Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Project Packet
CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 TO: Sven Gustafson Stonewood Design-Build 7 407 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55426 ZONING FILE: #05-3102 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 26, 2006 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Revised Plan Variance Confirmation DATE OF MEETING: July 24, 2006 Council took the following action: Motion to confirm that the Alternate plan as presented is acceptable as meeting the intent of the 2005 variance approval. VOTE: 5 FOR O AGAINST If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Council. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. ROLL MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 24, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. The Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Council Members Bob Sansevere, Jim Murphy, Jim White, and Lili McMillan. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffron, City Attorney Matt Brokl, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Barbara Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA 1. APPROVE/AMEND Items 3, 8, 9, 10 , 11, 12, and 13 were added to the Consent Agenda and Item No. 4 was removed from the Consent Agenda. Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 10, 2006 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the minutes of the July 10, 2006 City Council meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS None. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS -RALPH KEMPF, REPRESENTATIVE Kempf stated he had nothing to report but would remain for questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS None ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *3. #05-3102 STONEWOOD DESIGN BUILD, 920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH-VARIANCE - REVIEW REVISED PLAN Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, Appiication #05-3102, to approve the alternate plan for the property located at 920 Brown Road South. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGEl @ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: ~dministrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Planning Director C.,_) Date: July 20, 2006 Item No.: Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #05-3102 Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Rd. S.- V ariance -Review of Revised Site Plan and Building Plans List of Exhibits A -Exhibits Submitted by Applicant 7-13-06 (Reviewed by PC on 7-17-06) 1 -Proposed footprint 2 -Alternate footprint 3 -Left Side Elevation 4 -Front Elevation 5 -Site photos, plat map, airphoto B -PC Memo and Selected Exhibits of 7-6-06 Summary of Issue: Site plan and building plans submitted for building permit approval did not match those upon which the variance approvals were predicated. Council reviewed this on June 26 and referred it to Planning Commission for recommendation as to whether the revisions are still in keeping with the intent of the 2005 variance approval. Planning Commission Recommendation: Applicants submitted additional exhibits prior to the Planning Commission meeting, including an Alternate footprint with an angled garage (Exhibit A-2). Planning Commission ultimately voted 4-1 to recommend that Council accept the Alternate footprint as meeting the goals and intent of the prior approval. Staff Recommendation Council should review the applicant's recent submittals. Both abutting neighbors were in attendance at the PC meeting and indicated support for the new proposed house, with no preference expressed as to whether the proposed plan or the Alternate plan should go forward. A number of Planning Commissioners recalled that the angle of the garage was significant in their deliberations a year ago, and 4 of 5 concluded that the Alternate proposal is acceptable as meeting their intent to minimize the impacts of the side setback encroachments. Applicant noted his client had not been advised of the Alternate plan, but apparently applicant is confident the buyer will accept that plan. Staff recommends approval of the Alternate Plan as meeting the intent of the 2005 variance approvals. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to confirm that the Alternate plan is acceptable as meeting the intent of the 2005 variance approval. If the Alternate plan is acceptable, no resolution will be required. If it is not acceptable, Council should provide as much direction as possible to the applicant regarding what would constitute an acceptable plan. ~r ~I , 0511 ",, '----.! 11 \r r '),::,i--q l>.. PROPOSED ELE VA TIONS < N' ' ~ ·,,_ '·, ',, ', ' 0 -::-7 5 EX!S Tl ~~G 0 .93 AC RE 1 10 68.3 4 ·1 SOUTH 3220Sf./Q.07 A,C X O % ~ '·o-SF H C f=l2ofa=ED ~ . ~-.:.-:is~ \ HOUS£--~-- \ ~---~ !j r ·--,9__,,, · 11 1 1 ,n u i l c-.i ~ -z 1~ NORTH I PROPOSED 0 .9 3 ACRE 110 97 20 SOUTH AND PROP °' 2.0 LO1 NORTH S 25'0 + 15340SF / 0 .35AC HC X 30% = 4600SF ~ - l"'\C.\alVll,C...:> V l"\l'\11"'\l'l\.l'L.. < 200 FT WIDTH SETBACKS IV" 0.93 ACRE 110 . , FRONT =50 68.3 ~ I '° (/) ACRE L.U A~Kt:. LOT WIDT lb1 \ SIDES=30 41 SOUTH . '2-REA -50 -._____ 242 #£• \~\..~ / N 89°19' 3:lf"·-£----...._ 400.04 ;,i,.s~~ ,_ ..--.•-..~•--~...;ia-_ •~'1,:."V,ff<..~ t:o I SIDE SE ?,6 Q .,.~ or:---/ 9~'2-~i- PROPOSED ELEV A TIONS GARAGE FLOOR=954.5 '--....io·•~':}. \ i11r"'5" \ "' ~ TOP OF FOUNDATION =954.8 LOWEST FLOOR=946.0 (WO) J· 0 SF (0%) o~-30 60 .· -·90 I '=~· I· . ~ SCALE IN .··FEET ~ HOUSE IS 9.0% OF TOT AL LOT AREA f PROJECT NO . Jsook DI Ill 11/A Ir.' ~ NOll~l-GNO::l ~ ..LON J..1NO l.~019 - PROPOSED ELEV A T!ONS GARAGE FLOOR=954.5 TOP OF FOUNDATION =954.8 LOWEST Fl00R=946.0 (WO) O SF '.(0%).,··. 0 30 60 90 SCALE IN -··FEET -,s,,ti,.<:> = EXISTING SPOT. ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSEo···sPOT ELEVATION ~-· . = 0lRECTiON SURF ACE DRAINAGE 3 EXISTING \'~ 0.93 AC.RE ~ - 110 Ill)(/) 68.3 PROPOSED VARIANCES A-S:I; 2.0 ACRE TO. EXISTING 0.93 ACRE LOT WIDTH FROM 200 FEET TO EXISTING 110 FEET ADDRESS = 920 BROWN ROAD S. PID#10-117-23-12-0002 LOT AREA = 40400 SF/ 0.93 AC 775 825 2155 / 214•J /f3Sl Page 1 of 1 A ,BOO 930 Page 1 of 1 Date Application Received: 5/26/06 Date Application Considered as Complete: 5/26/06 60-Day Review Period Expires: 7/25/06 TO: Chair Rahn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director DATE: July 6, 2006 SUBJECT: #05-3102 Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Rd. S.-Variance - Zoning District: Lot Area/Width: Review of Revised Site Plan and Building Plans -Public Hearing RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre/200' minimum 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre)/ 110' Summary of Issue: Site plan and building plans submitted for building permit approval do not match those upon which the variance approvals were predicated. Per the conditions of the Resolution, staff requested Council review of the revised proposal for a determination of whether the revisions are still in keeping with the intent of the variance approval. Council at its June 26 meeting referred this matter to the Planning Commission for review. List o~ibits -esolution No. 5329 including Approved Building Plans and Site Plan 6-13-05 B evised Site Plan Dated 5-18-06 C -Revised Building Plans Submitted May 26, 2006 D -PC Minutes 4-18-05, 5-16-05; Council Minutes 6-13-05 E -PC Memos 4-14-05 and 5-12-05 Neighbor Comments, June 2006 2005-2006 Site Plan Comparisons -Staff Memo to Council 6-22-06 I -Council Minutes 6-26-06 Applicant had a buyer for this property in 2005, submitted plans and worked through the variance review process, revising plans in response to Planning Commission concerns. Based on a specific set of building plans and site plan which Planning Commission found acceptable, lot area, lot width and left and right side setback variances for a house with portions 20' rather than 30' from the side lot line, were granted in June 2005 to construct a new residence on the property. The specific site plan and building plans were referenced in the approval resolution. Condition 1 of the variance approval resolution states: "Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review". #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. July 6, 2006 Page2 The original buyer for the property went away, and a new buyer was eventually found. Applicant had new plans drawn up suiting the new buyer's wishes; however, the extent and location of encroachments of the side setback on both sides does not match those upon which the variances were accepted. The newly submitted plans, while still proposing a house with 20' side setbacks, exhibit a significantly greater area of encroachment of the side setback than the house plan that was approved, and a different location for those encroachments. It is staff's conclusion that the degree of additional encroachment proposed in 2006 is not in conformity with City codes, and therefore is subject to further review. Because the side setback variance was discussed at some length at the two Planning Commission meetings in 2005, and because comments in the minutes suggest that minimization of the degree of encroachment was key to the side setback approvals, staff requested Council's review of the current proposal. Council referred the matter back to Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The two abutting neighbors have submitted letters indicating their approval of the current plans. UPDATED LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area/Width: RR-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acre) 200' Actual 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre) 110' Yards/Setbacks Required Existing Initial 2005 2005 2005 2006 Approved Proposed (2005) Revised Proposal Plan Plan Plan Front Yard 50' (removed) 131' 97' 120' 97' Rear Yard 50' (removed) 163' 178' 164' 165' Right Side Yard 30' (removed) 15' 30' 20'* 20' (South) (att. Gar.) Left Side Yard (North) 30' (removed) 15.5' 18.0' 20'* 20' Lake (929.4' contour) 75' (removed) 180' ± 200'+ 175' ± 190'± Average Lakeshore No (All homes No encroach-No No No Encroach-in line) ment encroach-encroach-encroach- ment ment ment ment * Approval was based on a specific site layout with angled garage that limited the encroachment of the side yards #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. July 6, 2006 Page3 Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area 40,385 s.f. (0.93 ac.) Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Total Area Zone in Zone 0-75' 3,220 s.f. 75-250' 21,825 s.f. 250-500' 15,340 s.f. Totals 40,385 s.f. Total Structural Coverage Allowed: 6,058s.f. (15.0 %) Initial Proposal: 3,463 s.f. ( 8.6 %) Revised Plan: 3,714 s.f. ( 9.2 %) Approved Plan: 3,429 s.f. ( 8.5 %) 2006 Proposal: 4,127 s.f. (10.2%) Allowed Existing 2006 Proposed Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover 0% (to be removed) 0 s.f. (0%) 5,456 s.f. (25 %) (to be removed) 3,162 s.f. (14.5 %) 4,602 s.f. (30%) (to be removed) 4,552 s.f. (29.7 %) 10,058 sf (to be removed) 7,714 s.f. Summary of Issues for Consideration 1. The 2006 proposed site plan and building plans have different locations and magnitudes of side setback encroachments as compared to the plans approved in 2005. Do these changes cause any potential negative impacts to the neighborhood? 2. Are the hardships that supported granting of the side setback variances in 2005 still valid for the revised site plan and building plans? 3. Are the impacts of the added length of encroachment of both side yards appropriate in the context of this neighborhood and the locations of neighboring homes? 4. Are there any other issues with this proposed rebuild? Staff Recommendation Planning Commission is requested to make a recommendation to Council as to whether the side setback encroachments proposed in 2006 meet with the intent of the 2005 approval. This item will be brought back to the Council with Planning Commission's recommendations on July 24. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5_32 f:fl A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO lYIUNICIP AL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-420(b) FILE NO. 05-3102 WHEREAS, Jeffrey Sven Gustafson, a single person (hereinafter "the applicant"), represented by Kathryn Alexander, is owner of the property located at 920 Brovvn Road South within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City 11 ) and legally described as follows: The West 400 feet of the South 110 feet of the Nmih 580.38 feet of the N01ihwest Quarter of the N01iheast Quarter of Section 10, Township 117, Range 23, except road, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the prope1iy 11 ); (also identified as PINS 10-117-23 12 0002); and ·wHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an application requesting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420(b) to pem1itthe construction of a single family residence on a lot of area 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre) and width of 110 feet where a lot area of 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) and width of200' are normally required, and to permit such residence structure to be located 20' from the nmih and south side lot lines where a 30' side setback is normally required. WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Miru1esota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning C01m11ission held a public hearing on April 18, 2005 and May 16, 2005, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opp01iunity to speak thereon. NOvV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FliNDINGS 1. This application vvas revie.wed as Zoning File #05-3102. 2. The prope1iy is located in the RR-lB Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres and a minimum lot width of 200 feet for residential development. The property is approximately 0.93 acres in dry buildable area and approximately 110 feet in defined width. Page 1 of 4 A. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL t:;. '.ir. e}J lf"ll NO. ~ Q,,ll k! i)j· 3. The Plamring Commission reviewed the variance application at a public healing held on April 18, 2005 and reviewed a revised plan on May 16, 2005. Plan11ing Commission subsequently recommended approval of the requested variances for the revised plan by a vote of 5-1 based on the following findings and hardships: a) The property has an existing house and is witlrin the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The applicant has agreed to pay the costs of extension of a pressure sewer line down Brown Road from the existing Webber Hills sewer lateral, and therefore does not need to provide a septic system for the proposed new residence. b) There is no adjacent land available for applicant to acquire to make the property more confonning in area or width. c) The zoning standards when applied to this property limit the width of the home and attached garage to 50', which will result in a home that is longer than it is wide, causing a greater visual impact as viewed from the two adjacent homes than is typical in the immediate neighborhood. Allowing side setbacks of20' instead of the required 30' will result in a house that is better proportioned to fit into the neighborhood, as long as the extent of the encroaclm1ent of the side yards is limited to primarily the house in the southerly side yard and the garage on the northerly side yard. This will not create a situation of increased visual density nor be out of character with the neighborhood. The applicant has provided a site plan meeting these goals. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and reconunendations of the Planning Commission, repo1is by City staff, comments by the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance 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 prope1iy in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring prope1iy; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficuity; is necessary to preserve a substantial prope1iy right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the sphit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 4 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. fi, S! 2 f} CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420(b) to pennit the construction of a single family residence on a lot of area 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre) and width of 110 feet where a lot area of 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) and width of 200' are nomrnlly required, and to pem1it such residence structure to be located 20' from the north and south side lot lines vvhere a 30' side setback is nom1ally required, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require fmiher Planning Conunission and City Council review. 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are pemussive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building pemut within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (June 13, 2006). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the tem1s and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically tem1inate any autholity granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the tem1s of this resolution and on behalf of the applicant and the applicant's heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of June, 2005. ATTEST: & ~ /' ~-::::::.,-··-.. ·· ' (J).,.};J.J~~ Barbara A. Pete1(on, lVIayor Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL No 5 3 2 ~ ·----'----- The foregoing instrument was aclrnowledged before me on this/7 day of(\..,:t,~-\ _ , 2005 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Min11esota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN cr1''" // The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on thief cf day of <.../.--v~tJL , 2005 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk .of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corp'oration and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. RACHEL DODGE NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA t My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2010 ·~2~~~~~~~~~?2-Za~...«~:-~ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN '--k._cr.-,t_.,-(i__,,L,.-·( Notary Public {J'OL~ 0 This instrument was aclmowledged before me this I'"? day of Oc.:to b-c .. .r----, 2005 by Jeffrey Sven Gustafson, a single person. /} ··11 1 I .. / I ,/·1; ,1,1 ,,, ~-/. 7--il: , . ...__ __ _ , W,1/' //L.A:/.._,,. I~ ,,Notary Public Page 4 of 4 EXISTING 0.93 ACRE 1 lO 68.3 EXISTING HOUSE ----1--f--J PROPOSED ELEV A TIONS GARAGE FLOOR=954.5 TOP OF FOUNDATION =954.8 LOWEST FLOOR=946.0 (WO) #920 0 SF (0%) 0 30 60 90 SCALE lN FEET = EXISTING SPOT ELEV A TION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION .-,,::0-· • = DIRECTION SURF ACE DRAINAGE PROJECT NO. DAT§EPT. 12, 2004 \ EXIST \ HOUSF \ ... ,c,~O.C:.1 ;,- I L/") (/) ~L. }~Jt:: I PAGE -- EXHIBIT A-1 RESOLUTION NO. 5329 PROPOSED PROPOSED VARIANCES 0.93 ACRE 2.0 ACRE TO EXISTING 0.93 ACRE 110 LOT WIDTH FROM 200 FEET TO EXISTING 110 FEET 121 AC ''l SF HC \ E ;< IS Tlf\lG HOUSE #930 HC HOUSE IS 7. 1 % OF TOT AL LOT AREA BUILDING PERMIT SURVE,Y FRANCIS RESIDENCE for STONEWOOD DESIGN ,,,.··•'/ ., ADDRESS = 920 BROWN ROAD S. PID#10-117-23-12-0002 LOT AREA = 40400 SF/ 0.93 AC ~ Land Frank R. Cardarelle Surveyor 6440 FL YING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN. 55344 952-941-3031 _____ .. ___ _ I I JI I l ~ : ~ I I I Ju___ ---~---;;...--=.-;;.- EXHIBIT A-2 RESOLUTION NO. 5329 c,l_...._.,...-. .......... ..,, Ii! i i U1 w Ii I 6 6 OF& I l ' 1 I '""" C-3. ~-.. ,- {-) '•,.,\"··. EXHIBIT A-3 RESOLUTION NO. 5329 c-~ ~---- C-l-j - I I i I PROPOSED ELEV A TIONS GARAGE FLOOR=954.5 TOP OF FOUNDATION =954.8 LOWEST FLOOR=946.0 (WO) 0 SF (0%} '' 0 30 60 90 SCALE IN 'FEET = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION ....?' · = DIRECTION SURF ACE DRAINAGE EXISTING 0.93 ACRE 110 68.3 41 SOUTH PROPOSED ACRE EXISTING SF HOUSE SF #930 PROPOSED VARIANCES 2.0 ACRE TO EXISTING 0.93 ACRE LOT WIDTH FROM 200 FEET TO EXISTING 110 FEET SIDE SETBACKS FROM 30 FEET TO 20 FEET ( '✓\ \ HC :<: F'D3/4 7.8 EAST : : / AND 4.0 NORTH . OF PROP.COR. I . I · ..... •.1'.~<?J°3 :1 -::If,----/ o./Y O)~ co~ / 0<v POND ~· I LOT AREA = 40400 SF/ 0.93 AC HOUSE IS 9.0% OF TOT AL LOT AREA PROJECT NO. BOOK DATE JAN 16, 2006 PAGE REVISIONS 5/ 18/06 REV HO, HC BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY HULBERT. RESIDENCE for STONEWOOD DESIGN ~ Land Frank R. Cardarelle Surveyor 6440 FL YING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN. 55344 952-941-3031 7407 Wayzata Blvd. Mumeapolis, MN 55426 PH 952-471-0584 FX 952-471-0639 www. Stonewood. com MN I.D. #20330592 Mr&Mrs. Skeie 860 Brown Road South Orono,1v1N To \XlhomltMayConce1n: STONEWOOD DESIGN I BUILD LLC Monday,June19,2006 We have reviewed the plans that Stonewood Design Build has prepared for the vacant property located at 920 Brown Road South and approve of the proposed home design and location. Signed:-----"'i-,,&-Ut~d.4~,£~4,-=--L--r· __ Date: cc07o/O~ 7407 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55426 PH 952-471-0584 FX 952-471-0639 www. Stonewood. com MN I.D. #20330592 STONEWOOD DESIGN I BUILD LLC Monday,J1u1e19,2006 Shantelle Sumner & Josh Odegard 930 Brown Road South Orono, 1VIN To WhomitMayConce1n: We have reviewed the plans that Stonewood Design Build has prepared for the vacant property located at 920 Brown Road South and approve of the proposed home design and location. Signed:_".:-1-~--J>-<--~~------- Date: f}J) JJJNJJJ s~~~~-~-- Date: __ &_-_10_· _1,,tiJ_{f).___ ______ _ ONING (2 ACRE MIN.) :s VARIANCE FOR FT WIDTH \CKS JNT=50 lES=30 A_.R=50 I/I' · 0 SF (0%) 30 90 ~J~~~~~i. FEET • ELEV A TION. · : · '::LEVATION FACE DRAINAGE .. •· A EXISTING 0.93 ACRE \ t::<iST · .. ,c,~o.G 1/ ,•.- 11-0 IL'iu) 68,3 2~~ 41 SOUTH , 15 NORTH DAT§EPT. 12, 2004 PAGE REVISIONS4/ 11 /05 SETBACK ZONES, H · PROP. HO GROG HC MAR. 21 2005· PROPOSED ACRE PR1 2.0 Lo· SI[ _.,,,,,, / / . HOUSE IS 7.1 % OF TOT AL LOT BUILDING .... PERMIT SURVf FRANCIS RESIDE/v for STONEWOOD DES: l 18 ZONING (2 ACRE MIN.) :QUIRES VARIANCE FOR : 200 FT WIDTH SETBACKS FRONT=50 SIDES=30 EXISTING 0.93 ACRE EXIST HOUS y.._gSO,O 110 1 m(J) REA~50 / ~~- 3 SOUTH , J"~ORTH -----.... 2 4 2 I N 89 ° 19':J;r1-~-£-------400. 04 1 / ,/ 54.8 10) 60 ·'90 PROPOSED 0.93 ACRE 110 97 fr»-z_z_-0 lo PRO 20 SOUTH AND NORTH 180 HO, 165 DEC!{. (EXISTING TO BE REM VED) HOUSE IS 9.0% OF TOT AL LOT AREA N· ··FEET SPOT ELEVATION. SPOT ELEVATION SURF ACE DRAINAGE PROJECT NO. 8001< DATE JAN 16, 2006 PAGE REVISIONS 5/ 18/06 REV HO, HC BUILDING PERMIT SURI F;-<:t.~ .,l)~/~2.._ di/~ ~~ ~" -S:.~ -----·---- -----l--l----J~~-=--=---:...------'-----',--!-----~ ff!_ u..; l Tb/ ----~~~-----~~----\t--=-_____/1£p llt,J{e_ ~ e~ --H------------C...C.--'----L---CMYJb--_ /VOV?N (o _ ~d() S -~-- ~ __ -------<4----/'i~------~:~_ ~ ~-t{ 3/~ I ----__ ,....____ ----~~-=- ·------- ~---1-1--------~ ---- Ir---------++---------------------- -------W------------------ ROLL MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 17, 2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Acting Chair Cynthia Bremer, Commissioners Ralph Kempf, Roland Jurgens, Dick Kroeger, and Alternate Janice Berg. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planners Melanie Curtis and Evelyn Turner, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Jim Murphy was present. Acting Chair Bremer called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. CONSENT Item Nos. 5, 7, 9 and 13 were added to the Consent Agenda. Bremer opened the public hearing for Applications #05-3147, #06-3209, #06-3213, and #06-3218 at 6:03 p.m. There were no public comments regarding these applications. Bremer closed the public hearing at 6:04 p.m. Bremer moved, Kroeger seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS 1. #05-3102 STONEWOOD DESIGN BUILD, 920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, VARIAN CE REVISIONS, 6:05 P.M. -6:21 P.M. Sven Gustafson, Stonewood Design Build, and Wendy Boettenberg, Landscape Architect. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting a review at Staffs request and Council direction. Lot area, lot width, and left and right side setback variances were granted for the property in 2005. Since that time, the original buyer for the property elected to sell the property and a new buyer was found. The new property owner wanted a different design and the plan was revised which has resulted in a further encroachment into the side, setback than what was originally approved and a different location for those encroachments. Council reviewed the application at its June 26 meeting and recommended, due to the revisions, that the Planning Commission review this application once again. Gaffron stated while the revised plan meets the 20-foot setback, it has a greater encroachment of the side setback than the house plan that was approved and a different location for those encroachments. The applicant is requesting approval of the revised site plan. PAGEl MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 17, 2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3102 Stonewood Design Build, Continued) Gustafson stated they have recently submitted some colored drawings for review by the Plam1ing Commission, with the items highlighted in green being the items they would like approval on. Gustafson stated they attempted to angle the garage as reconm1ended by the Planning Commission. Gustafson noted the neighbors are in attendance at tonight's meeting and are in support of the project. Bremer opened the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. Shantelle Sumner, ·930 Brown Road, indicated they are totally in favor of the new house plan and feel that the home would help to improve the value of the homes in the neighborhood. Bremer inquired whether the applicant has reviewed the plans that have been submitted tonight. Sumner stated she has not reviewed what was submitted tonight. Gustafson stated the angled garage does not affect this neighborhood. David Skeie, 860 Brown Road, stated they were in favor of the original project and have since reviewed the new plans and are in favor of the project. Bremer closed the public hearing at 6: 10 p.rn. Kempf inquired whether the only difference is the angled garage on the alternate plan. Gustafson stated it is. Gustafson pointed out the difference in the massing between the two designs, noting that the latest proposal is lesser in height. Bremer inquired what plan the applicants would like to have approved. Gustafson stated the prope1ty owner has not had a chance to review the alternate plan with the angled garage. Bremer conunented she personally does not have a problem with the application. Kroeger stated he does not see any benefit to the alternate plan since it is the same amount of encroachment as the original plan. Bremer stated her recollection of the concern expressed previously was the length of the structure. Gustafson stated the concern at the previous Planning Commission dealt with the long wall, which has since been modified to have a jog and a short stone wall. PAGE2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 17, 2006 6:00 o'clock p.rn. (#05-3102 Stonewood Design Build, Continued) Kempf stated he would like to see the alternate design approved. Kempf indicated the encroachment was a significant issue to him at the time of the original proposal and still remains a significant issue. Kempf stated he would be in favor of the alternate proposal. Jurgens stated he prefers the garage being angled since it lessens the encroachment but that the deck and porch are areas of concern. Jurgens inquired whether there is a 30-foot setback in the area of the deck. Gaffron stated there is. Jurgens commented that it might be necessary to reduce the deck and porch to lessen the encroachment. Bremer inquired whether the Plam1ing Commission would be wasting their time approving the alternate plan if the property owner has not seen the design. Gustafson stated in his opinion the property owner will probably be okay with the angled garage. Bremer stated the Planning Commission could table the application to allow the property owner to view the plans. Gustafson stated they would prefer to go forward with the application. Bremer moved, Kempf seconded, Application #06-3102, Stonewood Design Build, 920 Brown Road South, to recommend approval of the alternate plan that was submitted this evening depicting an angled garage, which is more in line with the original application that was approved. Bremer noted an important aspect of her approval is that both of the neighbors have indicated their support VOTE: Ayes4, Nays 1, Jurgens opposed. Jurgens stated he prefers the angled garage but is opposed to the increase of hardcover in the northeast comer since a hardship has not been demonstrated. PAGE3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 17, 2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. 