = D. Sidewalk X = X = E. Patio/Deck X = X = F. Landscape X = Underlain X = By Plastic X = G. Retaining Walls X = H . Other X = TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 3 5; 07(: A 0 + B X 100 = PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE (including existing hardcover to be retained) A. House ______ x ______ = Length Width X = X = B. Garage X = C . Driveway X = X = D. Sidewal k X = X = E. Patio/Deck f X = X = F. Landscape X = Underlain X = By Plastic X = G. Retaining Walls X = H . Other X = TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOT AL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A () + B J S,,~?( X 100 :: -21 - 500-1000' _____ O_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 .15, c;,76" S.F. B Q % 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. 0 S.F. .1.S, o?tr S .F. 0 % A B Jo#N D. 5,A\}'1£, 112-ACr F ~1-5-tb t/Zz./rt,, 12-75 HARDCOVER CAL~ION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 5-250' 250-500' 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER I~ ZONE A. House Sfrt:;.D X = L1t S.F. Length Width X = S.F. X = S.F. B. Garage X = S.F. C. Driveway X = S.F. X = S.F. D. Sidewalk X = S.F. X = S.F. E. Patio/Deck X = S.F. X = S.F. F. Landscape X ::::: S.F. Underlain X = S.F. By Plastic X = S.F. G. Retaining X = S.F. Walls H. Other X = S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE Ji2 S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 2..71Zl S.F. B A ;qq_ + B 27/Zl X 100 = 0.73 % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X = 2554-S.F. Length Width X = S.F. X = S.F. B. Garage X = S.F. C. Driveway X = t:/1./.,? S.F. X = S.F. D. Sidewalk X = S.F. X = S.F. E. Patio/Deck r X = ~f}: S.F. X = S.F. F. Landscape X = S.F. Underlain X = S.F. By Plastic X = S.F. G. Retaining X = S.F. Walls H. Other X = S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 3~34 S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREAi ZONE Z.7111 221-::z.t S.F. 8 A J33 + B X 100 = /1,,1..7 % i (_.) f--.. <....) \ \ '-...-, \ ', \ \ \ I \ ' \ I \ ~. "Ii,~~ ~ ~ .Sj,"iG~, Z 7"8"1c_fi-~·~.~•,t , {1,v~ olii CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN D. STAVIG OF TRACT F, R.L.S . NO . 1275 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LONG LAKE ... ---.... / ' I ' I \ , \ . \ I \ I \ \ \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I I I \ \ + 0 \ -c-1-,, ~ \rJ>-',, ,, ' \ \ \ ' \ ' \ ,-, I \ I \ I \ I \ •I I I \ I I '--, ""'''"" R{VISKJH OATC 2-22-12 OIIAWN CHCO<IO 11'3S8 . '·/ ,.,.,,. ~ Tract F, Reg istered Land Survey No., 1275, files of Reg istrar ofTltles, Hennepin County, Mlnnftsota This survey Intends to sho'W the boundaries of the above described property, :: ~~:~h~ S:~~~~~!t:!~~~~ ~H~1l~ ;;el~:r ~k~~J:• tomraohy northerly of the old driveway. and topography from field shots southerly ..2J the old driveway. It d~ not purport to show any other knprovements or encroachment&. • : Denotes tree to be removed . o : Iron marker -986--: Existing contournne · ~: Denotes proposed cont01X line ~: Denotes proposed spot elevation Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum OCSCRl'T'°" \ POSSl~LE HOUSE, GRADING AND TREES IN THA,T AREA SHOWN $ GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ONSUL TING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, SITE PLANNEAS 445 NORTH WILi.OW DRIVE, LONG LAKE, MN. &6356 952~73~141 1,,. I HEREBY CERTIFYlKATTHIS Pl.AH., SPECIFtCATION, OR REPOR W,t,S PREP AR.ED ev ME OR UNDER Jt'f DIRECT SUPER'JISION AHO SCM.£ 1"'=30' THAT I l,N. A DULY LICEN SED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND~ I SURVEYOR UNDER lliE LA~ OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. OATt 1-6-12 JOO NO. 11-358 I MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis Chris Mattson Street files, 780~and "790" Brown Road North Mike Gaffron January 19, 20 Sewer Availability for "790" Brown Road North The vacant property at "790" Brown Road north was not assessed for sewer as part of the 'Homestead Road' sewer project (see attached Resolution No. 5243 and Assessment Roll as well as Public Works Director Greg Gappa's maps of the project area). The property is not provided with a sewer