2. #06-3184 PAUL THOMAS HOMES ON BEHALF OF MAUREEN A. BRECKMAN, 2695 CASCO POINT ROAD, 6:21 P.M. -6:27 P.M. Paul Vogstrom, Paul Thomas Homes, was present. Curtis stated this application was tabled at the May and June meetings in order for the applicant to work with staff to achieve an appropriate stom1 water management and grading plan. The City Engineer's comments are attached as Exhibit B, which reflects that the majority of the issues raised by the City Engineer have been adequately addressed by the applicant. Pla1ming Staff recommends approval of the lot width and lot area variances and some level of hardcover variance within the 75-250 foot zone as the Planning Commission determines appropriate. The finishing "touch ups" to the grading plan requested in the City Engineer's memo can be revised and approved prior to placement on the Council agenda. Vogstrom stated he has received the City Engineer's memo and the remaining items have been addressed. Bremer opened the public hearing at 6:21 p.m. A. Lawrence Kane, 2697 Casco Point Road, stated he is interested in the drainage ·system that is involved in the project since the water drains to the south towards his property. Kane indicated he has been told that the runoff is supposedly going to be taken care of with a swale. Curtis stated the swale was revised to alleviate the problems that the City Engineer had noted in his comments and that the water would drain to the catch basin. In addition, some selective minimal grading would be done to direct some water toward the lake per discussion with the City Engineer. Jurgens inquired whether the grade would remain the same following the work and whether a bem1 would be constructed. Vogstrom stated it is basically 941 feet at the property line and that they would go up to 942 feet at the house, with a slight dip in between. Bremer noted the City Engineer has reviewed the plans and feels that the drainage is appropriate for this site. Bremer closed the public hearing at 6:24 p.m. Kroeger inquired whether the hardcover has been reduced. Vogstrom stated the hardcover was reduced previously and reviewed at the last meeting. The application was tabled to allow the City Engineer time to review the plans. Bremer inquired whether the hardcover being approved tonight would be 30.6 percent. PAGE4 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. nancial Officer of the newspaper known mCi ,-h and has full knowledge of the facts stated ,'<'{1;i, (Al The newspaper has complied with all c:::~l: . •. : .. ~:· qualified newspaper, as provided by t,; able laws, as amended. to and including Thursday, the __ ,;ff[''.~ ~: .]>:-:· . a copy of the lower case alphabet fror , Wti edged as being the size and kind of ty -:· notice: Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed befc,,,;_· RATE (1) Lowest classified rate paid by comme ,~ for comparable space ·· (2) Maximum rate allowed by law (3) Rate actually fharged Cl --- newspapers AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA} ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Richard Hendrickson, being duly sworn on an oath states or affirms, that he is the Chief Fi- nancial Officer of the newspaper known as _______ S_u_n_-S_ai_lo_r _____ _ and has full knowledge of the facts stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minn. Stat. §331A.02, §331A.07, and other applic- able laws, as amended. (8) The printed public notice that is attached was published in the newspaper once each week, for~ successive week(s); it was first published on Thursday, the _6_ day of _---'J'""u"'"'ly'----' 2006, and was thereafter printed and published on every Thursday to and including Thursday, the __ day of-----~ 2006; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowl- edged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz BY~ CFO Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed before me on this __ 6_ day of July , 2006. iJ:k11~- MARY ANN CARLSON NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 1-31-09 RATE INFORMATION (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space (2} Maximum rate allowed by law (3) Rate actually charged $ --~2~.8=5.-Q=e~r l=in=e $ --~6=.2~0-p~e~r l~in~e $ ___ 1~·~30~p~e~r l=in=e MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (PUBLIC COMMENTS, Continued) McMillan commented light pollution is a big issue for her personally and that there are some lights along 394 erected by Mn/Dot that could be replaced with a better type of shielded light. McMillan stated the primary reason for the lights is security. McMillan encouraged Mr. Lyman to write to Mn/Dot with his concerns. Sansevere stated the City has been proactive in its approach to protecting the lake and that he feels the same way that Mr. Lyman does on the other issues but that the City is limited in what it is able to accomplish in that regard . White noted outdoor advertising is not allowed in Orono. White stated in his view the amount of electricity being used and the coal being consumed to generate electricity will become a major issue in the cormng years . ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. #05 -3102 STONEWOOD DESIGN BUILD, 920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -VARIAN CE - REVIEW REVISED PLAN Kathy Alexander, Architect, and Sven Gustafson, Contractor, were present. Gaffron stated Staff is requesting site plan review on this application. Gaffron noted the applicants were granted a variance in 2005 for lot width, lot area , and side setbacks. The resolution that was approved by the Council specifically referenced site plans that were reviewed by the Planning Commission. Gaffron stated the issue that is bringing this application back before the City Council is whether further Planning Commission review is necessary. Gaffron indicated there have been some changes made to the site plan that may not be in conformance with City Code and would require further review. Gaffron indicated the Planning Commission was very specific in their discussions about the location and amount of encroachment and the plans received this spring have some revisions. Gaffron noted there is a new owner of the property since the time this application was reviewed by the Planning Commission. Gaffron stated there are now some different encroachments than what was previously approved. Gaffron noted the neighbors are aware of the changes and their comments have been included in the Council packet. Gaffron requested the Council review the current plans, compare them to the originally approved plans, and review the Planning Commission memos and minutes from 2005. Gaffron recommended this application be sent back to the Planning Commission for their review and comments. Gustafson stated when the house was originally designed, they were working with another client, and that it was the architect's belief that they were working within the variance approval. Gustafson stated Ms. Alexander had spoken with someone at the City requesting clarification prior to proceeding forward and that they believed they were in compliance with the variance approval. Peterson indicated she is in agreement with Staffs recommendation to refer this application back to the Planning Commission. PAGE 4 of9 MINUTES OF TlIE _____ _ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June26,2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #05-3102 STONEWOOD DESIGN BUILD, 920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, Continued) White noted the encroachment is being doubled and that the Planning Commission should review this item again. Sansevere concurred with sending the application back to the Planning Commission given the changes. Peterson stated in her view there have been significant changes to the plans. Alexander stated part of the reason for the confusion is the way the resolution reads and that the resolution does not cite specific house plans. Alexander stated she interpreted it to mean that as long as they conformed with the setback variance, they were fine. Gustafson stated the resolution reads any amendments that are not in conformance with city code. Peterson stated in her view they are intensifying the approval. Sansevere suggested any future questions be directed to Mr. Gaffron. Gaffron stated this application would be on the July Planning Commission agenda. Brokl noted the variance that was granted has already expired so it would need to go back to the Planning Commission. Gustafson stated they were told if they applied for a building permit it would be okay. Brokl stated the building permit would have been issued based on the site plan that was approved. Gaffron inquired whether a renewal variance application should be brought. Brokl stated a new application should be submitted. The City Council referred this application to the Planning Commission. 5. #05-3131 STEVE BOHL OF BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT, INC., 190 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH AND 177 GLENDALE DRIVE -RPUD/FINAL PLAT/REZONING -RESOLUTION NO. 5480 AND ORDINANCE NO. 34, TIDRD SERIES Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, and Chris Pearson, Attorney-at-Law, were present. Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting final plat approval for Glendale Cove. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting approval of an ordinance for rezoning the property, except for the church lot, from RR-lB Rural Residential District to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District; the PUD No. 5 Agreement, which establishes the ongoing conditions of PUD approval as well as providing for the installation of improvements; and a resolution granting general development plan approval and final plat approval. The approvals are conditioned on the developer following the "Ecological Restoration & Management Program for Glendale Cove" by AES, Inc. Although the covenants have not been received from the applicant as of yet, Staff will confirm upon receipt that they contain language requiring ongoing management of the common spaces in conformance with the AES program. Staff is expecting that the PAGE 5 of9 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 22, 2006 Item No.: Department Approval: Administrator Approval: N~me: Mich~el P. ?affronjJ1 ,ylJ"\ Title: Plannmg Director fl //If~~ Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #05-3102 Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Rd. S.- Variance -Review of Revised Site Plan and Building Plans List of Exhibits A -Resolution No. 5329 including Approved Building Plans and Site Plan 6-1 B -Revised Site Plan 5-18-06 C -Revised Building Plans May 2006 D -PC Minutes 4-18-05, 5-16-05; Council Minutes 6-13-05 E -PC Memos 4-14-05 and 5-12-05 F -Neighbor Comments, Jm1e 2006 G -2005-2006 Site Plan Comparisons SummlllJ' of Issue: Site plan and building plans submitted for building permit approval do not match those upon which the variance approvals were predicated. Per the conditions of the Resolution, staff is requesting Council review of the revised proposal for a determination of whether the revisions are still in keeping with the intent of the variance approval. Applicant had a buyer for this property in 2005, submitted plans and worked through the variance review process, revising plans in response to Planning Commission concerns. Based on a specific set of building plans and site plan which Planning Commission found acceptable, lot area, lot width and left and right side setback variances for a house with portions 20' rather than 30' from the side lot line, were granted in June 2005 to construct a new residence on the property. The specific site plan and building plans were referenced in the approval resolution. Condition 1 of the variance approval states: "Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require fitrther Planning Commission and City Council review". The original buyer for the property went away, and a new buyer was eventually found. Applicant had new plans drawn up suiting the new buyer's wishes; however, the extent and location of encroachments of the side setback on both sides does not match those upon which the variances were accepted. The newly submitted plans, while still proposing a house with 20' side setbacks, exhibit a significantly greater area of encroachment of the side setback than the house plan that was approved, and a different location for those encroachments. It is staffs conclusion that the degree of additional encroachment proposed in 2006 is not in conformity with City codes, and therefore is subject to further review. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 22, 2006 Item No.: Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Planning Director Zoning Item Description: #05-3102 Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Rd. S.- V ariance -Review of Revised Site Plan and Building Plans List of Exhibits A -Resolution No. 5329 including Approved Building Plans and Site Plan 6-13-05 B -Revised Site Plan 5-18-06 C -Revised Building Plans May 2006 D -PC Minutes 4-18-05, 5-16-05; Council Minutes 6-13-05 E -PC Memos 4-14-05 and 5-12-05 F -Neighbor Comments, June 2006 G -2005-2006 Site Plan Comparisons Summary of Issue: Site plan and building plans submitted for building permit approval do not match those upon which the variance approvals were predicated. Per the conditions of the Resolution, staff is requesting Council review of the revised proposal for a determination of whether the revisions are still in keeping with the intent of the variance approval. Applicant had a buyer for this property in 2005, submitted plans and worked through the variance review process, revising plans in response to Planning Commission concerns. Based on a specific set of building plans and site plan which Planning Commission found acceptable, lot area, lot width and left and right side setback variances for a house with portions 20' rather than 30' from the side lot line, were granted in June 2005 to construct a new residence on the property. The specific site plan and building plans were referenced in the approval resolution. Condition 1 of the variance approval states: "Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review". The original buyer for the property went away, and a new buyer was eventually found. Applicant had new plans drawn up suiting the new buyer's wishes; however, the extent and location of encroachments of the side setback on both sides does not match those upon which the variances were accepted. The newly submitted plans, while still proposing a house with 20' side setbacks, exhibit a significantly greater area of encroachment of the side setback than the house plan that was approved, and a different location for those encroachments. It is staffs conclusion that the degree of additional encroachment proposed in 2006 is not in conformity with City codes, and therefore is subject to further review. #05-3102 June 22, 2006 Page2 Because the side setback variance was discussed at some length at the two Planning Commission meetings in 2005, and because comments in the minutes suggest that minimization of the degree of encroachment was key to the side setback approvals, staff is compelled to request Council's review of the current proposal. The two abutting neighbors have submitted letters indicating their approval of the current plans. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the current plans, compare them to the originally approved plans, and review the Planning commission memos and minutes from 2005. Provide staff with direction regarding whether the new proposal is in keeping with the intent and spirit of the variances approved in 2005. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5 ~ 2 9 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-420(b) FILE NO. 05-3102 WHEREAS, Jeffrey Sven Gustafson, a single person (hereinafter "the applicant"), represented by Kathryn Alexander, is owner of the property located at 920 Brown Road South within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: The West 400 feet of the South 110 feet of the North 580.38 feet of the N01ihwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10, Tovmship 117, Range 23, except road, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); (also identified as PINS 10-117-23 12 0002); and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an application requesting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420(b) to permit the construction of a single family residence on a lot of area 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre) and width ofl 10 feet where a lot area of 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) and width of200' are normally required, and to pem1it such residence structure to be located 20' from the n01ih and south side lot lines where a 30' side setback is normally required. WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 18, 2005 and May 16, 2005, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #05-3102. 2. The property is located in the RR-lB Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres and a minimum lot width of 200 feet for residential development. The property is approximately 0.93 acres in dry buildable area and approximately 110 feet in defined width. Page 1 of 4 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 5~29 NO. 3. The Planning Commission reviewed the variance application at a public hearing held on April 18, 2005 and reviewed a revised plan on May 16, 2005. Planning Commission subsequently recommended approval of the requested variances for the revised plan by a vote of 5-1 based on the following findings and hardships: a) The property has an existing house and is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The applicant has agreed to pay the costs of extension of a pressure sewer line down Brown Road from the existing Webb er Hills sewer lateral, and therefore does not need to provide a septic system for the proposed new residence. b) There is no adjacent land available for applicant to acquire to make the property more conforming in area or width. c) The zoning standards when applied to this property limit the width of the home and attached garage to 50', which will result in a home that is longer than it is wide, causing a greater visual impact as viewed from the two adjacent homes than is typical in the immediate neighborhood. Allowing side setbacks of 20' instead of the required 30' will result in a house that is better proportioned to fit into the neighborhood, as long as the extent of the encroachment of the side yards is limited to primarily the house in the southerly side yard and the garage on the northerly side yard. This will not create a situation of increased visual density nor be out of character with the neighborhood. The applicant has provided a site plan meeting these goals. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance 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 variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial prope1iy right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 4 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 5 t., b~ 0 NO. . \lJl ~ .,,: CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420(b) to permit the construction of a single family residence on a lot of area 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre) and width of 110 feet where a lot area of 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) and width of 200' are nonnally required, and to pennit such residence structure to be located 20' from the north and south side lot lines where a 30' side setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Auth01ities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (June 13, 2006). 3. 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. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicant and the applicant's heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of June, 2005. ATTEST: Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 5829 NO. __________ _ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on thisi J day of (\.;)1,.._,\ _ , 2005 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. l/ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on thief~ayof 4,.t._,,~r...Q_ , 2005 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal coriforation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. RACHEL DODGE NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA ,, My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2010 \---2~~:~~~":::-2-22~:·! STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Jeffrey Sven Gustafson, a single person. day of DENISE M. LESKINEN NOT ARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2010 Notiry Public Page 4 of 4 0 C:c.n bc-1----, 2005 R 118 ZONING (2 ACRE MIN.) REQUIRES VARIANCE FOR < 200 FT WIDTH SETBACKS FRONT=50 SIDES=30 REAR=50 / EXISTING EXISTING 0.93 ACRE 110 68.3 41 SOUTH 242 , EXiST \ HOUSF _.,,,,. \ .-"/_gS'0.'·J 11 I L() (/) l r--, :-< ~ z 15 NORTH I I HOU SE ,----rt--' PROPOSED ELEV A TIONS GARAGE FLOOR=954.5 TOP OF FOUNDATION =954.8 LOWEST FLOOR=946.0 (WO) 0 30 SCALE IN 60 90 FEET = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION .,.::t::-· · · = DIRECTION SURF ACE DRAINAGE #920 PROJECT NO. DAT§EPT. 12, 2004 PAGE REVISIONS4/ 11 /05 SETBACK ZONES, H PROP. HO GROG HC MAR. 21 2005 PROPOS~D ACRE PROPOSED VARIANCES EXHIBIT A-1 RESOLUTION NO. 5329 2.0 ACRE TO EXISTING 0.93 ACRE LOT WIDTH FROM 200 FEET TO EXISTING 110 FEET SIDE SETBACKS FROM 30 FEET TO 20 FEET AC SF HC E;(ISTl~-IG HOUSE #930 i ' \ ( ✓\ \ ~~h4;SF / 0.35AC X 30% = 4600SF HOUSE= 462 SF DRIVE = 2835 SF TOTAL= 3297 SF (21.5%) .• j ' ; \ HC HOUSE IS 7.1 % OF TOT AL LOT AREA BUILDING PERMIT SURVE,Y FRANCIS RESIDENCE for STONEWOOD DESIGN ADDRESS = 920 BROWN ROAD S. PIO# 10-117-23-12-0002 LOT AREA = 40400 SF/ 0.93 AC "Land Frank R. Cardarelle Surveyor 6440 FL YING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN. 55344 952-941-3031 ... ,~ ------·---··-- EXHIBIT A-2 RESOLUTION NO. 5329 6 OFB ; I•! " !I ... w I! I 50F8 ··,., .. ,,.'\.. __ 11! ED ~ sq l!I.J!V,lTfc:OI ED ':!!' llllV.lTIQI ~11 fa ,, \2;,.J EXHIBIT A-3 RESOLUTION NO. 5329 I c-, ·- ! ~--·-- c-5 C-l-j - :;!;:,. __ _,,_ i1f !11 ja 3 ~,..,A PROPOSED ELEV A TIONS GARAGE FLOOR=954.5 TOP OF FOUNDATION =954.8 LOWEST FLOOR=946.0 (WO) 0 30 SCALE IN 60 90 FEET = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION ..,,?· = DIRECTION SURF ACE DRAINAGE EXISTING 0.93 ACRE 110 68.3 41 SOUTH PROPOSED I lf) (/) > Nf- 15~~0RTH EXISTING SF HOUSE SF #930 PROPOSED VARIANCES 2.0 ACRE TO EXISTING 0.93 ACRE LOT WIDTH FROM 200 FEET TO EXISTING 110 FEET SIDE SETBACKS FROM 30 FEET TO 20 FEET 1002 SF 3535 SF 15 SF SF ADDRESS = 920 BROWN ROAD S. PIO# 10-117-23-12-0002 LOT AREA = 40400 SF/ 0.93 AC HOUSE IS 9.0% OF TOT AL LOT AREA PROJECT NO. BOOK DATE JAN 16, 2006 PAGE REvis,oNs sI1a;o6 REV HO, He BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY iland Frank R. Cardarelle Surveyor 6440 FL YING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN. 55344 952-941-3031 / l .f · ~- .,: : ,· 6 / ,_,,p--: ''';, I 1·lf;\ ,.,',,_____ , ·...,.._..:::,. ;::~rii ~ . \ \ \ ',\ Wfd ■WWWWW ..... -..-...... ...... .... ... • • I s I L ________ _J ...... •.&.NK • ...,,. ........ toe .... Wf'dWW«WWW ......... .. ,,. i' i u '~ n h ~ i I' Iii ;;q~p J UJ -1~1 i ...... 4-...... ...... _..,. I;, ~ I a1 l ! i I f I I i I I e I H ! -----n II II II H ----,1 II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 II II II 11 11 II II II 11 II II II II II II II II II II 11 II 11 11 II 11 II Ti-ll II i I I HI l! ! h' : : t th : : t II ----,,-----11 ----j: II II II II II II II II II 11 II 11 11 11 II 11 11 11 11 II 11 II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II 11 II 11 II 11 II II II 11 II II II ---LJ --· .. ,l,'f'W,C .. ..,.. •.wr" .. _,a Wl♦U ■NMWWW ,,.. s ..... ',,,,,',,,, ',,,',,,',,, ',, ,,.. s ..... I II ~~ iii I~ i ""N ...... ffil - ...... ...... ..... ..... , -----11 H II II II -----1.J I ! ----{1 11 -----1.J §I d h I •.a.-.wtc • ...,. ...... " ... ci •...WII •IM't1 Wfd ■-WWW W'WIIC101,I..,..,-.:,, iN;)LlaUif!ASO Q.ilfv&O __ .. ICJrW•Riaa«::olW.-CiNII __ ., ICMIIO•~IW#lltllll .-.awara Olffllll'QlrlD..tlll«llllllXII -.uaaira1vt11Cled JNtQt .... ac&'-CliW>alCtl WWW WWW WWW urill"l!IBL$~•WCI l,lf'ilif"IULllltNn'V•_,. H911'Vt-"W•«rt ClltiW2lldM-i:W•0t'I' a.-i:ro• r, '"""""' "lh1.a••'ll•K ,...,.« ..... ,, ,...,.t1•.11i1•t1 '1,\1.~•.911.•il 'Yt1o'l!C.Xo'W•CJ 9.1:M•O ........ ...... - •.A..WK .. ...,,. .. aw,,,.,, .... Nll,,ll'W •IM'U "dml ■NWWWW JMIQ"BiiU.tCD,,Wt;:110•890 J.lt'N'tiiillt""""•• ttarl"W9.Mto•O aw.tlllele.Mtt>•<=r t..-ttv•l:t ...,..... -.. _., .. -· -----7 I I • : I ; ,--... ...,_...------~ , _____ J -----7 ------,------------- 1 ~):( ; • I i ' I , _____ J ...... liW' :-----7 ,--- -i ~ :d) ~----------~--=~---------~~~~~~~-,T • ; ..... -----I' -i n~ ,... ,.,_ '!! = =.: i .,,..:\ -t l'r'.1 - ~II -· 1------ --- ....... ..... ....... ...... I I ==--fol J.....+-•_ ' ... .. - • I.~./ .l[' ...... -- I .,,.. :- \ L. L~ ! --:,,,----._. - ... 1 --I .... ~-· I .... , .... ~.::; --~--- I ,- ..... ' ; t------~ ~ 0---• I 1-J □-l -,..l ._ l ,... .., -- 1lj ' ._. ii fflilll ..... --:r ---· . :II!. ~; I ; ~ I'-=./ ... z -' ' ',';;',:,. .... l 0 ..... ~ ;...,_ ~ ~ ~ ' C - I ------1--- WJ..'l'WK -~ •¥,,lftc w-.i .. ..,... ... ..,,. Wtd ■NWWWW ; II ..-JL __ _ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3099 Mary and Marnix Guillaume, Continued) Rahn inquired whether 192 square feet could be removed elsewhere. J:)- Leslie stated he would like to see a frniher reduction in the hardcover than what is being recommended by Staff. Jurgens noted the Planning Commission is a recommending body and that the applicants could express their opinions to the Council. Mr. Guillaume inquired whether both the shed and concrete pad would need to be removed. Leslie stated his motion would include removal of the shed and the concrete underneath. \\Tinkey suggested looking at an equivalent reduction of 192 square feet within the 75 '-250' zone. Mr. Guillaume stated he would prefer to reduce the driveway somewhat rather than remove the shed. Leslie amended his motion to require a reduction of 192 square feet of hardcover within the 75'-250' zone rather than requiring the removal of the shed and concrete pad within the 75'-250' zone. Winkey seconded the motion. Fritzler inquired whether the shed should be relocated to a conforming location. Leslie stated his motion would remain as stated. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 9. #05-3102 KATHRYN ALEXANDER ON BEHALF OF J. SVEN GUSTAFSON, 920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH-VARIANCE, 8:03 P.M. -8:28 P.M. Kathryn Alexander, Architect, and J. Sven Gustafson, Applicant, were present. Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting lot area, lot width, and left and right side setback variances to construct a new residence on the property to permit the razing and rebuilding of the existing residence. The property is located in the RR.-lB, si11gle-farnily rural residential dislTict, and has a two-acre minimum lot size. The lot consists of 40,385 square feet. The applicants are requesting side setback variances to aliow a new home to be located 15 .5 feet from the north side lot line and 15.0 feet from the south side lot line. The adjacent resident to the south is approximately 41 feet from the side lot line, and its separation from the existing house at 920 Brown Road is approximately 125 feet. Under the proposed plan with a 15-foot setback, the separation between PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3102 J. Sven Gustafson, Continued) these homes is reduced to 70 feet. The applicants have indicated that the zoning when applied to this property makes it unbuildable for a home that would be proportionate with other homes in the neighborhood and in character with the style of home that is currently being built as Orono's rural area re- develops. The width of the ren1aining bui1dable envelope is 50 feet when the 30-foot side setbacks are met. Gaffron noted many substantial homes no wider than 50 feet are being built today on smaller lots in ---orono and tlfartnesiciesetoaclcfcoula-15e resolvea through creative cfosigi1iatfier than variances. Gaffron stated the proposed site grading plan have the existing driveway remaining. The existing driveway is less than the required five feet from the side lot line, but its relocation slightly northward to meet the five-foot requirement would result in the removal of two mature aspen trees abutting the north side of the driveway. The topography of the site also limits the driveway relocation. Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances and denial of the side setback variances. Alexander stated Exhibit H illustrates the size of the lot compared to the smTounding lots and that the hardship is the size of the lot. Alexander stated normally lots consisting of one acre have ten-foot side yard setbacks and requested some leniency be given due to the size of the lot. Alexander stated the terrain and the approach to the house makes it difficult to access the residence and have a turnaround. Alexander indicated there is not sufficient room to construct a side-loading garage. Gustafson indicated they are attempting to construct a house that fits in with the character of the neighborhood and that the size of the proposed house fits in with the rest of the residences that have been constructed in this area. Gustafson stated other 55-foot houses have been constructed on small lots along the lakeshore. Alexander noted the allowed structural coverage is 15 percent and that they are only using 7 .5 percent. Ralm inquired whether there were any public conm1ents regarding this application. David Skeie, 860 South Brown, stated the existing house is 24.5 feet from the side lot line and that he would prefer it not be reduced further. Gustafson stated the neighbor to the south has indicated he is in favor of the proposal. Fritzler questioned whether the connection of the sewer line to tie in with Weber Hills could be accomplished. Gaffron stated he is unaware if the Public Works Department has approached the County regarding this request, but that it would be a simple extension to the sewer system and would more than likely be approved by the county. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3102 J. Sven Gustafson, Continued) Fritzler stated he has a concern if the sewer is unable to be connected. Fritzler inquired whether there are any septic sites available on this lot. Gustafson stated two septic sites have been identified on the lot but that they would like to hook into the sewer line. ····•···•"·-·-.. ········--------------------------------------------- Fritzler stated he is not in favor of the side lot variance and that the turnaround could possibly be relocated. Gustafson stated they would prefer to save the existing two trees. Winkey inquired whether the driveway needs to be angled a certain way in order to allow someone to back out. Alexander stated it is largely due to function and that they are unable to construct a side-loading garage given the amount of room available. Alexander stated with a front-loading garage, more of the garage would be visible. Alexander pointed out if this lot were located in a different zone, it would have different side yard setbacks. Rahn stated in his view there are ways to design a home to fit onto a 50-foot building pad and that he agrees with Staffs recommendations. Kempf indicated he also is in agreement with Staffs recommendations and that the side yard setbacks are important in protecting the rights of the neighbors now and in the future. Kempf cmmnented it is possible to construct a very nice residence on this lot. Bremer stated some of the houses recently constructed on Watertown Road had the same issue with the side yard setback and that she has some qualms whether 30 feet is the right number for the side yard setback but that in her view 15 feet is not sufficient. Gustafson inquired whether a small portion of the garage could stick within the side yard setback. Bremer stated that would be less intrusive on that side of the property but noted that the whole length of · the house on the other side of the lot would be within the side yard setback. Alexander stated typically a 50-foot wide house is going to be a simpler house, and that given the size of the lot, the house would be located deeper, which would be more intrusive to the neighbors. Ralm stated proximity to the adjoining properties is a main concern Gustafson stated a deeper house would be out of conformity with the rest of the neighborhood and would look out of place. PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3102 Sven Gustafson, Continued) Ralm stated the applicant has to design a house that fits the lot. Gustafson reiterated they are trying to design a house that would fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. Leslie suggested tabling the application and having the_app]icant look atredesigi;ing the .house. __ Leslie ______ _ commented he might be in favor of some variance but that he is not in agreement with the proposed setback. Fritzler stated he is not in favor of any side yard setback. Jurgens indicated he does not want to express an opinion on the amount of setback and that the goal is to be confom1ing as much as possible. Kempf stated there appears to be some leeway on the side yard setback and that he would be willing to allow some minor encroachment into the 30-foot setback. Rahn indicated he would be in favor of a minor encroachment. Winkey commented he also would be in favor of a minor encroachment but that he would like to see the house conform as much as possible. It was the consensus of the application that variances to lot area and lot width would be approved. Gustafson stated he would like his application tabled. Gustafson inquired whether the driveway would need to be relocated. Jurgens stated he likes to preserve trees but suggested the applicant look at reconfiguring the driveway if at all possible. Leslie moved, Jurgens seconded, to table Application #05-3102, Kathryn Alexander on behalf of J. Sven Gustafson, 920 Brown Road South. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 10. #05-3103 JACK AND KARI OLSON, 1966 SHADYWOOD ROAD -VARIANCE, 8:28 P.M. 9:01 P.M. Jack and Kari Olson, Applicants, were present. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a number of variances in order to construct a detached garage on their prope1iy to replace a one-stall tuck-under garage that will be converted to living space. The applicants are requesting the following variances: PAGE 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. 2. #05-3102 KATHRYN ALEXANDER ON BEHALF OF J. SVEN GUSTAFSON, 920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, VARIANCES, 6:56 P.M. -7:23 P.M. J. Sven Gustafson, Applicant, was present. Rick and Janet Francis, property owners, were present. Gaffron noted a letter was received from Katluyn Alexander supporting her position regarding the request for variances. Gaffron stated at the last Pla1U1ing Commission meeting the applicants had proposed side setback variances on both sides to allow a new home to be located 15.5 feet from the north side lot line and 15 feet from the south side lot line. The applicants have since revised their plans and are now proposing a north side setback of 18 feet where 30 feet would normally be required in addition to lot area and lot width variances. The applicants have eliminated the request for a south side setback variance. Staff recommends approval of the lot width and lot area variances. Staff is recommending that the Planning Conm1ission discuss the revised plans and detem1ine whether there is hardship or justification for the side lot setback variance. Gaffi:on noted at the last meeting a discussion was had regarding the long narrow lot and how the same size footprint, without the side yard setback, would make the house longer and have a greater view impact on the neighbors. Gaffi:on stated the applicants are willing to remove two trees to relocate the driveway to meet the five-foot setback from the south lot line. Gaffron noted there are no hardcover or strnctural issues on this property. Gustafson stated they have taken the Planning Commission's comments into consideration and have revised their proposal to limit a variance on only one side of the property. Gustafson indicated he would prefer to split the distance between both sides of the property line. Gustafson stated the trees that they are proposing to remove are cottonwoods and that the neighbors are not opposed to the removal. Gustafson distributed three different footprints of the type of home the property owners would prefer to be built on this lot. Gustafson indicated the neighbors are not particularly in favor of the house designs given the length of the house. Gustafson stated in his opinion the neighbors would prefer the difference be split and the house made wider, which is also the property owner's preference. Rahn stated it appears that the survey conflicts with the original floor plan and questioned whether the deck and porch would encroach into the side yard setback. Rahn stated he would not be in favor of approving a deck or a porch if it encroaches into the side yard setback. Rahn stated Exhibits B 1 and B2 show the deck located outside of the dining room and the screen porch encroaching. Gustafson agreed they do appear to be inconsistent. Rahn stated he does not have a major issue with the garage encroaching but would not be in support of the deck or porch encroaching into the side yard setback. Ralm noted the neighbor to the north had asked that the home not encroach any closer than 24 feet. PAGE7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3102 Sven Gustafson, Continued) Gustafson stated the neighbor has indicated he would prefer a wider home rather than a longer home. Gustafson stated the angled garage is less of an encroachment on the neighboring properly. Winkey inquired what plan the applicant would like the Plmming Commission to focus on. Gustafson stated they would like the Planning Commission to look at the first plan in the packet distributed tonight. Ralm noted that plan calls for a 10-foot encroachment on each side. Ralm pointed out Staff has not had time to review the plan being proposed by the applicant tonight. Gustafson stated they would like some direction from the Planning Conm1ission on whether they would be acceptable to an angled garage. Rahn stated it was his recollection that the Planning Commission would be acceptable to a minor encroachment. David Skeie, 860 Brown Road South, stated he has resided to the north of this property for 28 years. Skeie indicated there is a grove of trees between his house and the proposed residence and that he is not opposed to the plan being proposed tonight by the applicant. Skeie stated he would prefer to have the house wider rather than longer. Kempf stated he sees the advantage to the shorter building and that a corner of the garage encroaching into the side yard setback is not as significant as the encroaclm1ent of the entire side of the garage. Jurgens inquired what the total length of the house with the angled garage is. Gustafson stated it is 70 feet wide and 80 feet long, which includes the deck. Jurgens inquired what the length of the home with the L-shaped garage is on the survey. Gustafson stated it is 96.10. Jurgens noted that is an additional 17 feet in depth, and inquired whether the back of the house would be going east if the house is cons1.Tucted longer on this lot rather than wider. Gustafson stated the house would probably be pushed further to the east. Winkey inquired whether the house has been reduced ten feet by whether it is angled differently on the lot. Gustafson stated the size of the house was reduced and the layout of the house was rearranged somewhat. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3102 Sven Gustafson, Continued) Winkey stated his recollection of the last Planning Commission meeting the applicant was given direction to minimize the encroachment and that this proposal is a good step towards achieving that goal. Fritzler inquired what the side yard setback would be with the angled garage. Gustafson stated it would be 20 feet. Bremer stated she is in agreement with Commissioner Winkey and that the plan being proposed tonight is a good compromise. Bremer noted one of the goals in reviewing variances is to protect the future property owners of the adjoining lots and that it might be necessary to reduce the encroaclm1ent into the side yard setback. Bremer stated the size of the lot in her view does constitute some hardship. Ralm inquired whether it would be necessary for this application to reappear before the Planning Commission if the Planning Commission is in favor of the 20-foot side yard setback. Gaffron stated in his view the applicant could submit a plan depicting exactly what is being proposed tonight for staff review and would not have to reappear before the Planning Commission. Rahn stated he would prefer to see a home that does not go deeper, which would be more intrusive to the neighbors. Bremer noted the encroachment does not go the entire length of the lot but is rather a limited area. Fritzler stated he prefers the angled garage even though it does encroach into the side yard setback rather than the longer house. Jurgens indicated he would prefer to see the specific plan prior to approval. Rahn moved, Kempf seconded, to recommend approval of Application #05-3102, Kathryn Alexander for Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Road South, granting of a 20-foot side yard setback to the north and a 20-foot side yard setback to the south, with the understanding that the footprint proposed to be constructed is the one contained on page two of the handout and should be identical to that floor plan except with a reverse image. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Jurgens Opposed. Jurgens reiterated he would prefer to see the specific plan prior to approving it. NEW BUSINESS 3. #05-3100 LARRY AND SHERYL PALM, 1146 WILDHURST TRAIL, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:24 P.M. -8:25 P.M. Sheryl and Larry Palm, Applicants, and Blake Buchanich, Architect, were present. PAGE9 PUBLIC COMMENTS None MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,Junel3,2005 7:00 o'clock p.m. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *4. #05-3102 KATHRYN ALEXANDER ON BEHALF OF J. SVEN GUSTAFSON, 920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -VARIAN CE -RESOLUTION NO. 5329 Murphy moved, White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5329, a Resolution granting approval of lot area and lot width variances and approval of side setbacks of 20 feet on each side for the property located at 920 Brown Road South. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *5. #05-3108 GARY AND LYNN CHRISTENSEN, 3560 IVY PLACE -VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5330 Murphy moved, White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5330, a Resolution granting hardcover, side and lake setback variances for the property located at 3560 Ivy Place. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *6. #05-3109 NAVARRE CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, 3655 TOGO ROAD -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES -RESOLUTION NO. 5331 Murphy moved, White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5331, a Resolution granting a conditional use permit and hardcover and sign variances for the property located at 3655 Togo Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 7. #05-3110 THOMAS AND SHEILA BROWNE, 760 BROWN ROAD SOUTH-VARIANCE Thomas Browne, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicants' property is located on Tanager Lake, which has been classified by the DNR as a recreational development lake requiring a 100-foot structure setback. The applicants would like to construct a window dormer for added space and safety in an existing second story bathroom. In addition, the applicants would like to construct a small garage addition to the north of their attached garage. Curtis noted the entire home is located within the 100-foot structure setback and any building envelope expansion would require a lake setback variance. PAGE2 Date Application Received: 3/22/05 Date Application Considered as Complete: 4/11/05 60-Day Review Period Expires: 6/10/05 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Rahn and Orono Plmming Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Planning Director f ~ April 14, 2005 SUBJECT: #05-3102 Katlu·yn Alexander for Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Rd. S. -Variances -Public Hearing Zoning District: · Lot Area/Widtll: RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre/200' minimum 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre)/ 110' Application Summary: Applicants request lot area, lot width and left and right side setback variances to construct a new residence on the prope1iy. This will be a teardown and total rebuild. Staff Recommendation: Staffreconu11ends approval of the lot area and width variances and denial of the side setback variances. Pertinent Code Sections Section 78-420(b): RR-lB Standards: Required Lot Area: 2. 0 acres Required Lot Width: 200' Required Side Yard: 30' List of Exhibits A -Application B -Hardship Statement and Letter of Request C -Staff Letter to Applicants 4/1/05 D -Survey: 1) Existing Conditions 2) Proposed Site Plan E -Building Plans and Elevations F -Staff Sketch -Neighboring Home Locations G -1962 Subdivision Documentation H-PlatMap I ---Property Owners List J -Site Photos K -Neighborhood Airphoto #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. April 14, 2005 Page2 Background Zoning History. This property, with the existing house, was split off from the larger parcel to the south and east in 1962. At that time the City merely required that the new vacant lot to the south substantially meet the 140' width, I-acre area requirement then in effect, and allowed the existing house at 920 Brown Road to remain on a lot 11 0' wide and just one acre in area (:including the road right-of-way). The zoning in this area changed in 1967 to "R-lB", requiring 1-1/2 acres, 150' width, and 15' side setbacks. The zoning changed again in 1975 to "RR-lB" as it is today, requiring 2.0 acres, 200' width, and 30' side setbacks. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that the property has been substandard in width since it was created in 1962, and has become more substandard each time the zoning has changed. Lot Area and Width Variances. Applicants are requesting a lot area valiance to allow construction of a new residence to replace the existing older home on a lot 40,385 s.f. or 0.93 acres in area and 110' in width where a lot area of 87,120 s.f. and lot width of200' are required. Side Setback Variances. Applicants are requesting side setback variances to allow a new home to be located 15.5' from the north side lot line and 15.0' from the south side lot line where 30' :iide setbacks are n01111ally required. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area/Width: RR-lB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acre) 200' Actual 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre) 110' Yards/Setbacks: RR-lB Required Existing Proposed Front Yard 50 1 (to be removed) 131' Rear Yard 50' (to be removed) 163' Right Side Yard (South) 30' (to be removed) 15' (att. gar.) Side Yard (North) 30' (to be removed) 15.5' Lake (929.4' contour) 75' (to be removed) 180' ± Average Lakeshore No Encroaclm1ent (All homes in line) No encroachment #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. April 14, 2005 Page3 Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area 40,400 s.f. (0.93 ac.) Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Total Area Zone in Zone 0-75' 3,220 s.f. 75-250' 21,825 s.f. 250-500' 15,340 s.f. Totals 40,385 s.f. Hardship Statement Total Structural Coverage Allowed: 6,060s.f. (15.0 %) Proposed: 3,088 s.f. (7.6 %) Allowed Existing Proposed Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover 0% (to be removed) 0 s.f. (0%) 5,456 s.f. (25 %) (to be removed) 3,769 s.f. (17.3%) 4,602 s.f. (30%) (to be removed) 3,731 s.f. (24.3%) 10,058 sf (to be removed) 7,500 sf Applicants have provided a hardship statement and a letter of request, and should also be asked for their testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis 111 co11sideri11g applications for variance, tlte Planning Commissio11 shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the /tea/th, safety aud welfare of tlte co1111111mity, existing aud anticipated tmffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to tlte public safety, and the effect on l'lllues of property in the surrounding area. The Pla111ti11g Commission shall consider reco111111e11dillg approval for l'lll'iauces from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code i11 instances where tlteir strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to tire buliiiidual property under co11sideratio11, and shall recommend approval 011/y when it is demonstrated tltat suclt actions will be ill keeping with tile spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Lot Area and Width Variances. The property has an existing house and is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The applicant has agreed to pay the costs of extension of a pressure sewer line down Brown Road from the existing Webber Hills sewer lateral, and therefore does not need to provide a septic system for the proposed new residence. The property to the inm1ediate south is just over one acre in dry buildable area and does not have excess land available. The prope1iy to the north is approximately 3 acres dry buildable #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. April 14, 2005 Page4 area, but because it has a non-compliant septic system, potentially needs the area adjacent to 920 Brown Road for futme septic use unless it connects to sewer. At any rate, neither adjacent property is for sale at this time, so the applicants cannot increase the size of the prope1iy to be more confo1111ing. Under Orono's ordinances, without the lot area and width variances a new home cannot be constructed 011 the property. Aside from the substandard lot area and width, a house can be constructed on the property meeting all other standards of the RR-lB District, and such a house would not create a situation of increased density nor be out of character with the neighborhood. Based on the above information, it would be appropriate to grant the lot area and width variances. Side Setback Variances. Applicants are requesting side setback variances to allow a new home to be located 15.5' from the north side lot line and 15.0' from the south side lot line. The applicants' hardship statement and letter of request generally indicate that the zoning when applied to this property makes it unbuildable for a home that would be propo1iionate with other homes in the neighborhood, and in character with the style of home that is ctmently being built as Orono's rural area re-develops. The width of the remaining buildable envelope is 50' when the 30' side setbacks are met. Many substantial homes no wider than 50' are being built today on smaller lots in Orono, and the issue in staffs opinion is one that can be resolved through creative design rather than variances. Please refer to Exhibits F, which depict plan views of the separation between homes in the inm1ediate neighborhood in the 'before' and 'after' conditions. The adjacent residence to the 1101ih, on a 2-plus acre lot, is about 140' from the existing house at 920 Brown, and that separation will continue under the proposed house location. The adjacent residence to the south, at 930 Brown Road, is about 41' from the side lot line, and its separation from the existing house at 920 is about 125 '. Under the proposed plan with a 15' setback, the separation between these homes is reduced to 70'. Since the home at 930 Brown is 40+ years old, it has the potential for additions or even a rebuild, and new construction at 930 could result in a further reduction of the separation to as little as 45' while meeting its 30' side setback requirement. Planning Conm1ission and Council in 2003 denied side setback variances for a rebuild on a 100' lakeshore lot in the 2-acre zone (332 West Lake Street) in a neighborhood with a wide variety of lot sizes ranging from 50' to 200'+ in width, based on no satisfactory hardship found. In 2004, side setback variances were denied for a rebuild on a 132' wide, 0.7 acre Jnkeshoi·e lot (1489 Shoreline Drive) in the 2-acre zone. Side setback variances have been granted for RR-IB neighborhoods such as Crystal Bay, where the majority of lots are extremely small compared to the zoning requirement and a lesser side setback than 30' is the norm. #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. April 14, 2005 Page 5 General Comments The proposed site grading plan indicates the existing driveway entrance will remain. This driveway is less than the required 5' from the side lot line, but its relocation slightly northward to meet the 5' requirement would result in the removal of 2 mahire aspen trees abutting the n01ih side of the driveway. Topography of the site also would limit the driveway relocation. Leaving the driveway as-is will have minimal if any impact on the adjoining prope1iy; a variance to the 5' separation may be appropriate in this case. The proposed grading plan includes contours that would direct drainage toward the neighboring properties, but proposes to somehow force the drainage eastward along the property boundaries. A revised grading plan showing additional detail should be provided prior to Council review. The proposed house plans show 2' roof overhangs. The zoning code only allows a 1.5' encroachment of a required yard by roof overhangs. Whether or not a side setback variance is granted, any roof overhangs extending more than 1.5' into a required yard would have to be eliminated. This property is within the defined Shoreland District and subject to hardcover limitations by virtue of being within 1000' of the OHWL of the nmih basin of Tanager Lake. Although it does not abut the shoreline, it is subject to the 75' setback from the 929.4' contour for all structures. Summary of Issues for Consideration 1. Is the existing lot size sufficient hardship to support granting of the lot area and width variances? 