stub. Per the attached as-built maps, there is a clean- out ("termination flushing connection") located in the cul-de-sac near the boundary between 780 and 790, and a single connection stub aimed at 790 intended to serve 780, perhaps because the connection for the sewer at 780 may be intended to stay north of the driveway, which puts it into the adjacent commonly-owned lot at 790. The current Sewer Connection Charge which would be due if 790 is determined to be buildable is $8,250 (2012 Fee Schedule) which would be due prior to issuance of a building permit. The property owner would bear the costs of a SAC fee, connection permit and the costs of the grinder station needed to make the connection to this pressure sewer. City permit records indicate 780 has not yet been connected to the sewer. When 780 is connected to the sewer, if its connection route extends through 790, an easement should be created or the two lots should be combined. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5 24 3 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WEST FARM (HOMESTEAD) AREA SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of sanitary sewer in the West Farm ( Homestead) area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby f0tmd to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2005 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.25% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2005. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at anytime thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. Partial prepayment may be allowed in accordance with ordinances which are existing or which the City may choose to adopt in the future. Page 1 of 2 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ ___...5 ...... 2 .............. 4-----'=~-- 4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 25th day of October, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 2 of 2 Assessment Roll for West Farm (Homestead) Sanitary Sewer Project Date: 25 October 2004 Municipality: ORONO Levy Number: Total Project Assessment: $44,800.00 PID Number 27-118-23-43-0016 27-118-23-44-0016 34-118-23-11-0002 34-118-23-11-0001 34-118-23-11-0007 34-118-23-12-0006 34-118-23-12-0005 Total Assessment Total Principal $6,400.00 $6,400.00 $6,400.00 $6,400.00 $6,400.00 $6,400.00 $6,400.00 $44,800.00 Municipal Code: 38 Levy Description: West Farm (Homestead) Sanitary Sewer Project Interest Rate: 6.25% Number of Years Payable: 15 Property Owner's Name J Cerny & I Cerny J. W. & J. A. Pierpont J. D. & P. M. Stavid R. D. Benson & B.A. Luikens V. & D. Stein H. & I. Hutter T. M. Schultze & M. L. Steil Property Street Address 1849 West Fann Road 1801 West Farm Road 780 Brown Road N 776 Brown Road N 800 Brown Road N 770 Brown Road N 744 Brown Road N Property Owner's Mailing Address 930 Harbor Lane N Plymouth MN 55447 1801 West Farm Road Long Lake MN 55356 780 Brown Road N Long Lake MN 55356 776 Brown Road N Long Lake MN 55356 800 Brown Road N Long Lake MN 55356 770 Brown Road N Long Lake MN 55356 744 Brown Road N Long Lake MN 55356 Cl, ~ IA ~ I ~d I I I I ~t I I I I -I z 0 -:;g__- --===t I (D :;o __, CEMAIN(j) (16) f HOMESTEAD RO~ CONNECT! TO EX. 4" F<DRCEMAG: 0~ ;- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 :§: z/ ~ 1 1/4" SERVICE & URB STOP (TYPICAL) 1n10 I I I (7) SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS ORONO, MINNESOTA FIGURE 2 HOMESTEAD ROAD SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION 13903141 F02.DWG DATE: 10/03/03 COMM: 139031 41 (ot (D (1D) 1801 -j~ 0 (17) __ \ T~INATION -- FLUS~ING CONNe __ .. \ .. ........ ~. RM . ,,)-_:;';;,,;ao~~~=:.,;;==o,.C~ \ ~ -790 (3) ~ (2) 780@ • (l • Bonestroo .l!JI Rosene ~~; Anderlik & L---,00 2 7° • \J • Associates Scale In feel Engineers & Architects 1w eo..onct Y/\C~W.1 28 February 2012 John & Phoebe Stavig 780 Brown Road N Long Lake, MN 55356 SUBJECT: Zoning Application #12-3547 CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 The City of Orono is required to notify you within fifteen (15) business days as to the status of your application for variances for property located at 790 Brown Road N (PIO 34-118-23-110-0003) Our preliminary review indicates that your application is complete. Your application is scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on Monday, March 19, 2012. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. Please make sure that you or your representative is available to attend the meeting. You will be mailed a staff report regarding your application the Friday prior to the meeting date. Contact me at 952.249.4627 or by email at mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us should you have any questions in the meantime. Please note, after March 30th I will be out on maternity leave. Should my maternity leave begin prior to this date, you may contact either Christine Mattson at 952.249.4620 or Mike Gaffron at 952.249.4622 in my absence. Sincerely, City of Orono Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us Bluff definitions: Bluff means a topographic feature, such as a hill, cliff or embankment, having the following characteristics (An area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance of 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): bluff. (1) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; (2) (3) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the water body; The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater; and (4) The slope must drain toward the water body. Bluff impact zone means a bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a Bluff, toe of the, means the lower point of a 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. Bluff, top of the, means that point on the cross section of a bluff below which the slope becomes more than 18 percent and above which the average slope for a distance of 50 feet or more is 18 percent or less. Laser Labels Compatible with Avery® 5160® Template 38 27-118-23 44 0019 SAMANTHA CAPEN MULDOON PAUL D MULDOON 1801 WESTFARMRD ORONO MN 55356 38 34-118-23 11 0003 JOHN & PHOEBE STA VIG 780 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 Etiquettes laser Compatible avec le gabarit 5160® de Avery® ... Use 3M Template Feed Paper 3100-A, 3100-B, or 3100-C 38 34-118-23 11 0001 BARBARA A LUIKENS RICHARD B BENSON 776 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23110006 MARYL STEIL ET AL 744 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 RECEIVED JAN 1 8 2012 CITY OF ORONO www.3M.com/labels 1-800-395-1223 38 34-118-23 11 0002 JOHN &PHOEBESTAVIG 780 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 11 0007 JON M PENDLETON 800 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 31\11 #3547 # RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 CITY OF ORONO 3NI ... r------------------------·~-----------------.... u C1I ' CD CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN D. ST AVIG OF TRACT F, R.L.S. NO. 1275 ~iENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA [ , . 17-L/ r;:.....--~~..:...:..::..-:::.✓• ---- LAKE APPLICATION ESCROW AGREEM~ ..-?_t::==-.47 Zoning Application # / Z. -~ • 9 ..., _,. r-·-· AGREEMENT made this I ff day of ;J,,,1,v.,.A 4 "1 , 20 I Z--, by and between the CITY OF ORONO, a Minne~9ta municipal corporation ("City'') and __________________ _ :--,.;,i* tJ -v. 5T·Avt - [a corporation -optionan ("Applicant"). Recitals 1 . Applicant has filed Zoning Application # j 1- review plans for --""-!--?,O,N~~~"-'-'-'""""'--:1--+-,,--::--c,...--:,r,----+-.,-------------- located at ~ · the "Subject Property") as more fully sho attached hereto. 2. Applicant requests the City to review said plans which requires City approval including ___ _ 3. The City is willing to commence its review of the application and incur costs associated with said review only if the Applicant establishes an escrow to ensure reimbursement to the City of its costs. NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. 'D!=POSIT OF ESCROW FUNDS. Contemporaneously with the execution of this Escrow Agreement, the Applicant shall deposit $ 2.fj QD with the City. All accrued interest, if any, shall be paid to the City to reimburse the City for its cost in administering the escrow account. 