2. Are there any hardships present that support granting of the side setback variances? Is the 50' wide buildable envelope so limiting as to be considered a hardship? 3. Would granting of side setback variances be appropriate in the context of this neighborhood and the locations of neighboring homes? 4. Are there any other issues with this proposed rebuild? #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. April 14, 2005 Page 6 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the side setback variances. Staff reconunends approval of the lot area and width variances, subject to: 1) Prior to Council action, applicant to submit a revised house plan meeting the 30' side setbacks, and a more detailed grading plan showing how runoff will not be directed to neighboring properties. 2) Applicant to move existing/proposed driveway to meet 5' minimum setback from south lot line; OR, if applicant indicates that saving the two adjacent trees is critical, consider granting a variance to the 5' requirement, perhaps subject to applicant obtaining written approval from the adjoining property owner. Date Application Received: 3/22/05 Date Application Considered as Complete: 4/11/05 60-Day Review Period Expires: 6/10/05 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Rahn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Planning Directo14 May 12, 2005 #05-3102 Kathryn Alexander for Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Rd. S. -Variances -REVISED PLAN -Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre/200' minimum 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre)/ 110' Lot Area/Width: Application Summary: Applicants have revised their plans by eliminating the request for a right (south) side setback variance, and are proposing a left (north) side setback of 18' where 30' would normally be required, i.e. a variance of 12'. The request still includes lot area and lot width variances to construct a new residence on the property. This will be a teardown and total rebuild. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances. Planning Commission should determine whether there is sufficient hardship or justification to recommend granting of the side setback variance. Pertinent Code Sections Section 78-420(b ): RR-lB Standards: Required Lot Area: 2.0 acres Required Lot Width: 200' Required Side Yard: 30' List of Exhibits A -Revised survey/site plan B -Revised plans and elevation views C -PC Action Notice 4-21-05 D -Draft PC Minutes of April 18 Meeting E-Memo and Exhibits of 4-14-05 Background Lot Area and Width Variances. Applicants are requesting a lot area variance to allow construction of a new residence to replace the existing older home on a lot 40,385 s.f. or 0.93 acres in area and 11 O' in width where a lot area of 87,120 s.f. and lot width of 200' are required. #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. May 12, 2005 Page 2 Side Setback Variances. Applicants initially requested side setback variances on both sides, to allow a new home to be located 15.5' from the north side lot line and 15.0' from the south side lot line where 30' side setbacks are normally required. The revised plan has 'squared up' the home with the lot lines, removing the angle. The new proposal meets the 30' right side setback, but proposes an 18' side setback on the north side, requiring a 12' variance. Typical of long, relatively narrow lots is that for a given square footage of footprint, as the structure gets narrower, it increases in length. The impact for the immediate neighborhood in this case is that a longer facade is exposed to both sides as compared to the initial design proposed for this site. Applicant notes that the neighbors to the north, who expressed concern about the original design being close to the line, might be more negatively impacted by the length inherent in the new design. Driveway Relocated. Applicants have determined that the two trees along the north side of the driveway are expendable, and the revised plans show the driveway moved northward to meet the required 5' setback. Grading Plan Revised. A revised grading plan has been provided that, subject to approval by the City Engineer, appears to direct runoff to the east and not directly to adjoining properties. This does appear to require grading of swales within 5' of the adjoining lot line, which is allowed. REVISED LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area/Width: RR-lB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acre) 200' Actual 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre) 110' Yards/Setbacks Required Existing Initial Proposal Revised Plan Front Yard 50' (to be removed) 131' 97' Rear Yard 50' (to be removed) 163' 178' Right Side Yard (South) 30' (to be removed) 15' (att. gar.) 30' Left Side Yard (North) 30' (to be-removed) 15.5' 18.0' Lake (929.4' contour) 75' (to be removed) 180' ± 200'+ Average Lake shore No (All homes in No encroachment No encroachment Encroachment line) #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. May 12, 2005 Page3 Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area 40,400 s.f. (0.93 ac.) Total Structural Coverage Allowed: 6,060s.f. (15.0 %) Initial Proposal: 3,463 s.f. (8.6 %) Revised Plan: 3,714 s.f. (9.2 %) Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Total Area Allowed Existing Revised Zone in Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover 0-75' 3,220 s.f. 0% (to be removed) 0 s.f. (0%) 75-250' 21,825 s.f. 5,456 s.f. (25 %) (to be removed) 2,498 s.f. (11.4 %) 250-500' 15,340 s.f. 4,602 s.f. (30%) (to be removed) 4,294 s.f. (28.0 %) Totals 40,385 s.f. 10,058 sf (to be removed) 6,792 s.f. Hardship Statement & Analysis (Refer to comments from April 14 Memo) Summary of Issues for Consideration 1. Is the existing lot size sufficient hardship to support granting of the lot area and width variances? 2. Are there hardships present that support granting of the side setback variances? Is the 50' wide buildable envelope so limiting as to be considered a hardship? 3. Would granting of the north side setback variance of 12' be appropriate in the context of this neighborhood and the locations of neighboring homes? Is the impact of additional structure length while requiring less side setback encroachment, a positive or negative for the neighborhood? 4. Are there any other issues with this proposed rebuild? #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. May 12, 2005 Page4 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances. Planning Commission should determine whether there is sufficient hardship or justification to recommend granting of the side setback variance. Date Application Received: 3-22-05 Date Application Considered as Complete: 4-11-05 Initial 60-Day Review Period Expires: 6-10-05 Notified of 60-day Extension on 5-17-05 to: 8-9-05 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: May 31, 2005 Item No.: Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #05-3102 Kathryn Alexander for Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Rd. S.-Variances -Resolution List of Exhibits A -Resolution B -Notice of Planning Commission Action 5-17-05 C -Revised Plans Received 5-31-05 D -Plans Submitted at 5-16-05 PC Meeting for Discussion E -Draft Planning Commission Minutes 5-16-05 F -Memo and Selected Exhibits of 5-12-05 Application Summary: Applicants initially requested lot area, lot width and left and right side setback variances to construct a new residence on the property (teardown and total rebuild). Planning Commission tabled this at their April meeting to allow applicant to submit a revised plan that minimizes or eliminates the side setback variances. A number of options for revision were reviewed by Planning Commission at their May 16 meeting. Planning Commission Recommendation: On May 16 Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of lot area and lot width variances and approval of side setbacks of 20' on each side, subject to provision of a plan similar in size and shape to the angled-garage plan submitted at the May 16 meeting (but flipped left-to-right). (4 revised plan meeting these criteria has been submitted and is attached as Exhibit CJ. Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with the conclusion of the Planning Commission, and recommends approval of the area, width and side setback variances per the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. 7407 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55426 PH 952-471-0584 FX 952-471-0639 www.Stonewood.com MN I.D. #20330592 Mr&Mrs. Skeie 860 Brown Road South Orono,1v1N i To Whom It 1v1ay Concern: STONEWOOD DESIGN I BUILD LLC Monday,Junel9,2006 We have reviewed the plans that Stonewood Design Build has prepared for the vacant property located at 920 Brown Road South and approve of the proposed home design and location. Signed:______,&~0t~~~' ~~~~-r· __ Date: _ _____,~....._ .. ~/4c...._o.c;._ 1 .,,._/ CJ=---=-0 ___ _ 7407 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55426 PH 952-471-0584 FX 952-471-0639 www.Stonewood.com MN 1.D. #20330592 STONEWOOD DESIGN I BUILD LLC Shantelle Sumner & Josh Odegard 930 Bro'Wll Road South Orono,:MN To 'Whom It 1Vfay Concern: Monda~June19,2006 We have reviewed the plans that Stonewood Design Build has prepared for the vacant property located at 920 Bro'Wll Road South and approve of the proposed home design and location. Signed:_,:--+.~--P'----"'-~------- Date: __ f}[J _ ___,,,~=-.;._~------ Signed:---+-+---t-=-'-~~q};J=------ Date: &. 1D. UiJ(R ONiNG (2 ACRE tv11~~.) :s VARIANCE FOR FT WIDTH BACKS ONT=50 lES=30 ~ ... R = 5 o -·-·----·-·--···-•• .. -... ________ _ I EXISTING EXISTING 0.93 ACRE 110 68.3 41 SOUTH , 242 ' E/iS I HOUSt I t!":(/'i 2~~ 15 NORTH I HOUSE ,------:r-r-- #920 0 SF 30 90 FEET . ELEVATION. )T ELEVATION FACE DRAINAGE (0%) A PORCH= DECKS= WALK = DAT§EPT. 12, 2 004 PAGE REVISIONS4/ 11 /05 SETBACK ZONES, H PROP. HO GROG HC MAR. 21 2005 PROPOSED ACRE SIC ( ✓\ \ HOUSE IS 7.1 % OF TOTAL LOT BUILDING. PERMIT SUR Vt FRANCIS RES!DE!v for STONEWOOD DES l 18 ZONING (2 ACRE MIN.) :QUIRES VARIANCE FOR : 200 FT WIDTH SETBACKS FRONT=50 SIDES=30 EXISTING 0.93 ACRE EXIST HOUS 'f..g,s0.0 110 ll[)(/) PROPOSED 0.93 ACRE 110 97 PRO REAfy=50 / / f~·3 SOUTH 1r:ORTH ------242 I N 89 ° 19 I 3;r1""-·E-----400. 04 I 20 SOUTH AND NORTH 180 HO, 165 DEC~- 54.8 10) / 60 90 N .FEET SPOT ELEVATION. SPOT ELEVATION SURF ACE DRAINAGE 0 SF (0%) '' (EXISTING TO BE REMy1VED) ' \ ✓ \ HOUSE IS 9.0% OF TOT AL LOT AREA PROJECT NO. BOOK DATE JAN 16, 2006 PAGE REVISIONS 5/ 18/06 REV HO, HC BUILDING PERMIT SURl HULBERT RESIDE; for STONEWOOD DE. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 22, 2006 Item No.: Department Approval: . Administrator Approval: N~me: Mich~el P. ?'affron ;}JJ/\.:2"\ Title: Planning Director 1 /rt~ Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #05-3102 Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Rd. S.- Variance -Review of Revised Site Plan and Building Plans List of Exhibits A -Resolution No. 5329 including Approved Building Plans and Site Plan 6-13-05 B -Revised Site Plan 5-18-06 C -Revised Building Plans May 2006 D -PC Minutes 4-18-05, 5-16-05; Council Minutes 6-13-05 E -PC Memos 4-14-05 and 5-12-05 F -Neighbor Comments, June 2006 G -2005-2006 Site Plan Comparisons Summary of Issue: Site plan and building plans submitted for building pennit approval do not match those upon which the variance approvals were predicated. Per the conditions of the Resolution, staff is requesting Council review of the revised proposal for a determination of whether the revisions are still in keeping with the intent of the variance approval. Applicant had a buyer for this property in 2005, submitted plans and worked through the variance review process, revising plans in response to Planning Commission concerns. Based on a specific set of building plans and site plan which Planning Commission found acceptable, lot area, lot width and left and right side setback variances for a house with portions 20' rather than 30' from the side lot line, were granted in June 2005 to construct a new residence on the property. The specific site plan and building plans were referenced in the approval resolution. Condition 1 of the variance approval states: "Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require fitrther Planning Commission and City Council review". The original buyer for the property went away, and a new buyer was eventually found. Applicant had new plans drawn up suiting the new buyer's wishes; however, the extent and location of encroachments of the side setback on both sides does not match those upon which the variances were accepted. The newly submitted plans, while still proposing a house with 20' side setbacks, exhibit a significantly greater area of encroachment of the side setback than the house plan that was approved, and a different location for those encroachments. It is staffs conclusion that the degree of additional encroachment proposed in 2006 is not in conformity with City codes, and therefore is subject to further review. #05-3102 June 22, 2006 Page 2 Because the side setback variance was discussed at some length at the two Planning Commission meetings in 2005, and because comments in the minutes suggest that minimization of the degree of encroachment was key to the side setback approvals, staff is compelled to request Council's review of the current proposal. The two abutting neighbors have submitted letters indicating their approval of the current plans. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the current plans, compare them to the originally approved plans, and review the Planning commission memos and minutes from 2005. Provide staff with direction regarding whether the new proposal is in keeping with the intent and spirit of the variances approved in 2005. MINDTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (PUBLIC COMMENTS, Continued) McMillan co1mnented light pollution is a big issue for her personally and that there are some lights along 394 erected by Mn/Dot that could be replaced with a better type of shielded light. McMillan stated the primary reason for the lights is security. McMillan encouraged Mr. Lyman to write to Mn/Dot with his concerns. Sansevere stated the City has been proactive in its approach to protecting the lake and that he feels the same way that Mr. Lyman does on the other issues but that the City is limited in what it is able to accomplish in that regard. White noted outdoor advertising is not allowed in Orono. White stated in his view the amount of electricity being used and the coal being consumed to generate electricity will become a major issue in the coming years. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. #05-3102 STONEWOOD DESIGN BUILD, 920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -VARIANCE - REVIEW REVISED PLAN Kathy Alexander, Architect, and Sven Gustafson, Contractor, were present. Gaffron stated Staff is requesting site plan review on this application. Gaf:fron noted the applicants were granted a variance in 2005 for lot width, lot area, and side setbacks. The resolution that was approved by the Council specifically referenced site plans that were reviewed by the Planning Conmrission. Gaf:fron stated the issue that is bringing this application back before the City Council is whether fmiher Planning Commission review is necessary. Gaf:fron indicated there have been some changes made to the site plan that may not be in confo1mance with City Code and would require further review. Gaf:fron indicated the Plam1ing Commission was very specific in their discussions about the location and amount of encroachment and the plans received this spring have some revisions. Gaffron noted there is a new owner of the property since the time this application was reviewed by the Planning Co1mnission. Gaffron stated there are now some different encroachments than what was previously approved. Gaf:fron noted the neighbors are aware of the changes and their cmmnents have been included in the Council packet. Gaf:fron requested the Council review the cmTent plans, compare them to the originally approved plans, and review the Planning Commission memos and minutes from 2005. Gaffron reconnnended this application be sent back to the Pla1ming Commission for their review and comments. Gustafson stated when the house was originally designed, they were working with another client, and that it was the architect's belief that they were working within the variance approval. Gustafson stated Ms. Alexander had spoken with someone at the City requesting clarification prior to proceeding forward and that they believed they were in compliance with the variance approval. Peterson indicated she is in agreement with Staffs recommendation to refer this application back to the Planning Commission. PAGE4 of9 MINUTES OF TEE ORONO CITY COUNCJL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #05-3102 STONEWOOD DESIGN BUILD, 920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, Continued) White noted the encroachment is being doubled and that the Planning Conm1ission should review this item again. Sansevere concurred with sending the application back to the Planning Commission given the changes. Peterson stated in her view there have been significant changes to the plans. Alexander stated part of the reason for the confusion is the way the resolution reads and that the resolution does not cite specific house plans. Alexander stated she interpreted it to mean that as long as they confom1ed with the setback variance, they were fine. Gustafson stated the resolution reads any amendments that are not in conformance with city code. Peterson stated in her view they are intensifying the approval. Sansevere suggested any future questions be directed to Mr. Gaffron. Gaffron stated this application would be on the July Planning Commission agenda. Brokl noted the variance that was granted has already expired so it would need to go back to the Planning Commission. Gustafson stated they were told if they applied for a building pemut it would be okay. Brokl stated the building permit would have been issued based on the site plan that was approved. Gaffron inquired whether a renewal variance application should be brought. Brokl stated a new application should be submitted. The City Council referred this application to the Pla1ming Commission. 5. #05-3131 STEVE BOID., OF BOfilAND DEVELOPMENT, INC., 190 WJLLOW DRIVE NORTH AND 177 GLENDALE DRIVE -RPUD/FINAL PLAT/REZONING-RESOLUTION NO. 5480 AND ORDINANCE NO. 34, THIRD SERIES Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, and Chris Pearson, Attorney-at-Law, were present. Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting final plat approval for Glendale Cove. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting approval of an ordinance for rezoning the property, except for the church lot, from RR-lB Rural Residential District to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District; the PUD No. 5 Agreement, which establishes the ongoing conditions of PUD approval as well as providing for the installation of improvements; and a resolution granting general development plan approval and final plat approval. The approvals are conditioned on the developer following the "Ecological Restoration & Management Program for Glendale Cove" by AES, Inc. Although the covenants have not been received from the applicant as of yet, Staff will confim1 upon receipt that they contain language requiring ongoing management of the conm1on spaces in conformance with the AES program. Staff is expecting that the PAGE 5 of9 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 TO: Stonewood Design/Build 4420 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 ZONING FILE #05-3102 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: June 17, 2005 COPIES: Kathryn Alexander 401 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Lot area, width, side setback variances DATE OF MEETING: June 13, 2005 Motion: Approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution previously mailed to you. VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST Please arrange to sign the 3 original resolution copies at the City Offices (Monday through Thursday, 7:30 to 5:00, Friday 7:30 to 11:30). All persons with an interest in the property must sign the resolutions. 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 13, 2006. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Council. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. PUBLIC COMMENTS None MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June13,2005 7:00 o'clock p.m. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *4. #05-3102 KATHRYN ALEXANDER ON BEHALF OF J. SVEN GUSTAFSON, 920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH-VARIANCE -RESOLUTION NO. 5329 Murphy moved, White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5329, a Resolution granting approval of lot area and lot width variances and approval of side setbacks of 20 feet on each side for the property located at 920 Brown Road South. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *5. #05-3108 GARY AND LYNN CHRISTENSEN, 3560 IVY PLACE-VARIANCE- RESOLUTION NO. 5330 Murphy moved, White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5330, a Resolution granting hardcover, side and lake setback variances for the property located at 3560 Ivy Place. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *6. #05-3109 NAVARRE CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, 3655 TOGO ROAD -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES -RESOLUTION NO. 5331 Murphy moved, White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5331, a Resolution granting a conditional use permit and hardcover and sign variances for the property located at 3655 Togo Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 7. #05-3110 THOMAS AND SHEILA BROWNE, 760 BROWN ROAD SOUTH-VARIANCE Thomas Browne, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicants' property is located on Tanager Lake, which has been classified by the DNR as a recreational development lake requiring a 100-foot structure setback. The applicants would like to construct a window dormer for added space and safety in an existing second story bathroom. In addition, the applicants would like to construct a small garage addition to the north of their attached garage. Curtis noted the entire home is located within the 100-foot strncture setback and any building envelope expansion would require a lake setback variance. PAGE2 Date Application Received: 3-22-05 Date Application Considered as Complete: 4-11-05 Initial 60-Day Review Period Expires: 6-10-05 Notified of 60-day Extension on 5-17-05 to: 8-9-05 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: May 31, 2005 Item No.: Department Approval: ministrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Planning Director Zoning Item Description: #05-3102 Kathryn Alexander for Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Rd. S.-Variances -Resolution List of Exhibits A -Resolution B -Notice of Planning Commission Action 5-17-05 C -Revised Plans Received 5-31-05 D -Plans Submitted at 5-16-05 PC Meeting for Discussion E -Draft Planning Commission Minutes 5-16-05 F -Memo and Selected Exhibits of 5-12-05 Application Summary: Applicants initially requested lot area, lot width and left and right side setback variances to construct a new residence on the property (teardown and total rebuild). Planning Commission tabled this at their April meeting to allow applicant to submit a revised plan that minimizes or eliminates the side setback variances. A number of options for revision were reviewed by Planning Commission at their May 16 meeting. Planning Commission Recommendation: On May 16 Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of lot area and lot width variances and approval of side setbacks of 20' on each side, subject to provision of a plan similar in size and shape to the angled-garage plan submitted at the May 16 meeting (but flipped left-to-right). (A. revised plan meeting these criteria has been submitted and is attached as Exhibit C). Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with the conclusion of the Planning Commission, and recommends approval of the area, width and side setback variances per the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-420(b) FILE NO. 05-3102 WHEREAS, Jeffrey Sven Gustafson, a single person (hereinafter "the applicant"), represented by Kathryn Alexander, is owner of the property located at 920 Brown Road South within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: The West 400 feet of the South 110 feet of the North 580.38 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 117, Range 23, except road, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); (also identified as PINS 10-117-23 12 0002); and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an application requesting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420(b) to permit the construction of a single family residence on a lot of area 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre) and width of 110 feet where a lot area of 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) and width of200' are normally required, and to permit such residence structure to be located 20' from the north and south side lot lines where a 30' side setback is normally required. WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 18, 2005 and May 16, 2005, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #05-3102. 2. The property is located in the RR-1B Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum lot area of2.0 acres and a minimum lot width of 200 feet for residential development. The property is approximately 0.93 acres in dry buildable area and approximately 110 feet in defined width. Page 1 of 4 3. The Planning Commission reviewed the variance application at a public hearing held on April 18, 2005 and reviewed a revised plan on May 16, 2005. Planning Commission subsequently recommended approval of the requested variances for the revised plan by a vote of 5-1 based on the following findings and hardships: a) The property has an existing house and is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The applicant has agreed to pay the costs of extension of a pressure sewer line down Brown Road from the existing Webber Hills sewer lateral, and therefore does not need to provide a septic system for the proposed new residence. b) There is no adjacent land available for applicant to acquire to make the property more conforming in area or width. c) The zoning standards when applied to this property limit the width of the home and attached garage to 50', which will result in a home that is longer than it is wide, causing a greater visual impact as viewed from the two adjacent homes than is typical in the immediate neighborhood. Allowing side setbacks of 20' instead of the required 30' will result in a house that is better proportioned to fit into the neighborhood, as long as the extent of the encroachment of the side yards is limited to primarily the house in the southerly side yard and the garage on the northerly side yard. This will not create a situation of increased visual density nor be out of character with the neighborhood. The applicant has provided a site plan meeting these goals. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance 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 variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is 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. Page 2 of 4 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420(b) to permit the construction of a single family residence on a lot of area 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre) and width of 110 feet where a lot area of 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) and width of 200' are normally required, and to permit such residence structure to be located 20' from the north and south side lot lines where a 30' side setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. 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 within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (June 13, 2006). 3. 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. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicant and the applicant's heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of June, 2005. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner( s) Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this_ day of ____ , 2005 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this_ day of ____ , 2005 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _______ , 2005 by Jeffrey Sven Gustafson, a single person. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 TO: Stonewood Design/Build 4420 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 ZONING FILE #05-3102 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 17, 2005 COPIES: Kathryn Alexander 401 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Lot area, width, side setback variances DATE OF MEETING: May 16, 2005 Motion: To recommend approval oflot area and lot width variances and approval ofside setbacks of 20' on each side, subject to provision of a plan similar in size and shape to the angled-garage plan submitted at the May 16 meeting (but flipped left-to-right). VOTE: 5 FOR 1 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: This item can be placed on the Council's May 23 agenda for discussion and preliminary approval if you can provide the above floor plans, elevation views and revised site plan by noon on Thursday May 19. A resolution reflecting Council's conclusion would be scheduled for the June 13 council meeting. Note: Revised plans must be submitted no later than noon on Thursday, May 19 to ensure placement on the May 23 Council agenda. 60-day Extension Notification: State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of complete application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was received on March 22, 2005 and deemed as complete on April 11, 2005, hence the initial 60-day review period would end on June 10, 2005. However, because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission in April, the earliest potential date of final Council action falls after the initial 60-day period ends. Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to August 9, 2005. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. R 11 B ZONING (2 ACRE MIN.) REQUIRES VARIANCE FOR < 200 FT WIDTH / · .. I ! SETBACKS FRONT=50 SIDES=30 REAR=50 EXISTING EXISTING 0.93 ACRE 110 68.3 41 SOUTH · EXIST HOUS y_950.0 I I L'J (/) 2~~ 15 NORTH HOUSE .----t-.,..-. PROPOSED ELEV A TIONS GARAGE FLOOR=954.5 TOP OF FOUNDATION =954.8 LOWEST FLOOR=946.0 (WO) 0 30 SCALE IN 60 90 FEET = EXISTING SPOT ELEV A TION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEV A TION ~-· = DIRECTION SURF ACE DRAINAGE #920 PROJECT NO. DATSEPT. 12, 2004 PAGE REVISIONS4/ 11 /05 SETBACK ZONE~\ H PROP. HO GROG HC MAR. 21 2005 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND TH I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UN ER H AWS OF THE ST A TE OF MINNESOTA. PROPOSED ACRE PROPOSED VARIANCES 2.0 ACRE TO EXISTING 0.93 ACRE - LOT WIDTH FROM 200 FEET TO EXISTING 110 FEET SIDE SETBACKS FROM 30 FEET TO 20 FEET EXISTING HOUSE #930 ' \ ! '· 259 + 15340SF / 0.35AC X 30% = 4600SF HOUSE= 462 SF DRIVE = 2835 SF TOTAL= 3297 SF (21.5%) HC HOUSE IS 7.1 % OF TOT AL LOT AREA BUILDING PERMIT SURVE,Y FRANCIS RESIDENCE forSTONEWOOD DESIGN "Land FD3/4 7.8 EAST / AND 4.0 NORTH OF PROP.COR . ...--- Frank R. Cardarelle Surveyor 6440 FL YING CLOUD DRIVE ED!:::N PRAIRIE, MN. 55344 952-941-3031 •• ~6IOMI Ill•• COfllrCl!tlt. -•• fllCIW. .IN) CR. Tlltf1 1101. =-111.W~MOQLT.- 401 EAST LAKE STREET WAyzATA.MN 55391 Phone: 952.473.&m FAX: 952.473.8222 •·LM>-1114·~ -·•-AfC---=~,,..:COA.T.&TCIIII ---l!IJ!VATIQII 401 EAST LAKE STREET WAY2ATA,MN 55391 Phonc: 952.473.Sm FAX: 952.473.8222 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ___ ..__...1 • I - I I II • • I C- •· l.AP' eroNtw ~-00ll9l!llt -•• UN0IU. MC Cllt. TRl1 ace. CZ>Mt-MC>CILT.61oe l'l!lltl!l.aVA'IIQlt 401 EAST LAKE STREEf WAY'l..ATA, MN 55391 Phone: 952.473.sm FAX: 952.473.8222 • l I I -, I I I I -· 1 I I I I I I I I I ____ J EE3 : : ~ HI3EE8EE8EEE ■ illl '\ 6• LAP fM0NS IV ,4• CQIN!R -··--------QLT.eT<NE f'lllltl!LSYA'l!Clle --~~~~~~~~~~----11!1.EVAT!ClNe ,, ' u I I I I I I l-'J r I I I I I ~ I ••L.At-SICNIUVA-•~ ..,_ •• ucw. Ate CPt. 1'flN l!IOS. ---QLT. eTCIG --... -~g::==E~~~~~~~~~~i~-~-L __ l_ --11!1.EVATICHII ·•L,APf.fMONilll/4•~ -··-----c:m>Alt-AHi:> QLT. 6TCIG l'lllt l!LSYA11CNI ---liU!YA- 401 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA.MN 55391 Phone: 952,473.Sm FAX: 952.473.8222 • & I -- ~ MlIE AST LAKE Sl'RFET 7 WA YZATA,MN 55391 Phone: 952.473.8m : I I FAX: 952.473.8222 -: i ; I f I! . _J • ~ u • I u ~ d\ ,r: u u• Ill ... t ~ Ii I I I I l --R ,,, .,"' .... ---..J / ,,--__ J / / ,,,,,,,. I / ✓ ~ - I ...... ..... - I I -------t:-t-----~ : ~G ii I I I Sf I I --t---Jc __ i 1 sl - - - -I : ! "' h - I t.. ' ' l ' ; ' I = I ........ I ........ ' I ' I ( ........ l'e, ' ' !!i ' I ........ .., 401 EAST LAKE STREET WAY'l.ATA,MN 55391 Phone: 952.473.'o177 FAX: 952.473,8222 Ii • ~ • u• Hl Rlll ~ I ! I I ~ ~ :illl ---tr ! i i:. gff -----t-- 6.~lr ;i i t I I ~ ---________ -~ __ J,'_ I I ii , r-------! I I I 11 i~ -----~-} ~al y----- 70 foot wide overall width with garage angled. 62 foot wide house without the garage. Would require 10' variance on each side of the property. ( Iii~ I / \ /~ < ~ / / \ / \ ,;1;.'-//1\ \ / ~I // \ ' ,., ~ I ~ ~ ~ ii'. ~ 0 __J IL __J ~ w __J ;n st ~ :i: J -,I) !!!~ . JU U• Hf .. ,-~ l l II= w l) z ;E ~ ~ <i>!H &' )i o ~ ~g l) Ill z .. ~ 11 ll. 0 l I-·-· ~gi +-·-·---~ J ~ i, ~· i,~, t II I !! CJ ~· 1#1 II~----· t-·-·_J!I I !i, ~ 11 I ~· ,,, =~ I i 4 id1~~ n-i ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I L ____ ....J L ____ ....J I) 11 1?1 ll~---4-:i-t· !~•. m ,, 50 foot wide house -no variance to side yard setbacks required. House would have a 95 foot long wall, plus the depth of the screen porch. I I I I L ____ ....J ~ t ! .J ~ w ·~ ~,; <{ :, I:l 1,11: 1111 J_ r . ; ' &• i i~ • i~ i i ~ w ~! io(H ~ ~i ~d~ 0111 Z11 ;p IL ~ \::::;:) l i 11111 ---~t :~ __ } r -, r-- lio I 6•~1r S< i ~ I /t ______ _& .-1.' I I 18 , ,--·---l I 11 I I ,-~ 1!3 SI' -----~) !~al r~·-·- 62 foot wide overall width with garage strait. 62 foot wide house without the garage. Would require 6' variance on each side of the property. ti I ~, r-----1 I I I I I I I I ; ~ it ! ..J I ~ ~ ~,\ <{ , I: ! r!~'-------I : ~ I I I I I I ~ rj !! cg; 11 ! II ~ w ~;! ~§ w ii>H Ill o · oc "'0 !Q ~ i u ill z .. iP IL I ' ~ ~I ~ Ma~ 15 05 02:29p Kath~ Alexander 952-473-8222 b-S:::. p. 2 e-- May 13,2005 To Mike Gaffron & the Planning Commission - I regret that I am not able to be at the planning commission meeting on the 16 th and wanted to re-cap some of the thought process in the design of 920 South Brown Road. It is a very small lot in the area in comparison· to the lots surrounding it. The need for lot size and width variances alone stand strong to represent a hardship in needing consideration for a side yard variance. In my 18 years of working in cities in the Minneapolis area -1his hardship alone has gotten sideyard setback variances granted in many other communities. I ,vould ask you again to give careful consideration to smaller side yard setbacks that would be , proportionate to the lot. In re-considering t11e design for a house at 920 S. Brown Road, I have walked the lot and looked at the two neighboring houses , views and lay of the land. The house itself is design~d to stay small. The prospective buyers are empty nesters and want a compact footprint -2118 sq. ft.-with a main floor Master Bedroom. This will be a one level home with a walkout basement. The real issue is -where does the garage go if it is to attach to Lhe house? The buyers would really prefer an angled garage to minimize its protrusion to the front and side. This will not work without 15 ft. side yards. The landscape dictates that a tuck under will not work. A front facing garage would cover more than 50% of U1e face of the house and truly look like a tract home on a beautiful piece of lruid. An L-shaped garage will work but also may ovcrpov,1er the house depending on how set back from the house it can be. It also dictates that the garage must be kept on the north side of the lot due lo the grnde of the land and driveway. This appears to be the best solution based on city requirements . .I would ask you to consider granting a variance on one side of the lot to 18 ft. instead of the normal 30 ft. required in this zone. Since the lot itself and the lot width require variances in order to even pull a building pennit, this seems like a logical & fair variance Lo grant based on the hardship of the small lot in a 2 acre zone. Thank you for your time & attention to this matter. Sincerely RESrDENTlAL BUILDING DESJGN Kathryn Alexander 401 EAST LAKE STREET WAY7..ATA, MN 55391 (952) 473-8777 Ma~ 15 05 02:29p Kath~ Alexander 952-473-8222 p. 1 FAX COVER To: _ _,__"1-=--=-=tld'-=--e-~c;A-t~==--+-~o~U __ _ FROM:_...,_~------'\--=--'----'--__,,,~:::...._~~CL..::::'..-..!..=0~~~-...:::=,__ __ NUMBER OF PAGES iNCLUDING COVER: ----=~------- RESIDENTIAL BUILDING DESIGN V 401 EAST I.AKE STREET WAYZATA , MN 55391 (952) 473-8777 V MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. placement of permittecL stairways and landings. Jurgens stated perhaps the language should be m ified \\ \ to address maintenance of' roperties. Jurgens noted the code does allow limited pruning. Gaffron stated in the past peo le were allowed to prune along the shoreline without a per it but that under the amendment they woul be required to apply for a permit. Winkey recommended the public co ents received tonight be taken into con ·aeration. Lane inquired what would happen if the ind or other forces of nature kn k down the trees. Smith stated she was forced to remove 72 tre s as a result of one wi storm and commented that the cost to obtain a permit to remove the trees would be c stly. Bremer noted the fee would not apply to each tree. Rahn stated he is in agreement with Winkey and that concerns of the residents should be taken into consideration and that the amendment should /•bled. \ Whitman inquired what process would be ~{owed in approvi,this ordinance amendment and whether the public could attend the meeting. // \ / \ Bremer stated the hearing would bl open to the public and that the C~ would also be obtaining the opinion of the City Attorney .Ze language contained within the ame~ent. Bremer stated she would / \ like to see some though:J6 into incorporating language into the amendmenf'{o deal with previously approved situatioi \ Kempf suggest the City address what it feels is intensive clearing of a lot. Kemp{ noted buckthom does \ have a ten ncy to take over an area and that there needs to be a plan to address its re~!. Rah oved, Bremer seconded, to table Application #05-3098, City of Orono, Section\ \ \ 78-1285,Shoreiancl. Management, Zoning Code Amendment VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. ''"' 2. #05-3102 KATHRYN ALEXA.~DER ON BEHALF OF J. SVEN GUSTAFSON, 920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, VARIANCES, 6:56 P.'.Yl-7:23 P.M. J. Sven Gustafson, Applicant. was present. Rick and Janet Francis. property owners, were present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. Gaffron noted a letter was received from Kathryn Alexander supporting her position regarding the request for variances. Gaffron stated at the last Planning Commission meeting the applicants had proposed side setback variances on both sides to allow a new home to be located 15.5 feet from the north side lot line and 15 feet from the south side lot line. The applicants have since revised their plans and are now proposing a north side setback of 18 feet where 30 feet would normally be required in addition to lot area and lot width variances. The applicants have eliminated the request for a south side setback variance. Staff recommends approval of the lot width and lot area variances. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission discuss the revised plans and determine whether there is hardship or justification for the side lot setback variance. Gaffron noted at the last meeting a discussion was had regarding the long narrow lot and how the same size footprint, without the side yard setback, would make the house longer and have a greater view impact on the neighbors. Gaffron stated the applicants are willing to remove two trees to relocate the driveway to meet the five-foot setback from the south lot line. Gaffron noted there are no hardcover or structural issues on this property. Gustafson stated they have taken the Planning Commission's comments into consideration anci have revised their proposal to limit a variance on only one side of the property. Gustafson indicated he would prefer to split the distance between both sides of the property line. Gustafson stated the trees that they are proposing to remove are cottonwoods and that the neighbors are not opposed to the removal. Gustafson distributed three different footprints of the type of home the property owners would prefer to be built on this lot. Gustafson indicated the neighbors are not particularly in favor of the house designs given the length of the house. Gustafson stated in his opinion the neighbors would prefer the difference be split and the house made wider, which is also the property owner's preference. Rahn stated it appears that the survey conflicts with the original floor plan and questioned whether the deck and porch would encroach into the side yard setback. Rahn stated he would not be in favor of PAGE9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. approving a deck or a porch if it encroaches into the side yard setback. Rahn stated Exhibits B 1 and B2 show the deck located outside of the dining room and the screen porch encroaching. Gustafson agreed they do appear to be inconsistent. Rahn stated he does not have a major issue with the garage encroaching but would not be in support of the deck or porch encroaching into the side yard setback. Rahn noted the neighbor to the north had asked that the home not encroach any closer than 24 feet. Gustafson stated the neighbor has indicated he would prefer a wider home rather than a longer home. Gustafson stated the angled garage is less of an encroachment on the neighboring property. Winkey inquired what plan the applicant would like the Planning Commission to focus on. Gustafson stated they would like the Planning Commission to look at the first plan in the packet distributed tonight. Rahn noted that plan calls for a 10-foot encroachment on each side. Rahn pointed out Staff has not had time to review the plan being proposed by the applicant tonight. Gustafson stated they would like some direction from the Planning Commission on whether they would be acceptable to an angled garage. Rahn stated it was his recollection that the Planning Commission would be acceptable to a minor encroachment. David Skeie, 860 Brown Road South, stated he has resided to the north of this property for 28 years. Skeie indicated there is a grove of trees between his house and the proposed residence and that he is not opposed to the plan being proposed tonight by the applicant. Skeie stated he would prefer to have the house wider rather than longer. Kempf stated he sees the advantage to the shorter building and that a comer of the garage encroaching into the side yard setback is not as significant as the encroachment of the entire side of the garage. Jurgens inquired what the total length of the house with the angled garage is. Gustafson stated it is 70 feet wide and 80 feet long, which includes the deck. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. Jurgens inquired what the length of the home with the L-shaped garage is on the survey. Gustafson stated it is 96.10. Jurgens noted that is an additional 17 feet in depth, and inquired whether the back of the house would be going east if the house is constructed longer on this lot rather than wider. Gustafson stated the house would probably be pushed further to the east. Winkey inquired whether the house has been reduced ten feet by whether it is angled differently on the lot. Gustafson stated the size of the house was reduced and the layout of the house was rearranged somewhat. Winkey stated his recollection of the last Planning Commission meeting the applicant was given direction to minimize the encroachment and that this proposal is a good step towards achieving that goal. Fritzler inquired what the side yard setback would be with the angled garage. Gustafson stated it would be 20 feet. Bremer stated she is in agreement with Commissioner Winkey and that the plan being proposed tonight is a good compromise. Bremer noted one of the goals in reviewing variances is to protect the future property owners of the adjoining lots and that it might be necessary to reduce the encroachment into the side yard setback. Bremer stated the size of the lot in her view does constitute some hardship. Rahn inquired whether it would be necessary for this application to reappear before the Planning Commission if the Planning Commission is in favor of the 20-foot side yard setback. Gaffron stated in his view the applicant could submit a plan depicting exactly what is being proposed tonight for staff review and would not have to reappear before the Planning Commission. Rahn stated he would prefer to see a home that does not go deeper, which would be more intrusive to the neighbors. Bremer noted the encroachment does not go the entire length of the lot but is rather a limited area. Fritzler stated he prefers the angled garage even though it does encroach into the side yard setback rather than the longer house. PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. Jurgens indicated he would prefer to see the specific plan prior to approval. Rahn moved, Kempf seconded, to recommend approval of Application #05-3102, Kathryn Alexander for Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Road South, granting of a 20-foot side yard setback to the north and a 20-foot side yard setback to the south, with the understanding that the footprint proposed to be constructed is the one contained on page two of the handout and should be identical to that floor plan except with a reverse image. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Jurgens Opposed. Jurgens reiterated he would prefer to see the specific plan prior to approving it. NEW BUSINESS 3. #05-3100 LARRY AND SHERYL PALM, 1146 WILD HURST TRAIL, VARIAN CE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:24 P.M. -8:25 P.M. Sheryl and Larry Palm, Applicants, and Blake Buchanich, West Lake Street, Orono, was present. Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting a lot area variance, a lot width variance, and a conditional use permit to allow retaining walls and grading within five feet of the adjoining lot line. Staff has concerns regarding the grading plan for this specific lot and the number of retaining walls being proposed, some as high as 14 feet high. Gundlach stated the concerns deal with the height of the walls as well as maintenance of the walls and the need to construct a swale. Gundlach stated four grading plans have been submitted, with the City Engineering having reviewed two of them. Staff also has a concern that the current plan does not address constrnction on steep slopes. Gundlach indicated the City's code defines a steep slope as "land having average slopes of 12 percent or greater as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more that are not bluffs." The Planning Commission should discuss whether screening should be required for any retaining walls and structures in an effort to preserve existing vegetation screening as viewed from the lake PAGE 12 Date Application Received: 3/22/05 .Date Application Considered as Complete: 4/11/05 60-Day Review Period Expires: 6/10/05 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Rahn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Planning Directo~ May 12, 2005 #05-3102 Kathryn Alexander for Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Rd. S. -:Variances-REVISED PLAN-PublicHearing · Zoning District: RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre/200' minimum 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre)/ 110' Lot Area/Width: · Applicatioll Summary: Applicants have revised their plans by eliminating the request for a right (south) side setback variance, and are proposing a left (1101ih) side setback of 18' where 30' would normally be required, i.e. a variance of 12'. The request still includes lot area and lot width variances to construct a new residence on the property. This will be a teardown and total rebuild . ... · Staff Recommeiidation: Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances~ Plamring Conmrission should dete1111ine whether there is sufficient hardship or justificatim1 to recommend granting of the side setback variance. Pertinent Code Sections Section 78-420(b): RR-lB Standards: Required Lot Area: . 2.0 acres Required Lot Width: 200' Required Side Yard: 30' List of Exhibits A -Revised survey/site plan B -Revised plans and elevation views C-PC Action Notice 4-21-05 · D -Draft PC Minutes of April 18 Meeting Background Lot Area and Width Variances. Applicants are requesting a lot area variance to allow construction of a new residence to replace the existing older home on a lot 40,385 s.f. or 0.93 acres in area and 110' in width where a lot area of 87,120 s.f. and lot width of200' are required. #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. May 12, 2005 Page 2 Side Setback Variances. Applicants initially requested side setback variances on both sides, to allow a new home to be located 15.5' from the north side lot line and 15.0 ' from the south side lot line wh ere 30 ' side setbacks are normally required . The rev ised plan has 'squared up ' the home with the lot lines, removing the angle. The new proposal meets the 30' right side setback, but proposes an 18' side setback on the north side, requiring a 12' variance. Typical of long, relatively naiTow lots is that fo r a given square footage of footprint, as the stru cture gets narrower, it increases in length. The impact for the immediate neighborhood in ... ____ .,:.