2. PURPOSE OF ESCROW. The purpose of the escrow is to guamntee reimbursement to the City for all out-of-pocket costs the City has incurred (including planning, engineering, or legal consultant review) or will incur in meeting with the Applicant, rejtg the plans, and preparing agenda packet material for City Council review of application # I Z.. -,?J.Ed ~ Eligible expenses shall be consistent with expenses the Applicant would be responsible for under a zoning and subdivision application. 3. MONTHLY BILLING. As the City receives consultant bills for incurred costs, the City will in turn send a bill to the Applicant. Applicant shall be responsible for payment to the City within 30 days of the Applicant's receipt of bill. 4. DISBURSEMENT FROM ESCROW ACCOUNT. In the event that the Applicant does not make payment to the City within the timeframe outlined in #3 above, the City may draw from the escrow account without further approval of the Applicant to reimburse the City for eligible expenses the City has incurred. The City shall notify the Applicant of such draw and the nature of the expense for which the reimbursement is being made. If the Escrow amount falls below 75% of the original escrow amount the Applicant shall deposit additional sums as directed by the City, or the City shall discontinue all review. 5. CLOSING ESCROW. The Balance on deposit in the escrow, if any, shall be returned to the Applicant when the review has been completed. 6. CERTIFY UNPAID CHARGES. If the project is abandoned by Applicant, or if the eligible expenses incurred by the City exceed the amount in escrow, the City shall have the right to certify the unpaid balance e subject property pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 415.01 and 366.012. APPLIC~~T / _~.b sy: ,,. Wr I -/ Its: / --------------(__. / -10 - EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tract F, Registered Land Survey No., 1275, files of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota RECEIVED JAN 18 2012 CITY OF ORONO II I IIII I II llll 111111111111111 CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY ORONO, MN 55356- *2012-00149* DATE ISSUED: 02/22/2012 (952) 249-4600 FAX: (952) 249-4616 ADDRESS PIN : 780 BROWN RD N : 34-118-23-11-0002 LEGALDESC : REG. LAND SURVEY NO. 1275 : LOT 000 BLOCK 000 PERMIT TYPE : ESCROW FEE -APPLICANT PROPERTY TYPE : RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION TYPE : ESCROW FEE -APPLICANT NOTE: 12-3547 ZONING APP APPLICANT ST A VIG, JOHN & PHOEBE 780 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE, MN 55356- ( 612) 625-2485 OWNER STA VIG, JOHN & PHOEBE 780 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE, MN 55356- AGREEMENT AND SWORN STATEMENT The work for which this permit is issued shall be performed according to the approved plans and specifications, applicable City approvals, and the State Building Code. This permit is for only the work described and does not grant permission for additional or related work which requires separate permits. All provisions oflaws and ordinances governing this type of work shall be compied with whether or not specified herein. This permit will expire and become null and void if construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days of the date of issuance, or if construction is suspended for a period of 180 days at any time after work has commenced. The applicant is responsible for assuring all required inspections are requested in conformance with the State Building Code. This permit may be revoked at any time for due cause. I Applicant Permitee Signature Date ESCROW FEE -APPLICANT TOTAL Issued By Signature SEP ARA TE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR WORK OTHER THAN DESCRIBED ABOVE. Date 2,500.00 2,500.00 I City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Oror,o MN 55356 Receipt No: 3.006459 952-249-4600 Feb 22, 2012 Johr, Stavig Planning and Zoning 2012-00149 780 Brown Rd N 2,500.00 101-22205 Deferred Rev-Developer Deposit Planning and Zoning· 12-3547 780 Brown Rd N 700.00 101-34420 Corid Use-Variance-Dev Fees Total: Check Check No: 6028 Payor: John Stavi1:1 Total Appliea: Change Tendered: 02/22/2012 01:15PM 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 .00 RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 CITY OF ORONO #3547