__ __ ,_. ______ ,.this --case-is-that-a-·l0nger--fa0ade --is-exp0sed-to --both--sides--as -compared--to -the-initial-design--------------.,·-- proposed for this site. Applicant notes that the neighbors to the north, who expressed concern about the original design being close to the line, might be more negatively impacted by the length inherent in the new design. Driveway Relocated. Applicants have determined that the two trees along the north side of the driveway are expendable, and the revised plans show the driveway moved 1101ihward to meet the required 5' setback. Grading Plan Revised . A revised grading plan has been provided that, subject to approval by the City Engineer, appears to direct rnnoff to the east and not directly to adjoining properties . This does appear to require grading of swales within 5' of the adjoining lot line, which is allowed. REVISED LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area/Width: RR-lB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acre) 200' Actual 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre) 110' Yards/Setbacks Required Existing Initial Proposal Revised Plan Front Yard 50' (to be removed) 131' 97' Rear Yard 50' (to be removed) 163' 178' Right Side Yard (South) 30' (to be removed) 15' (att. gar.) 30' Left Side Yard (North) 30' (to be -removed) 15.5' 18.0' Lake (929.4' contour) 75' (to be removed) 180' ± 200'+ Average Lake shore No (All homes in No encroachment No encroachment Encroachment line) #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. May 12, 2005 Page3 Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area 40,400 s.f. (0.93 ac.) Total Structural Coverage Allowed: 6,060s.f. (15.0 %) Initial Proposal: 3,463 s.f. (8.6 %) Revised Plan: 3,714 s.f. (9.2 %) ·····Haidcovei:ca1cii1at:i.ons: Hardcover Total Area Allowed Existing Revised Zone in Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover 0-75' 3,220 s.f. 0% (to be removed) 0 s.f. (0%) 75-250' 21,825 s.f. 5,456 s.f. (25 %) (to be removed) 2,498s.f.(11.4 %) 250-500' 15,340 s.f. 4,602 s.f. (30%) (to be removed) 4,294 s.f. (28.0 %) Totals 40,385 s.f. 10,058 sf (to be removed) 6,792 s.f. Hardship Statement & Analysis (Refer to comments from April 14 Memo) Summary of Issues for Consideration 1. Is the existing lot size sufficient hardship to support granting of the lot area and width variances? 2. Are there hardships present that support granting of the side setback variances? Is the 50' wide buildable envelope so limiting as to be considered a hardship? 3. Would granting of the north side setback variance of 12' be appropriate in the context of this neighborhood and the locations of neighboring homes? Is the impact of additional structure length while requiring less side setback encroachment, a positive or negative for the neighborhood? 4. Are there any other issues with this proposed rebuild? #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. May 12, 2005 Page 4 Staff Recommendation Staff recouunends approval of the lot area and width variances . Plaiming Commission should dete1111ine whether there is sufficient hardship or justification to recommend granting of the side setback variance. --------•-~---•-v---•-------•--·-.,•-•----,~·••·•,...~•-•--•--•-·•••·"-•_,··-,._._•,----•'"-'-"'..,''-•".,_ ... -__. __ .,,_,~_--"'•'•<>----•----.•·-••'--"-•~-• -------------------.-..;--=------------------------A EXIST EXISTING HOUS PROPOSED PROPOSED ELEV A TIONS GARAGE FLOOR_:_954.5 TOP OF FOUNDATION =954.8 LOWEST FLOOR=946.0 (WO) 0 30 SCALE IN 60 0.93 ACRE 110 ··-.. "·· ''cJ~75 3 2·20SF-:/Q. 0 7 AC X O % . = ·-··o·-·~..SF 0 SF (0%). 90 FEET PROJECT NO. y_g'::/0.0 I l[) (/) t~ORTH I 8001< = EXISTING SPOT ELEV A TION. DAT§EPT. 12, 2004 PAGE X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION .,d:,' · · = DIRECTiON SURF ACE DRAINAGE PROPOSED VARIANCES 0.93 ACRE 2.0 ACRE TO EXISTING 0.93 ACRE 110 LOT WIDTH FROM 200 FEET TO EXISTING 110 FEET 97 1 SIDE SETBACKS FROM 30 FEET TO 18 FEET \ \ .\ i 25'0 + \ 1534bSF / 0.35AC X 30% = 4600SF HC HOUSE= 1000 SF DRIVE = 3190 SF WALK = 54 SF STEP= 50 SF TOTAL= 4294 SF (28.0%) AREA BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY FRANCIS RESIDENCE for STONEWOOD DESIGN ADDRESS= 920 BROWN ROADS. PID#10-117-23-12-0002 .... , ... ~-· < FD3/4 7.8 EAST • / AND 4.0 NORTH OF PROP.COR. ,.,..,- LOT AREA = 40400 SF/ 0.93 AC "Land Frank R. Cardarelle Surveyor 6440 FL YING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN. 55344 952-941-3031 ••·,N ..... r,=====~ . ___ JOI! I -----~ I I I I I I! I I I I I I __________ JI -------- riP-,L ..... ... , . I i ;1 I B I " I r---, m I ~ I ~ -.. ,-0,:, l~ ... I (C> ! ; .. i ~Q ~ ~ 11 I I I =- o-~o ,.~!15 I ~ ~I I i .. , ~ • I « I I l!:: :,qeaa .,111 "lift':) - i •--1 ! I tg R I >l<:t'KCI .. X.« I I I I I I ll<l'H'O .. )(.. I I I I I I I I I L . ________ _J I I I I L _____ J CCM284& IN GA6Le5 ~DE I I I I .... ___,t,-:.,-:,_-:.,-:,_-j__ I --f I I I _..J I I I I I I 21-r {t-4112) s ~-tu( ~~-~.f'•"'"'~ CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 TO: Stonewood Design/Build 4420 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 ZONING FILE #05-3102 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: April 21, 2005 COPIES: Katlnyn Alexander 401 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Lot area, width, side setback variances DATE OF MEETING: April 18, 2005 Motion: To table the application to allow applicant to submit a revised plan that minimizes or eliminates the side setback variances. It was noted that the lot area and width variances are not an issue. VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confinned as: Planning Commission -Monday, May 16, 2005; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. Note: Revised plans should be stibmitted no later than Friday, May 6 to ensure placement on the May 16 agenda. If you desire certified copies of the official Plmming Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Plamung C01m11ission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender: City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 Fax: (952) 249-4616 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET YOU SHOULD RECEIVE . PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (952) 249-4600. Conti rmat ion Report -Memory Send Time May-17-2005 01 :03pm +9522494616 Job number Date To Document pages Start time End time Pages sent Status Job number Date.· To: Fa:,c: Re: Sender: 057 057 Tel I ine Name CITY OF ORONO May-17 01 :Olpm 4710639 002 May-17 01 :02pm May-17 01 :03pm 002 OK *** SEND SUCCESSFUL *** City ofC>rono.,- 2750 Kelley Parkl1,,ay P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay • .lldN 55323 (952.) 249-4600 Fax: (952.) 249-46.l 6 FAX. TR.ANS?v:CISS:CON COVER SHEET b:,A-:rH,e.tyAJ A-, .-.XA::"-:!P:e.""?<. '-/73, -~2'2-'2-. YOU SHOULD RECEIVE .z__. PAGE(S.), LNCLUDING THIS COVER SHE.ET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL T.F:£E PAGES. PLEASE CALL (952) 249-4600. Conti rmat ion Report -Memory Send Time May-17-2005 01 :02pm +9522494616 Job number Date To Document pages Start time End ti me Pages sent Status Job number Dare.· To: Fax:: Re.• Sender: : 056 056 Tel I ine Name CITY OF ORONO May-17 01 :Olpm 4738222 002 May-17 01 :Olpm May-17 01 :02pm 002 OK *** SEND SUCCESSFUL *** City, of CJrono 2750 Kelley .Park,,.,ay .P. 0 . .Box 66 Cry.sraZ Bay, .MN' .55323 (952) 249-4600 Fax.· (952) 249-4616 FAX TRANSlv.l.ISSION COVER SHEET ~Je-3/AJ Ac ~-4:'YP: e:-c '-173 -gzz~ YOU SI-:TOUL.D RECEIVE z_.. PAGE(S.). LNCLUDJNG THIS C:OVE.R S.HEET. IF YOU DO NOT .RECEIVE ALL T'riE .PAGES, .PLEASE CALL (9.52) 249-4600. O)L W\. Ma~ 15 05 02:29p Kath~ Alexander 952-473-8222 May 13, 2005 To Mike Gaffron & the Planning Commission - I regret that I am not able to be at the planning commission meeting on the 16 th and wanted to re-cap some of the thought process in the design of 920 South Brown Road. It is a very small lot in the area in comparison to the lots surrounding it. The need for lot size and ~idth variances alone stand strong to represent a hardship in needing consideration for a side yard variance. In my 18 years of working in cities in the Minneapolis area -this hardship alone has gotten sideyard setback variances granted in many other communities. I would ask you again to give careful consideration to smaller side yard setbacks that would be , proportionate to the lot. In re-considering t11e design for a house at 920 S. Brown Road, I have walked the lot and looked at the two neighboring houses , views and lay of the land. The house itself is design~ to stay small. The prospective buyers are empty nesters and want a compact footprint -2118 sq. ft.-with a . main floor Master Bedroom. This will be a one level home with a walkout basement. The real issue is -where does the garage go if it is to attach to the house? The buyers would really prefer an angled garage to minimize its protrusion to the front and side. This wilJ not work without 15 ft. side yards. The landscape dictates that a tuck under will not work. A front facing garage would cover more than 50% of U1e face of the house and trulv look like a tract home on a beautiful piece of la1id. An L-shaped garage will work but al~o may overpower the house depending on how set back from the house it can be. It also dictates that the garage must be kept on the north side of the lot due lo the grnde of the land and driveway. This appears to be the best solution based on city requirements. I would ask you to consider granting a variance on one side of the lot to 18 IL instead of the normal 30 ft. required in this zone. Since the lot itself and the lot width require variances in order to even pull a building pennit, this seems like a logical & fair variance lo grant based on the hardship of the small lot in a 2 acre zone. Thank you for your time & attention to this matter. Sincerely p.2 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING DESIGN Kathryn Alexander 401 EAST LA.KE STREET W.AVZATA, MN 55391 ... (952) 473-8777 Ma~ 15 05 02:29p Kath~ Alexander 952-473-8222 p. 1 FAX COVER TO:._--'-f1..a....=..,tki"-=-e--~~....,...~~-J-----L--=-"....!.=.U __ _ FROM:._~_,___-4--='-'!.-.!'---~=--_l,.....:~~~=0=-.!!~!ed·~,___ __ NUMBER OF PAGES {NCLUDING COVER: ---~-------- RESIDENTIAL BUILDING DESIGN T 401 EAST I.AKE STREET T WAYZ/\TA, MN 55391 T (952) 473-8777 T ... MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. 2. #05-3102 KATHRYN ALEXANDER ON BEHALF OF J. SVEN GUSTAFSON, 920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, VARIANCES, 6:56 P.M. -7:23 P.M. J. Sven Gustafson, Applicant, was present. Rick and Janet Francis , property owners, were present. Gaffron noted a letter was received from Kathryn Alexander supporting her position regarding the request for variances. Gaffron stated at the last Planning Conunission meeting the applicants had proposed side setback variances on both sides to allow a new home to be located 15.5 feet from the north side lot line and 15. feet from the south side lot line . The applicants have since revised their plans and are now proposing a north side setback of 18 feet where 30 feet would normally be required in addition to lot area and lot width variances. The applicants have eliminated the request for a south side setback variance. Staff reconm1ends approval of the lot width and lot area variances . Staff is recommending that the Pla1ming Conm1ission discuss the revised plans and detemline whether there is hardship or justification for the side lot setback variance. Gaffron noted at the last meeting a discussion was had regarding the long narrow lot and how the same size footprint, without the side yard setback, would make the house longer and have a greater view impact on the neighbors. Gaffron stated the applicants are willing to remove two trees to relocate the driveway to meet the five-foot setback from the south lot line. Gaffron noted there are no hardcover or structural issues on this property . Gustafson stated they have taken the Planning Conm1ission 's conunents into consideration and have revised their proposal to limit a variance on only one si de of the property. Gustafson indicated he would prefer to split the distance between both sides of the property line. Gustafson stated the trees that they are proposing to remove are cottonwoods and that the neighbors are not opposed to the removal. Gustafson distributed tlu·ee different footprints of the type of home the property owners would prefer to be built on this lot. Gustafson indicated the neighbors are not particularly in favor of the house designs given the length of the house . Gustafson stated in his opinion the neighbors would prefer the difference be split and the house made wider, which is also the property owner's preference. Ralm stated it appears that the survey conflicts with the original floor plan and questioned whether the deck and porch would encroach into the side yard setback. Rahn stated he would not be in favor of approving a deck or a porch if it encroaches into the side yard setback. Ralm stated Exhibits B 1 and B2 show the deck located outside of the dining room and the screen porch encroaching. Gustafson agreed they do appear to be inconsistent. Rahn .stated he does 11,ot have a major issue with the garage encroaching but would not be in support of the deck or porch encroaching into the side yard setback. Ralm noted the neighbor to the north had asked that the home not encroach any closer than 24 feet. PAGE7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3102 Sven Gustafson, Continued) Gustafson stated the neighbor has indicated he would prefer a wider home rather than a longer home. Gustafson stated the angled garage is less of an encroaclunent on the neighboring property. Winkey inquired what plan the applicant would like the Planning Commission to focus on. Gustafson stated they would like the Pla1ming Commission to look at the first plan in the packet distributed tonight. Rahn noted that plan calls for a 10-foot encroachment on each side. Rahn pointed out Staff has not had time to review the plan being proposed by the applicant tonight. Gustafson stated they would like some direction from the Planning Conm1ission on whether they would be acceptable to an angled garage. Ralm stated it was his recollection that the Plmming Conunission would be acceptable to a minor encroachment. David Skeie, 860 Brown Road South, stated he has resided to the north of this property for 28 years. Skeie indicated there is a grove of trees between his house and the proposed residence and that he is not opposed to the plan being proposed tonight by the applicant. Skeie stated he would prefer to have the house wider rather than longer. Kempf stated he sees the advantage to the shorter building and that a corner of the garage encroaching into the side yard setback is not as significant as the encroaclunent of the entire side of the garage. Jurgens inquired what the total length of the house with the angled garage is. Gustafson stated it is 70 feet wide and 80 feet long, which includes the deck. Jurgens inquired what the length of the home with the L-shaped garage is on the survey. Gustafson stated it is 96.10. Jurgens noted that is an additional 17 feet in depth, and inquired whether the back of the house would be going east if the house is consiTucted longer on this lot rather than wider. Gustafson stated the house would probably be pushed further to the east. Winkey inquired whether the house has been reduced ten feet by whether it is angled differently on the lot. Gustafson stated the size of the house was reduced and the layout of the house was rearranged somewhat. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3102 Sven Gustafson, Continued) Winkey stated his recollection of the last Plmming Commission meeting the applicant was given direction to minimize the encroachment and that this proposal is a good step towards achieving that goal. Fritzler inquired what the side yard setback would be with the angled garage. Gustafson stated it would be 20 feet. Bremer stated she is in agreement with Commissioner Winkey and that the plan being proposed tonight is a good compromise. Bremer noted one of the goals in reviewing variances is to protect the future property owners of the adjoining lots and that it might be necessary to reduce the encroachment into the side yard setback. Bremer stated the size of the lot in her view does constitute some hardship. Ralm inquired whether it would be necessary for this application to reappear before the Plam1ing Commission if the Plam1ing Commission is in favor of the 20-foot side yard setback. Gaffron stated in his view the applicant could submit a plan depicting exactly what is being proposed tonight for staff review and would not have to reappear before the Plam1ing Commission. Rahn stated he would prefer to see a home that does not go deeper, which would be more intrusive to the neighbors. Bremer noted the encroaclm1ent does not go the entire length of the lot but is rather a limited area. Fritzler stated he prefers the angled garage even though it does encroach into the side yard setback rather than the longer house. Jurgens indicated he would prefer to see the specific plan prior to approval. Rahn moved, Kempf seconded, to recommend approval of Application #05-3102, Kathryn Alexander for Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Road South, granting of a 20-foot side yard setback to the north and a 20-foot side yard setback to the south, with the understanding that the footprint proposed to be constructed is the one contained on page two of the handout and should be identical to that floor plan except with a reverse image. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Jurgens Opposed. Jurgens reiterated he would prefer to see the specific plan prior to approving it. NEW BUSINESS 3. #05-3100 LARRY AND SHERYL PALM, 1146 WILDHURST TRAIL, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:24 P.M. -8:25 P.M. Sheryl and Larry Palm, Applicants, and Blake Buchanich, Architect, were present. PAGE9 Date Application Received: 3/22/05 Date Application Considered as Complete: 4/11/05 60-Day Review Period Expires: 6/10/05 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Rahn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Planning May 12, 2005 #05-3102 Kathryn Alexander for Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Rd. S. -Variances -REVISED PLAN -Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre/200' minimum 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre)/ 110' Lot Area/Width: Application Summary: Applicants have revised their plans by eliminating the request for a right (south) side setback variance, and are proposing a left (north) side setback of 18' where 30' would normally be required, i.e. a variance of 12'. The request still includes lot area and lot width variances to construct a new residence on the property. This will be a teardown and total rebuild. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances. Planning Commission should determine whether there is sufficient hardship or justification to recommend granting of the side setback variance. Pertinent Code Sections Section 78-420(b): RR-lB Standards: Required Lot Area: 2.0 acres Required Lot Width: 200' Required Side Yard: 30' List of Exhibits A-Revised survey/site plan B Revised plans and elevation views C PC Action Notice 4-21-05 D -Draft PC Minutes of April 18 Meeting E -Memo and Exhibits of 4-14-05 Background Lot Area and Width Variances. Applicants are requesting a lot area variance to allow construction of a new residence to replace the existing older home on a lot 40,385 s.f. or 0.93 acres in area and 110' in width where a lot area of 87,120 s.f. and lot width of 200' are required. #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. May 12, 2005 Page2 Side Setback Variances. Applicants initially requested side setback variances on both sides, to allow a new home to be located 15.5' from the north side lot line and 15.0' from the south side lot line where 30' side setbacks are normally required. The revised plan has 'squared up' the home with the lot lines, removing the angle. The new proposal meets the 30' right side setback, but proposes an 18' side setback on the north side, requiring a 12' variance. Typical of long, relatively narrow lots is that for a given square footage of footprint, as the structure gets narrower, it increases in length. The impact for the immediate neighborhood in this case is that a longer facade is exposed to both sides as compared to the initial design proposed for this site. Applicant notes that the neighbors to the north, who expressed concern about the original design being close to the line, might be more negatively impacted by the length inherent in the new design. Driveway Relocated. Applicants have determined that the two trees along the north side of the driveway are expendable, and the revised plans show the driveway moved northward to meet the required 5' setback. Grading Plan Revised. A revised grading plan has been provided that, subject to approval by the City Engineer, appears to direct runoff to the east and not directly to adjoining properties. This does appear to require grading of swales within 5' of the adjoining lot line, which is allowed. REVISED LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area/Width: RR-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acre) 200' Actual 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre) 110' Yards/Setbacks Required Existing Initial Proposal Revised Plan Front Yard 50' (to be removed) 131' 97' Rear Yard 50' (to be removed) 163' 178' Right Side Yard (South) 30' (to be removed) 15' (att. gar.) 30' Left Side Yard (North) 30' (to be,removed) 15.5' 18.0' Lake (929.4' contour) 75' (to be removed) 180' ± 200'+ Average Lakeshore No ( All homes in No encroachment No encroachment Encroachment line) #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. May 12, 2005 Page3 Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area 40,400 s.f. (0.93 ac.) Total Structural Coverage Allowed: 6,060s.f. (15.0 %) Initial Proposal: 3,463 s.f. (8.6 %) Revised Plan: 3,714 s.f. (9.2 %) Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Total Area Allowed Existing Revised Zone in Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover 0-75' 3,220 s.f. 0% (to be removed) 0 s.f. (0%) 75-250' 21,825 s.f. 5,456 s.f. (25 %) (to be removed) 2,498 s.f. (11.4 %) 250-500' 15,340 s.f. 4,602 s.f. (30%) (to be removed) 4,294 s.f. (28.0 %) Totals 40,385 s.f. 10,058 sf (to be removed) 6,792 s.f. Hardship Statement & Analysis (Refer to comments from April 14 Memo) Summary of Issues for Consideration 1. Is the existing lot size sufficient hardship to support granting of the lot area and width variances? 2. Are there hardships present that support granting of the side setback variances? Is the 50' wide buildable envelope so limiting as to be considered a hardship? 3. Would granting of the north side setback variance of 12' be appropriate in the context of this neighborhood and the locations of neighboring homes? Is the impact of additional structure length while requiring less side setback encroachment, a positive or negative for the neighborhood? 4. Are there any other issues with this proposed rebuild? #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. May 12, 2005 Page4 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances. Planning Commission should determine whether there is sufficient hardship or justification to recommend granting of the side setback variance. ---------------~----------------------A EXIST HOUS R 11 B ZONING (2 ACRE MIN.) REQUIRES VARIANCE FOR < 200 FT WIDTH SETBACKS FRONT=50 SIDES=30 REAR=50 .,/// / .,.,./ / o''p..s?\;:l. // :; 0 . / · ... 1 t,,.Of p..S?\;:l. PROPOSED ELEV A TIONS GARAGE FLOOR=954.5 TOP OF FOUNDATION =954.8 LOWEST FLOOR=946.0 (WO) 0 30 60 90 SCALE IN FEET = EXISTING SPOT ELEV A TION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION p···· = DIRECTION SURF ACE DRAINAGE EXISTING Y---9 so.o 0.93 ACRE 110 I lD (fl f~ 68.3 1 ~~ORTH 41 SOUTH 242 I PROPOSED 0.93 ACRE 110 PROPOSED VARIANCES 2.0 ACRE TO EXISTING 0.93 ACRE LOT WIDTH FROM 200 FEET TO EXISTING 110 FEET 1 SIDE SETBACKS FROM 30 FEET TO 18 FEET FD3/4 7.8 EAST / AND 4.0 NORTH OF PROP.COR. ,,.-- LOT AREA = 40400 SF/ 0.93 AC HOUSE IS 8.1 % OF TOT AL LOT AREA 5/5/05 REV HO, SITE, GROG, HC 4/ 15/05 ADDTNL DRAINAGE ARROWS, NOTES PROJECT NO. BOOK BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY FRANCIS RESIDENCE for STONEWOOD DESIGN ~Land .Frank R. Cardarelle Surveyor 6440 FL YING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN. 55344 952-941-3031 - _..,CG .... , --~ ....... r,====='1 ---J~I I ----~ I I I I I I! I I I I I __________ J1 8--( "JW,) ·•··• et¥ o--o ~ I :!=-=,=-1;----, \C ___ _...,.i I • 'I I I -1--i -----. -♦--t~ ---~_) I ® i I li r:----.i '! l'"'1t==~~---- t:. •: I j; )4<1 al I!: -_,!J ••• --.nv• .• )( I& ~ I ◄ -I i - 1 ~ - I I ....,.,... .. ic_.. I I I I I ....,.,...,_.x_. I I I I I I I I I I I L _________ _j I I I I L _____ J I ..... v, I I I I I 2 • ...,.1 I I I I - __._11-_-_-.,.-:,.-:1-I -1 VI I I I _J I I I I I 12• .... (i4112) AA I I I I I I I "~-I O•M2J I I I I I I I 04112J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I 12 ' 12~ ' 04112J ' ',, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' (14112;} ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I 04112;} ' ' ' ',, ',, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' I ' ', I I ', I _r~ 0 ... 1 - ' ', ' ~ • I I --I IL_ -- I - II 2'_. Ej .. -I ...__ ' r -I--- -- -- -I I II II -t::=- -I L__ -- - ...,,2•-r I- ' - ~ -L___ ' - -- - - -- II r1 I - II • -I ~ --' ,._ L___ ---- I I . ' - ' -- ' -~ -' ' -~ - '- ' ' - ' ~ I ' -'D •-- ~ I ~ ~ L__ -~ ~ - ~ ~-- - JII" ' -'- - - Cifl!AC)E ----,_ ~ GRADE I i ~ -i , I --111111 11111111 • CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 TO: Stonewood Design/Build 4420 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 ZONING FILE #05-3102 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: April 21, 2005 COPIES: Kathryn Alexander 401 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Lot area, width, side setback variances DATE OF MEETING: April 18, 2005 Motion: To table the application to allow applicant to submit a revised plan that minimizes or eliminates the side setback variances. It was noted that the lot area and width variances are not an issue. VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission -Monday, May 16, 2005; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. Note: Revised plans should be submitted no later than Friday, May 6 to ensure placement on the May 16 agenda. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. \ \ \ ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. the 0-75' z~e and concrete walk within the 0-75' and 75'-250' zones around the nort \ detached garag~, including the removal of the shed from the 75'-250' zone. \, \ Mrs. Guillaume not'¼, the shed consists of 192 square feet and that it would not \. significantly. '\ Rahn inquired whether l 9~are feet could be removed elsewhere. " Leslie stated he would like to se1\'\ further reduction in the hardc er than what is being recommended by \, Staff. \ Jurgens noted the Planning Commissio~ recommen~ · g body and that the applicants could express ' .. their opinions to the Council. Mr. Guillaume inquired whether both the shed ncrete pad would need to be removed. Leslie stated his motion would include re val of the ~d and the concrete underneath. Winkey suggested looking at an equt ent reduction of 19 quare foet within the 75'-250' zone. Mr. Guillaume stated he would .. fer to reduce the driveway so ewhat rather than remove the shed. I/ '\ Leslie amended his motioqr"i:o require a reduction of 192 square · et of hardcover within the /~ f 75'-250' zone rather p<an requiring the removal of the shed and con ete pad within the 75'-250' ,. zone. Winkey secfnded the motion. / J Fritzler inquir .{i whether the shed should be relocated to a conforming location. 9. #05-3102 KATHRYN ALEXANDER ON BEHALF OF J. SVEN GUSTAFSON, 920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -VARIANCE, 8:03 P.M. -8:28 P.M. Kathryn Alexander, Architect, and J. Sven Gustafson, Applicant, were present. Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting lot area, lot width, and left and right side setback variances to construct a new residence on the property to permit the razing and rebuilding of the existing residence. PAGE21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. The property is located in the RR-IB, single-family rural residential district, and has a two-acre minimum lot size. The lot consists of 40,385 square feet. The applicants are requesting side setback variances to allow a new home to be located 15.5 feet from the north side lot line and 15.0 feet from the south side lot line. The adjacent resident to the south is approximately 41 feet from the side lot line, and its separation from the existing house at 920 Brown Road is approximately 125 feet. Under the proposed plan with a 15-foot setback, the separation between these homes is reduced to 70 feet. The applicants have indicated that the zoning when applied to this property makes it unbuildable for a home that would be proportionate with other homes in the neighborhood and in character with the style of home that is currently being built as Orono's rural area re- develops. The width of the remaining buildable envelope is 50 feet when the 30-foot side setbacks are met. Gaffron noted many substantial homes no wider than 50 feet are being built today on smaller lots in Orono and that the side setbacks could be resolved through creative design rather than variances. Gaffron stated the proposed site grading plan have the existing driveway remaining. The existing driveway is less than the required five feet from the side lot line, but its relocation slightly northward to meet the five-foot requirement would result in the removal of two mature aspen trees abutting the north side of the driveway. The topography of the site also limits the driveway relocation. Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances and denial of the side setback variances. Alexander stated Exhibit H illustrates the size of the lot compared to the surrounding lots and that the hardship is the size of the lot. Alexander stated normally lots consisting of one acre have ten-foot side yard setbacks and requested some leniency be given due to the size of the lot. Alexander stated the terrain and the approach to the house makes it difficult to access the residence and have a turnaround. Alexander indicated there is not sufficient room to construct a side-loading garage. Gustafson indicated they are attempting to construct a house that fits in with the character of the neighborhood and that the size of the proposed house fits in with the rest of the residences that have been PAGE 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. constructed in this area. Gustafson stated other 55-foot houses have been constructed on small lots along the lakeshore. Alexander noted the allowed structural coverage is 15 percent and that they are only using 7.5 percent. Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments regarding this application. David Skeie, 860 South Brown, stated the existing house is 24.5 feet from the side lot line and that he would prefer it not be reduced further. Gustaf son stated the neighbor to the south has indicated he is in favor of the proposal. Fritzler questioned whether the connection of the sewer line to tie in with Weber Hills could be accomplished. Gaffron stated he is unaware if the Public Works Department has approached the County regarding this request, but that it would be a simple extension to the sewer system and would more than likely be approved by the county. Fritzler stated he has a concern if the sewer is unable to be connected. Fritzler inquired whether there are any septic sites available on this lot. Gustafson stated two septic sites have been identified on the lot but that they would like to hook into the sewer line. Fritzler stated he is not in favor of the side lot variance and that the turnaround could possibly be relocated. Gustafson stated they would prefer to save the existing two trees. Winkey inquired whether the driveway needs to be angled a certain way in order to allow someone to back out. Alexander stated it is largely due to function and that they are unable to construct a side-loading garage given the amount of room available. Alexander stated with a front-loading garage, more of the garage would be visible. Alexander pointed out if this lot were located in a different zone, it would have different side yard setbacks. PAGE 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. Rahn stated in his view there are ways to design a home to fit onto a 50-foot building pad and that he agrees with Staffs recommendations. Kempf indicated he also is in agreement with Staffs recommendations and that the side yard setbacks are important in protecting the rights of the neighbors now and in the future. Kempf commented it is possible to construct a very nice residence on this lot. Bremer stated some of the houses recently constructed on Watertown Road had the same issue with the side yard setback and that she has some qualms whether 30 feet is the right number for the side yard setback but that in her view 15 feet is not sufficient. Gustafson inquired whether a small portion of the garage could stick within the side yard setback. Bremer stated that would be less intrusive on that side of the property but noted that the whole length of the house on the other side of the lot would be within the side yard setback. Alexander stated typically a 50-foot wide house is going to be a simpler house, and that given the size of the lot, the house would be located deeper, which would be more intrusive to the neighbors. Rahn stated proximity to the adjoining properties is a main concern Gustafson stated a deeper house would be out of conformity with the rest of the neighborhood and would look out of place. Rahn stated the applicant has to design a house that fits the lot. Gustafson reiterated they are trying to design a house that would fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. Leslie suggested tabling the application and having the applicant look at redesigning the house. Leslie commented he might be in favor of some variance but that he is not in agreement with the proposed setback. Fritzler stated he is not in favor of any side yard setback. Jurgens indicated he does not want to express an opinion on the amount of setback and that the goal is to be conforming as much as possible. PAGE 24 N-k'F~r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kempf stated there appears to be some leeway on the side yard setback and that he would be willing to allow some minor encroachment into the 30-foot setback. Rahn indicated he would be in favor of a minor encroachment. Winkey commented he also would be in favor of a minor encroachment but that he would like to see the house conform,as much as possible. It was the consensus of the application that variances to lot area and lot width would be approved. Gustafson stated he would like his application tabled. Gustafson inquired whether the driveway would need to be relocated. Jurgens stated he likes to preserve trees but suggested the applicant look at reconfiguring the driveway if at all possible. Leslie moved, Jurgens seconded, to table Application #05-3102, Kathryn Alexander on behalf of J. Sven Gustafson, 920 Brown Road South. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 10. #05-3103 JACK AND KARI OLSON, 1966 SHADYWOOD ROAD -VARIAN CE, 8:28 P.M.-9:01 P.M. Jack and Kari Olson, Applicants, were present. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a number of variances in order to construct a detached garage on their property to replace a one-stall tuck-under garage that will be converted to living space. The applicants are requesting the following variances: 1. A rear yard setback variance for a 7.5' rear setback where 15' is required; and 2. A hardcover variance for 48.9 percent within the 0-75' zone; and 3. A structural coverage variance for 32 percent or 1,799 square feet structure where 1,500 square feet is normally allowed and 23 percent currently exists; and 4. A principal building setback to allow a five-foot setback between the garage and the home where a 10-foot setback is normally required; and PAGE 25 Date Application Received: 3/22/05 Date Application Considered as Complete: 4/11/05 60-Day Review Period Expires: 6/10/05 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Rahn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Planning Director April 14, 2005 SUBJECT: #05-3102 Kathryn Alexander for Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Rd. S. -Variances -Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area/Width: RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre/200' minimum 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre)/ 110' Application Summary: Applicants request lot area, lot width and left and right side setback variances to construct a new residence on the property. This will be a teardown and total rebuild. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances and denial of the side setback variances. Pertinent Code Sections Section 78-420(b): RR-lB Standards: Required Lot Area: 2.0 acres Required Lot Width: 200' Required Side Yard: 30' List of Exhibits A -Application B -Hardship Statement and Letter of Request C -Staff Letter to Applicants 4/1/05 D -Survey: 1) Existing Conditions 2) Proposed Site Plan E Building Plans and Elevations F -Staff Sketch Neighboring Horne Locations G 1962 Subdivision Documentation H-PlatMap I -Property Owners List J -Site Photos K -Neighborhood Airphoto #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. April 14, 2005 Page2 Background Zoning History. This property, with the existing house, was split off from the larger parcel to the south and east in 1962. At that time the City merely required that the new vacant lot to the south substantially meet the 140' width, 1-acre area requirement then in effect, and allowed the existing house at 920 Brown Road to remain on a lot 110' wide and just one acre in area (including the road right-of-way). The zoning in this area changed in 1967 to "R-1B", requiring 1-1/2 acres, 150' width, and 15' side setbacks. The zoning changed again in 1975 to "RR-1B" as it is today, requiring 2.0 acres, 200' width, and 30' side setbacks. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that the property has been substandard in width since it was created in 1962, and has become more substandard each time the zoning has changed. Lot Area and Width Variances. Applicants are requesting a lot area variance to allow construction of a new residence to replace the existing older home on a lot 40,385 s.f. or 0.93 acres in area and 110' in width where a lot area of 87,120 s.f. and lot width of200' are required. Side Setback Variances. Applicants are requesting side setback variances to allow a new home to be located 15.5' from the north side lot line and 15.0' from the south side lot line where 30' side setbacks are normally required. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area/Width: RR-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acre) 200' Actual 40,385 s.f. (0.93 acre) 110' Yards/Setbacks: RR-1B Required Existing Proposed Front Yard 50' ( to be removed) 131' Rear Yard 50' (to be removed) 163' Right Side Yard (South) 30' ( to be removed) 15' (att. gar.) Left Side Yard (North) 30' (to be removed) 15.5' Lake (929.4' contour) 75' (to be removed) 180' ± Average Lakeshore No Encroachment (All homes in line) No encroachment #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. April 14, 2005 Page3 Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area 40,400 s.f. (0.93 ac.) Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Total Area Zone in Zone 0-75' 3,220 s.f. 75-250' 21,825 s.f. 250-500' 15,340 s.f. Totals 40,385 s.f. Hardship Statement Allowed Hardcover 0% 5,456 s.f. (25 %) 4,602 s.f. (30%) 10,058 sf Total Structural Coverage Allowed: 6,060s.f. (15.0 %) Proposed: 3,088 s.f. (7.6 %) Existing Proposed Hardcover Hardcover (to be removed) 0 s.f. (0%) (to be removed) 3,769 s.f. (17.3%) (to be removed) 3,731 s.f. (24.3%) (to be removed) 7,500 sf Applicants have provided a hardship statement and a letter of request, and should also be asked for their testimony regarding the application. Hardship 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 instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship 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. Lot Area and Width Variances. The property has an existing house and is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The applicant has agreed to pay the costs of extension of a pressure sewer line down Brown Road from the existing Webber Hills sewer lateral, and therefore does not need to provide a septic system for the proposed new residence. The property to the immediate south is just over one acre in dry buildable area and does not have excess land available. The property to the north is approximately 3 acres dry buildable #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. April 14, 2005 Page4 area, but because it has a non-compliant septic system, potentially needs the area adjacent to 920 Brown Road for future septic use unless it connects to sewer. At any rate, neither adjacent property is for sale at this time, so the applicants cannot increase the size of the property to be more conforming. Under Orono's ordinances, without the lot area and width variances a new home cannot be constructed on the property. Aside from the substandard lot area and width, a house can be constructed on the property meeting all other standards of the RR-lB District, and such a house would not create a situation of increased density nor be out of character with the neighborhood. Based on the above information, it would be appropriate to grant the lot area and width variances. Side Setback Variances. Applicants are requesting side setback variances to allow a new home to be located 15.5' from the north side lot line and 15.0' from the south side lot line. The applicants' hardship statement and letter of request generally indicate that the zoning when applied to this property makes it unbuildable for a home that would be proportionate with other homes in the neighborhood, and in character with the style of home that is currently being built as Orono's rural area re-develops. The width of the remaining buildable envelope is 50' when the 30' side setbacks are met. Many substantial homes no wider than 50' are being built today on smaller lots in Orono, and the issue in staf:f s opinion is one that can be resolved through creative design rather than variances. Please refer to Exhibits F, which depict plan views of the separation between homes in the immediate neighborhood in the 'before' and 'after' conditions. The adjacent residence to the north, on a 2-plus acre lot, is about 140' from the existing house at 920 Brown, and that separation will continue under the proposed house location. The adjacent residence to the south, at 930 Brown Road, is about 41' from the side lot line, and its separation from the existing house at 920 is about 125'. Under the proposed plan with a 15' setback, the separation between these homes is reduced to 70'. Since the home at 930 Brown is 40+ years old, it has the potential for additions or even a rebuild, and new construction at 930 could result in a further reduction of the separation to as little as 45' while meeting its 30' side setback requirement. Planning Commission and Council in 2003 denied side setback variances for a rebuild on a 100' lakeshore lot in the 2-acre zone (332 West Lake Street) in a neighborhood with a wide variety of lot sizes ranging from 50' to 200'+ in width, based on no satisfactory hardship found. In 2004, side setback variances were denied for a rebuild on a 132' wide, 0.7 acre lakeshoi-e lot (1489 Shoreline Drive) in the 2-acre zone. Side setback variances have been granted for RR-lB neighborhoods such as Crystal Bay, where the majority of lots are extremely small compared to the zoning requirement and a lesser side setback than 30' is the norm. #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. April 14, 2005 Page 5 General Comments The proposed site grading plan indicates the existing driveway entrance will remain. This driveway is less than the required 5' from the side lot line, but its relocation slightly northward to meet the 5' requirement would result in the removal of 2 mature aspen trees abutting the north side of the driveway. Topography of the site also would limit the driveway relocation. Leaving the driveway as-is will have minimal if any impact on the adjoining property; a variance to the 5' separation may be appropriate in this case. The proposed grading plan includes contours that would direct drainage toward the neighboring properties, but proposes to somehow force the drainage eastward along the property boundaries. A revised grading plan showing additional detail should be provided prior to Council review. The proposed house plans show 2' roof overhangs. The zoning code only allows a 1.5' encroachment of a required yard by roof overhangs. Whether or not a side setback variance is granted, any roof overhangs extending more than 1.5' into a required yard would have to be eliminated. This property is within the defined Shoreland District and subject to hardcover limitations by virtue of being within 1000' of the OHWL of the north basin of Tanager Lake. Although it does not abut the shoreline, it is subject to the 75' setback from the 929.4' contour for all structures. Summary of Issues for Consideration 1. Is the existing lot size sufficient hardship to support granting of the lot area and width variances? 2. Are there any hardships present that support granting of the side setback variances? Is the 50' wide buildable envelope so limiting as to be considered a hardship? 3. Would granting of side setback variances be appropriate in the context of this neighborhood and the locations of neighboring homes? 4. Are there any other issues with this proposed rebuild? #05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. April 14, 2005 Page6 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the side setback variances. Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances, subject to: 1) Prior to Council action, applicant to submit a revised house plan meeting the 30' side setbacks, and a more detailed grading plan showing how runoff will not be directed to neighboring properties. 2) Applicant to move existing/proposed driveway to meet 5' minimum setback from south lot line; OR, if applicant indicates that saving the two adjacent trees is critical, consider granting a variance to the 5' requirement, perhaps subject to applicant obtaining written approval from the adjoining property owner. City of Orono Variance Application Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Application #~ tJ= 3/tJ l, Date Received: _02. Amount Paid: _,,..,...~......,'O~ . ....,,0,..,,0.---- Staff : JAN I LE Fee: $600 Main: 952-249~4600 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: . P.O. Box 66 ---------Renewal: $300 ---'--------A ft er -the-fact: $1,200 Double Fee Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 This application form must be completed in full. Api:;'icant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: C('LO ~Wl'-J )2oAQ c=::::oon--\ Property Identification Number (PIN): \D-117--2~ -l 1-~ 000?.-, (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): 2ro4 □ Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: OhResidential □ Other _________________ _ Zoning District: -~....__ __ \ \ ..... 6 ____ _ APPLICANT INFORMATIO~ete legal na~es and marital status required for each interested party) Name: ~;-~ ~r:::,e::J'<_ Phone (home): (9\ L-414 z:;L.. 1(.p Phone (work): 452-~47?:, ~ <oT11 Address: q€)\ ~ ~ C;:.T WA~ ,1 HU .gs~°l l Email: c&(£¥n corp ~ o..o I• COl'YI Fax: 47?.:? -<r>L-2~ OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names a:-:d marital status required for each interested party) Name: ;:;r: 6v:a...! a.,":=>"'TT?'::~ Phone (home): l.D\1-"U4] '2..la7O Address: 44-'2...o v--:,1-~i;;::; e , [x.2_ • Email: www. :€'.t-uood d.-e=i'&'= DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: $ ----Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): i ~m~:::tzj LOf \-<.J0UL-D ~e l 0 1 h\0:::; --r~ . REQUIRED SUBMITTAL$: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. ;Z(' Pre -App licatio n Meeting Form , m pleted by a Ci ty Planner.· 6 Completed Applicc1tion Form ,.GI.,,, Completed Hardship Documentation Form □ Certified Property Owners List -owners within 150' of the subject property, labels and plat map . List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance, ~..../· Government Center, A-603 300 South 6th Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 · r t::J Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, inclucling hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5 " x 11 " or 11" x 17" for reproduction . .. ft"~ 'Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet) . .,,,,er...--Topographic survey -including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8 .5" x 11 " -.-_. or 11" x 17" for reproduction . .,,.121,,.._ Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17"). ~ Additional items ~ay be requested by City Staff, depending on the scope of the project. * APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: . . The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning · Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consulta.nt expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge . The applicant recognizes that he/she is 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. _d0--+--b-'M~_..,,._,,.._-~..........,,.__J~~---=--· _ Date: Date : Applicant's Signature: Applic ant's -Signature : ---~------------- OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and ·agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verifi~tion of this request. Owner's Signature : ~ q ~-:: _______ Date : ~--3_.✓.:~~,L..-Z<'.--cJ=--~--____ _ Own_er's Signature: r . Date : Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices . 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting . Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month . Applicants must be present c1t all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to ·have · an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. Page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP 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 Statue Section 394.27, Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship 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 hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, 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 hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply): 1. 2. 3. 4. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed_ by 12;: o;:rial mtrols." ,i, • ~y -Ji. ;-;,-i£~~ ~~ ~~T5dt-7f; 'j;jbu: ~ 1t~ 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9 . 10. 11. Page 2 of 3 "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to , inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems . Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2 , when in harmony with this Chapter." n!k ...., I "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located ." o/k "The Boa rd or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling ." "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 ." ~ ~~~,w~~J.;~tf~ . '7 ·: -~ -' . ;,' ~..: ..... rl ..• J •• ' .. _._. Page 3 of 3 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the a pl"cant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or diffic_yl,ty." r. // h<Sm.J. ' • w iUJit 0J ~ Of/2c<]f- -tb lo 'J-w) d..C#-o/ ~~~I._..-...J~~~_-l,,~~..c..=-._1,.UL!~~L__l.,c....J-_~~U,..l,!J______:_!:I.<'.,,,. ~. ~ d-i ~ VJ rV-eole.cQ ti) Cf✓~ --Z..on.\~ c).~~'cu l~ ,CU'ld. ~LDU ~cu..ol ~//\..ck-==> YUJ -+c b.!Lprop61'Hon.o.:rt, io~¥/t.. of4 {i)-f-. Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): 4420 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 PH 952-471-0584 FX 952-471-0639 www.Stonewood.com MN I. D. #20330592 Mr. Michael Gaffron Director of Planning City of Orono 27 50 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: 910 Brown Road Dear Mr. Gaffron, STONEWOOD DESIGN BUILD LLC Thursday, March 24, 2005 MAR 2 8 OF Please reconsider Staff recommendation to deny a pending side yard variance for the above stated property. I personally visited with you when the property was acquired for redevelopment last year. You gave me very professional and useful direction regarding the lot limitations. We discussed several topics: • Demolition timeframe. You suggested a possible soils condition and / or lot configuration that might limit drain field locations and sizing, and that I might preserve the existing structure until I had a handle on this variable. • Sewer availability or lack thereof. As a result we worked out new city sewer service to the lot at our expense; installed by the City with assessment possibilities through Gregory Gappa, P.E. • Setbacks. We reviewed the regulations and viewed area photos showing footprints and lot sized of adjacent properties. My recollection was that at first you stated that the City did not readily grant sideyard variances in cases where adjacent properties have built close to the common property lines. However; after jointly reviewing the City photos showing the adjacent structures to be considerable distances from the common lines and adjacent properties considting of considerably greater sizes than the 910 Brown Road parcel, I left the meeting feeling confident that we March 24, 2005 were 'on the same page' as far as getting a reasonable side yard vanance. Since this meeting we have committed the property to a resident planning on building a new home that is appropriate and customary for the surrounding area, and have Kathy Alexander deep into the plan development of a home spanning a 70 foot width utilizing an angled garage so as to have just a comer rather than an entire wall plain along the proposed setback requested. • The existing home is very obsolete. Although currently occupied, it is not insulated, properly wired or plumbed, nor is structurally sound. It is ready to be replaced. • We have a lot width and size hardship being a narrow and small lot in an area surrounded by large parcels. • A fifty foot with structure does not conform to the homes in the area, and is not in sync with the value needed to support any redevelopment that is in tune to the neighborhood's potential. • The granting of the variance will not create distances between structures on flanking properties that are less than 60 feet ( double the individual side yard setback requirements). Please review this application and reconsider the pending Staff recommendation. Very truly yours, Stonewood Design Build, LLC Page2 Stonewood Design Build, LLC -4420 Shoreline Drive -Spring Park, MN 55384 -www.Stonewood.com CITY of ORONO April 1, 2005 Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Stonewood Design Build LLC Jeffrey Gustafson REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 4420 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 Re: Zoning Application #05-3102, 920 Brown Road South Dear Mr. Gustafson: The City of Orono is required to notify you within fifteen (15) business days of your initial application as to the status of your request for lot area, lot width and side setback variances for your property located at 920 Brown Road South. Your application was received on March 22, 2005 and has been deemed as incomplete. The following additional information is needed in order to complete our review of your application: 1. Elevation views of the sides and rear of the proposed residence, as well as floor plans for the basement walkout and upper story. These plans would appear to be a critical element in supporting your request for side setback variances. 2. Proposed hardcover broken down by zone. The 929 .4 elevation shown on the adjoining property is the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of the northerly basin of Tanager Lake which is considered as part of Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, although this is not a lakeshore lot, it is subject to hardcover limits. Your surveyor must confirm: a) Location of75' and 250' setbacks from the 929.4 OHWL b) Area of 75-250' hardcover zone c) Area of 250-500' hardcover zone d) Proposed hardcover within each zone Please post the Zoning Application sign at the entrance to the property. I am advised that the address on the mail box is 910 Brown Road South and this should be changed to 920 to avoid confusion when the Planning Commission visits the site. I am in receipt of your letter dated March 24 with regards to the side setback variance request. I want to make it clear that in the meeting last year, in response to your questions, I provided comments and suggestions as to how a side setback variance might be presented to the Planning Commission in the best light possible. However, I did not commit to supporting such a variance, and there is at least one very similar and fairlyrecent precedent case for a 100' lakeshore lot in the 2-acre zone on Stubbs Bay, where the Planning Commission recommended denial of variances from the 30' setback requirement for a rebuild. Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us #05-3102 April 1, 2005 Page2 Further, it would be inconsistent for staff to lend strong support to a setback variance in a rebuild situation unless there is a clear and compelling hardship present. The fact is, the property is byno means unbuildable absent a side setback variance. Substantial high-quality homes 30' to 50' wide and oriented lengthwise are being built on lakeshore properties in Orono every day. It will be up to you to convince the Planning Commission that a hardship exists and that a house developed within the required setbacks will not be in keeping with the neighborhood. Application #05-3102 is incomplete.Your application is being published for a public hearing at the April 18 Planning Commission meeting; however, your application can remain on that agenda only if the requested information is submitted in a timely manner, i.e. no later than Monday, April 11, to allow adequate time for review. As review progresses on your application, we will contact you if further information is required. I am certainly willing to meet with you to discuss your application if you wish. Call me to set up a time -95 2- 249-4600. ~]y/~ Michael P Gaffron Planning Director cc: Kathryn Alexander ---i----~,--------------~ .. -~-1 / ,,. ... / /'/ ,-,/ / ---------------------N.119 0 19' 34 " £ 400. 04 / ; / /'/ 0 30 60 90 SCALE IN FEET PROJECT NO. BOOK c:i,'l-~ ELEVATION. DAT"SEPT. 12, 2004 PAGE = EXISTING SPOT -f..'<i X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY r ' / \ \ Land ~--= DIRECTION SURF ACE DRAINAGE STONEWOOD DESIGN Fran};: R. Cardarelle Surveyor 6440 FL YING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, R 11 B ZONING (2 ACRE MIN.) REQUIRES VARIANCE FOR PROPOSED ELEV A TIONS GARAGE FLOOR=954.5 < 200 FT WIDTH SETBACKS FRONT=50 SIDES=30 REAR=50 r/r TOP OF FOUNDATION =954.8 LOWEST FLOOR=946.0 (WO) 0 30 60 90 SCALE IN FEET = EXISTING SPOT ELEV A TION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION .,,d:-' · ·.... = DIRECTION SURF ACE DRAINAGE EXISTING 0.93 ACRE 110 68.3 41 SOUTH , 15 NORTH 242 PROJECT NO. BOOK DATSEPT. 12, 2004 PAGE PROPOSED VARIANCES 2.0 ACRE TO EXISTING 0.93 ACRE LOT WIDTH FROM 200 FEET TO EXISTING 110 FEET SIDE SETBACKS FROM 30 FEET TO 15 FEET 250 + 15340SF / 0.35AC X 30% = 4600SF HC DRIVE = 3623 SF WALK = 108 SF TOTAL= 3731 SF (24.3%) BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY FRANCIS RESIDENCE for STONEWOOD DESIGN ADDRESS = 920 BROWN ROAD S. PID# 10-117-23-12-0002 LOT AREA = 40400 SF/ 0.93 AC ~ Land Fra.nk R. Ca.rda.relle Surveyor 6440 FL YING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN. 55344 952-941-3031 -...... ..... t - l ! I I 401 EAST LAKE STREET I WAYZATA,MN 55391 I l -mwtlm Phone: 952.473.sm I FAX: 952.473.8222 I I ,.,,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I n I I ea.a --~ I ~ I I I --· I I ... I __ _L. __ -: -----..... ! I I I ... I ' I i -.... ---=n • I I! I 1: 1::11111 -11: bMPIX' " .... ~ ; ..,,.,.,.. l CCM284e IN GABLES I I frz.o CCM2e48 IN GABLES AA I l I 12 I 12(/; I I I (1,4112') I I I (w12') I I I -I I I ~~ (i,4112') {14112) L_ .. r;: ,,l TI ,~\ (i,4112') / / / / / / A D D , / / / TT T Ti / / ~, I n I ii l~~ / / / J I 11 I I 7 11 ~, / LI I II Ill II I I I I 1 111 \.'-/ / ')fl 111 I II I I ii I II I 11 11 rTlT I II II II II~, / / / / / ' / / / / / / \ I I I D ■ -~- I I D I I I ...,. I I I D D -lll lll - I I ■ I lll --- ,___ "' □ ..._ .__ ---..._ -------..____ --- AA I I I I 11 C/ I I I 11 I n 12 t ,{~ I l I ' ' I I 0,4112) II ' ' I 2·-e• L ' ' ' ' !.2·-r -1 ' I ' I ' 111 7 7 ' 'l ' ' ' I I 11 I 11 ' ' I ' I II II ' ' 0,4112) 111 II I lu ' ' I /)~\' I ' I I II II I fl7 ' ' I I I -' ' ' I I uml..>' ' ' I (i,4112) ', I / ' ' r-/ ' r/ I 1111 / ' / / ' ' I 04/12) -:111 / ' ' I ~ ~ / / ' D ~~ / ' ' I / ' / / ' ' L __ 1-!-\ / / ' aJ~ / ' ' ~~ D ~ l (i,4112) / / ' / ' ' un I\ / ' / ' / ' / / ' ' ' I Ill I II\ / ' \ II II /IL~ 11 I 11 I\ / / ', Ill II 11 Ill II II 11 II\ / / ' / ' ' {(I / ' / ' / ' / ' / ' \ / ' / / / / / . . --[Ej .__ lB3 m -~ ,__ H]ffi) 1. 2•-r ,..... -B3 HBHBHBHB .... ,,.... ,..... ~ ;r ~ ~ ~ --~ ~ ,__ ,__ rrm nm mm mm rm m rT -,..... -I \ • ...1 I 'I I 'tll""""--1 ,;, ~-----~-c:; .._ --, 1-1 .p-:--- I -~, -~ a..- I I ~- ~ I ~ T I I 1 7 - ~ L.. L.. § § -I -,, -I ~ '-~ '--------- 11 I I I - ", I ,1 l'IJ 11 I 1111 11 l 11 II 2'-1)" i-------=ir========-=---=--~==-":_~,t I -I 1i:--=------=-----_-_-_-_-_-_--1..:.:it:r _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-----=iJ F=============IF============3 f:===============i F=============-1 ~==============1r==============' - I I I I I I I I I T I I II I I 1 I I T!J1 11 I J,'fl ii 1111 71 Effil I I I ' I 11 '1-l I I I fi-1 I 111 11 II IEEE I 1----l 1 t------111 __ __.I t----11 >------" I __ __. I 1-----" I ,__ _ _. I 1-------"i t-------" I t-----" I -----: __ __. I __ __., I I - \ ,5 I I I I 947.2 X q 947.2 X F . ' ~~ ~- ~ REQUEST FOR SITE EXAMINATION (Complete in Duplicate) This form to be used in all applications for permits for building, plwnbing, sewage disposal, rezoning, moving a structure, dividing or consolidating parcels of land, Owner of Propert:1,: Name p. ·p. p;;<J.. \ { ~ / Date ___ f_-_1,,_tf..._✓_b_v_·_ Phone No, (;; y 3. {.,,<;t Q Type of Application_w~; ,, '" t £: p : 'r-:. 'rt V Address _____ ·--------,,.,------------------ Applicant (other than owner)_Name_a~:::'.J-' f~..;v"Tf: Phone No.@y2-3/u / Address La '('3.:i. J_ -g_t:_\ L MJJ1y /1 d I [Yll' ;, ') e !r:'. I-~~~/. QJ, I Relationship to Owner--lJ..~o-'-'--=-----:--------------f_O~ Location (How do we find it?): ,¾ nJ ; Pa. ·; t V; /Jg, 7 ~ , f ( r y .$ t d I Bs Y 0 b Tb s Y , •0 1 I j bs n J S , J s:. a f' 7{.._ 1c ( ,t d {f,t &I I~(,, ) 1 1 Q Legal Description :.So :l If, g (:J Rt "c iii {Y.rz. 1 ix'. ( at::: IV Yi/ ~ t,, •7 » A( E t:nt· $ es Jo Zta sC, I' 1 ~~) D t A . d 1 Ar ( ft ) 11 ~ I S . 1 . ? l K,,_-fi' . .., a e cqw.re ___________ ea sq. • "< ~ct::nl 1ng e rsh1p. ___ \-J t2_f ~ \J Separate Ownership? __ t;_,A .;.· Date of last Division of this Property __ _,__,_._·.___=------------------ Do you own any Adjoining Propert;y? __ .4::;::,,.!o~··-----,---------------- Action Requested 1 ►a.:,,2, S) __:_: .,~ t==: tt?C <'rl ,,c l=~ a Attach sketch, plat plan or survey and any additional data. -~:t~~;;TX~litB:r RECORD OF ACTION TAKEN Application Received b;y P.l"~:iJ1.!?2?..:.!!W1;i;:_f{!:3ion Date J9~,4~..fi~ No. ------Referred to: PJ ann) n~ Commission sub com.mi ttee5ate __ _.S.._a ... m ...... e ____ _ Inspection Conducted b:1• Rice ,Mills, Curry Date ---------Rec o nnn end at ion _____________________________ _ Planning Commission -Date Considered _________ _ Recommendation: ---- Planning Commission Subcommittee -Date Inspected 9-24-62 Chainnan ______ _ '•Recommendation site for new house be approved 2 but Mrs.Pigott to ,acquire enough ad&itional footage to meet the 140 ft.requirement. Planning Commission -Date 9-27-62 Recommendation: Acceptance of sub committee's report as recomm_e_n __ d_a-i-i~o-n-0~1--t=n-e __ _ Qommission. Council -Date l0-22 -6 2 Mrs. George Pigott Action Taken Approved as presented by ------------------- Permit Issued -Date __________ _ J t ._... -:.._I ' . . ·. {1,t-P-11--y'·· .. ··.·1.1-dµ~'.·;. ·. 30.33 R=20 -;.~ 14.78 '-',' : ::--"-"4.2.; <( 5 (1 ~I i 3 1 (6) ' ' 'Zi~ £~ l1' 1; ~ 0, i ~ ,(fa'f>'o 0, ~ ,. "A-1-; 1 (18) /,,1,,:<c. (12) {27) -/ 27.92 11;] / 347.86 .,. ~ .'-· ~ ,;'/ le <,· ~ ;;s ? 2 ~-(19) 44.87 / ,, 321.05 .. ,,, .~ .. ~ I ""'· ~ ~ I 666.39 ;J; ii 90~1r& N/Jii-41'/WW ffii4,g3 CARRIAGE 0~6~ .• , (9) ~~(9- ""',.. . 6'_,,..:,. (4) "'<" ~' ;ii ,o•· :i:~• s' c,' -1'1 ,.,,.~r:J· 393.38 HILL 6 (37) ¾" ~ !\.r;:,·~· ""' .• ,...,? -r· 177 '3~.'36 OL_ f'"i 12 11 ~ (28) ~ (29) ~ 228.37 (1) · /ffNDEVELOPEDf , rfi'!i''~-~ KING ST 140 NBg'11'50"W 631 I 1 ,fit 'C'~~ {10) ~ ½rolo· 237.62 4',s,,9"s,9, .,~6' 67"'1,, \ ;!: .,,~ ~~ "'~ ' ' ' ~ (2) ,l'' ,,.Q'-iJ' Q ' / ~ ~ ~0- 400 (2) 40RODS (4) (5) <-1Arf::"c. i'?f::°f::"k" g 1;l (1) 10-117-23-12 (3) (4) 34•33, g<:>,f ~0,i, ' / --~~➔.-t-------··--· --------------··------' o'<' <o"'" ";" r:l ••;<c. :<.(j ,Q, ~\," {!-,,, t""Q~ ,ii {;-,.,. ~~o" _,.f; ,f s•" ,./' ~ C, 4 (35) -?7c:r.>.,... ~"/.'~ tv"7 cf" / ,.,.,, -~o (1) ,. 'l,r:J() ~~ 'l! -?o-?.,...'I?' 2 3 (9) 'I-' i,,,'i~' ' 'll, <o ~ <i 5A6"1i cnA'5,ss.&l /4 RUN DATE: 3/'l3/2005 38 1011723120001 PROP ADDR 860 BROWN RD S OWNER NAME DAVID M SK.Elli & WIFE TAXPAYER DA YID M SK.Elli NAME/ADDR 860 BROWN ROAD SOUTH WAYZATA MN 55391 38 1011723120004 PROP ADDR 940 BROWN RD S OWNER NAME A & C JOHNSTON TAXPAYER ALEXANDER/CATHERINE JOHNSTON NAME/ADDR 940 BROWN RDS WAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PAGE: I PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 1011723120002 38 1011 723120003 PROP ADDR 920 BROWN RD S OWNER NAME JEFFREY SVEN GUSTAFSON TAXPAYER JEFFREY SVEN GUSTAFSON NAME/ADDR 4400 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK MN 55384 38 1011723210008 PROP ADDR 825 BROWN RD S OWNER NAME MARTIN P/BRIDGETT P PARADISE TAXPAYER MARTIN P/BRIDGETT P PARADISE NAME/ADDR 825 BROWN RDS WAYZATAMN 55391 PROP ADDR 930 BROWN RD S OWNER NAME B J JUDGE & J M MORRISON TAXPAYER BARRY JUDGE/JULlliMORRISON NAME/ADDR 930 BROWN ROAD WAYZATAMN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER ~~EPAR1M.ENT;) TQ/PHE 13 OFMYKNOWLEDGEANDBELIEF.DAT a t25 BY( 1 /VltV ~ =r _ ,, ::-, -------- \'-' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 9, 2005 ITEMNO.: 12 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Gregory A. Gappa Public Services Director's Report Title Director of Public Services ----Item·Description:·Accept-Quotations·920-South-Brown-Road··Sewer-Extension--- The property owner of 920 South Brown Road has requested sanitary sewer because of inadequate sites for the installation of a new septic system. This is an existing developed property that is within the MUSA. The property owner has requested a City project to extend sewer service to the property and has signed an assessment waiver agreeing to be assessed for the costs to complete the project. The sewer extension project is to directional bore 700 feet of sewer forcemain south along South Brown Road from the existing Webber Hills Area pressure sewer system. Plans and specifications have been completed, and we have sent a Request for Quotations to three directional boring contractors that have previously completed City projects. The estimated construction cost for this project is less than $50,000, so the solicitation of quotations is an acceptable method to select a contractor to complete this project. A tabulation of the quotations received is shown below. EJ Mayer's Inc., Corcoran, Minnesota Red Pederson Utilities, Hopkins Mim1esota MinnConun Utility Construction, Mora Minnesota $10,402.60 $13,305.25 $24,075.00 We are recommending acceptance of the quotation from EJ Mayer's Inc., Corcoran, Minnesota. There is an adequate cash balance in the Sewer Fund to pay for this project, and our recommendation is to fund this project from the Sewer Fund and the project assessment revenues then go into the Sewer Fund. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to accept the quotation in the amount $10,402.60 from EJ Mayer's Inc. Corcoran, Minnesota for completion of the 920 South Brown Road Sewer Extension project with project frmding from the Sewer Fund and approval of the appropriate year 2005 budget adjustment to reflect this expenditure. . · ... ··. r~ 1 \ Fqx ··.;_.:: .. :: .·.•. ·.:: ... STRE CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 TO: Stonewood Design/Build 4420 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 ZONING FILE #05-3102 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: April 21, 2005 COPIES: Kathryn Alexander 401 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Lot area, width, side setback variances DATE OF MEETING: April 18, 2005 Motion: To table the application to allow applicant to submit a revised plan that minimizes or eliminates the side setback variances. It was noted that the lot area and width variances are not an issue. VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission -Monday, May 16, 2005; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. Note: Revised plans should be submitted no later than Friday, May 6 to ensure placement on the May 16 agenda. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. MINUTES OFTBE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3099 Mary and Marnix Guillaume, Continued) Rahn inquired whether 192 square feet could be removed elsewhere. Leslie stated he would like to see a fmiher reduction in the hardcover than what is being recommended by Staff. Jurgens noted the Planning Commission is a recommending body and that the applicants could express their opinions to the Council. Mr. Guillaume inquired whether both the shed and concrete pad would need to be removed. Leslie stated his motion would include removal of the shed and the concrete underneath . Winkey suggested looking at an equivalent reduction of 192 square feet within the 75'-250' zone . Mr. Guillaume stated he would prefer to reduce the driveway somewhat rather than remove the shed . Leslie amended his motion to require a reduction of 192 square feet of hardcover within the 75'-250' zone rather than requiring the removal of the shed and concrete pad within the 75'-250' zone. Winkey seconded the motion. Fritzler inquired whether the shed should be relocated to a confo1111ing location . Leslie stated his motion would remain as stated. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 9. #05-3102 KATHRYN ALEXANDER ON BEHALF OF J. SVEN GUSTAFSON, 920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH-VARIANCE, 8:03 P.M. -8:28 P.M. Katluyn Alexander, Architect, and J. Sven Gustafson, Applicant, were present. Gaf:fron stated the applicants are requesting lot area, lot width, and left and right side setback variances to constrnct a new residence on the property to pe1111it the razing and rebuilding of the existing residence . The property is located in the RR-lB, single-family rural residential district, and has a two-acre minimum lot size. The lot consists of 40,385 square feet. The applicants are requesting side setback variances to allow a new home to be located 15 .5 feet from the north side lot line and 15 .0 feet from the south side lot line . The adjacent resident to the south is approximately 41 feet from the side lot line, and its separation from the existing house at 920 Brown Road is approximately 125 feet. Under the proposed plan with a 15-foot setback, the separation bet\veen PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3102 J. Sven Gustafson, Continued) these homes is reduced to 70 feet. The applicants have indicated that the zoning when applied to this property makes it unbuildable for a home that would be proportionate with other homes in the neighborhood and in character with the style of home that is currently being built as Orono's rural area re- develops. The width of the remaining buildable envelope is 50 feet when the 30-foot side setbacks are met. Gaffron noted many substantial homes no wider than 5 0 feet are being built today on smaller lots in --------corono ancrtlfartlie side setbacks could-15e resolved tliroiign·creafive desigi1 1~ather than vanances. Gaffron stated the proposed site grading plan have the existing driveway remaining. The existing driveway is less than the required five feet from the side lot line, but its relocation slightly northward to meet the five-foot requirement would result in the removal of two mature aspen trees abutting the north side of the driveway. The topography of the site also limits the driveway relocation. Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances and denial of the side setback variances. Alexander stated Exhibit H illustrates the size of the lot compared to the sunounding lots and that the hardship is the size of the lot. Alexander stated non11ally lots consisting of one acre have ten-foot side yard setbacks and requested some leniency be given due to the size of the lot. Alexander stated the terrain and the approach to the house makes it difficult to access the residence and have a turnaround. Alexander indicated there is not sufficient room to construct a side-loading garage. Gustafson indicated they are attempting to construct a house that fits in with the character of the neighborhood and that the size of the proposed house fits in with the rest of the residences that have been constructed in this area. Gustafson stated other 55-foot houses have been constructed on small lots along the lakeshore. Alexander noted the allowed structural coverage is 15 percent and that they are only using 7 .5 percent. Ralm inquired whether there were any public conn11ents regarding this application. David Skeie, 860 South Brown, stated the existing house is 24.5 feet from the side lot line and that he would prefer it not be reduced further. Gustafson stated the neighbor to the south has indicated he is in favor of the proposal. Fritzler questioned whether the connection of the sewer line to tie in with Weber Hills could be accomplished. Gaffron stated he is unaware if the Public Works Department has approached the County regarding this request, but that it would be a simple extension to the sewer system and would more than likely be approved by the county. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3102 J. Sven Gustafson, Continued) Fritzler stated he has a concern if the sewer is unable to be connected. Fritzler inquired whether there are any septic sites available on this lot. Gustafson stated two septic sites have been identified on the lot but that they would like to hook into the sewer line. Fritzler stated he is not in favor of the side lot variance and that the turnaround could possibly be relocated. Gustafson stated they would prefer to save the existing two trees. Winkey inquired whether the driveway needs to be angled a ce1iain way in order to allow someone to back out. Alexander stated it is largely due to function and that they are unable to construct a side-loading garage given the amount ofroom available . Alexander stated with a front-loading garage, more of the garage would be visible. Alexander pointed out if this lot were located in a different zone, it would have different side yard setbacks. Rahn stated in his view there are ways to design a home to fit onto a 50-foot building pad and that he agrees with Staff's recommendations. Kempf indicated he also is in agreement with Staff's reconm1endations and thi;tt the side yard setbacks are important in protecting the rights of the neighbors now and in the future. Kempf commented it is possible to construct a very nice residence on this lot. Bremer stated some of the houses recently constrncted on Watertown Road had the same issue with the side yard setback and that she has some qualms whether 30 feet is the right number for the side yard setback but that in her view 15 feet is not sufficient. Gustafson inquired whether a small portion of the garage could stick within the side yard setback. Bremer stated that would be less intrusive on that side of the property but noted that the whole length of the house on the other side of the lot would be within the side yard setback. Alexander stated typically a 50-foot wide house is going to be a simpler house, and that given the size of the lot, the house would be located deeper, which would be more intrnsive to the neighbors. Ralm stated proximity to the adjoining properties is a main concern Gustafson stated a deeper house would be out of conformity with the rest of the neighborhood and would look out of place. PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3102 Sven Gustafson, Continued) Rahn stated the applicant has to design a house that fits the lot. Gustafson reiterated they are tTying to design a house that would fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. Leslie suggested tablingJ}J~ __ f!PP.lL~ation and havingJJ~ __ ?pplicant loQk at redesigi.1ing_th~_hg_1,rn~,.-l&sli_e ______ _ commented he might be in favor of some variance but that he is not in agreement with the proposed setback. Fritzler stated he is not in favor of any side yard setback. Jurgens indicated he does not want to express an opinion on the amount of setback and that the goal is to be confom1ing as much as possible. Kempf stated there appears to be some leeway on the side yard setback and that he would be willing to allow some minor encroachment into the 30-foot setback. Rahn indicated he would be in favor of a minor encroachment. Winkey commented he also would be in favor of a minor encroachment but that he would like to see the house conform as much as possible. It was the consensus of the application that variances to lot area and lot width would be approved. Gustafson stated he would like his application tabled. Gustafson inquired whether the driveway would need to be relocated. Jurgens stated he likes to preserve trees but suggested the applicant look at reconfiguring the driveway if at all possible. Leslie moved, Jurgens seconded, to table Application #05-3102, Kathryn Alexander on behalf of J. Sven Gustafson, 920 Brown Road South. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 10. #05-3103 JACK AND KARI OLSON, 1966 SHADYWOOD ROAD -VARIANCE, 8:28 P.M. -9:01 P.M. Jack and Kari Olson, Applicants, were present. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a number of variances in order to construct a detached garage on their property to replace a one-stall tuck-under garage that will be converted to living space. The applicants are requesting the following variances: PAGE 21 r, .i,J:"E.G,~NOT)CE ~Cl'TY 'OF ORONO , . , Plif kway, P.O. Box 66 I' Bay, MN 55323 . · Ph OJJ.e :(9!j2).2~9'460 0, Fax , (952) 249,, ' :!61~ .. ; ,::~(~;~ft ,,.,,-.. ,--•-···· • ,, · r · 'ln .o,rdef.i t6 ccinstiuot-'.-ii,/ie\'I ,resldence,:bri,(, · "!1:'~Xl~t!rig l~W,9,:i;~~ce~ 1,iiat~~iahd ,1;1,0~ , w ·• ,' . , _ ,, .,ln ,wl.dtl) -whe~'.2,0; acres··and:;200' ls7hor,-" .t,pr0~etfy -,a1 . m/ii\r~~l~ftf /l!\;t· ;-~-;· ' 00;:,::J ~;:~.;~~a~~*~~i~,:; #05-3.104 -David and . Rene ~ Mack, }is 1ni,f mally \,,r~q·~fr,iad , _·1979 Shadywood Fjoad , LR -1 C zoni ng exists , hardcover ,,'i,.ri_ance -------.._ Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. 26 :31 % ~afdco.v~r '-Vllthln'.Jt/e . 75•'.2s,o• zo~e wt\e·~•~i/'l;,.ts•r\qrJna,lly -all~we_c\'and ' E . s b . d I ' th th t 4Jo/o :cur'l'iarit1\' ex1sts:aJ:ld '.6.oo/~"iNl!lll!l 'the . nc errano, emg u y sworn on oa , says a 2so:i~,o o·j one ~IJ.~.~;,~Q~ '1~}norrJia lfy he is an authorized agent and employee of the allowed,,ancf:.ss¼ cUrrenllY exlsts,.,and a ~tr~c,(uia1 ';1{~o;;e(ag~;:.va(ia9ce , '!~.ii>,~•~~ pub Ii sher of the newspaper kn own as TH E ·9 LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full :,1, )knowledge of the facts which are stated below: '1,1''' ra 4- ,, A .) The newspaper has complied with all the concJu&: requirements constituting qualifications as a ~w7~(' qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota i st _n9;w Statute 331 A.02 , 331 A.07 , and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed Public Hearing, Land Use Apps . which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for one successive week(s). It was first published Saturday the 30th day of April 2005 , and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, A of April 2005; Authorized Agent Suscribed and sworn to me on this ·i:t~:;; 30th day of April 2005. ;d,)J~;.j By:~• CA ~ 1 .. , • •• •• ,, .~otary Public • SUSAN A. FlOHRS NOTARY PUBUC-MINNESOTA MV COMM ISSION EXPIRES 01-31-2010 Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $15.50 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $15.50. /'l\ c,..+,.. .... ,..+,,..,,!h, ""h.,,.n,.....i fn r ..,,h...,,,,.. ........ ++ .... ,., ¢'7 na .,.,..,,. ;.,.,..h Aff idavi t of Publit Jon State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Eric Serrano, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE PIONEER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02 , 331A.07 , and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed Public Hearing, Land Use Apps. which is attached was cu t from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for one successive week(s). It was first published Saturday the 30th day of April 2005, and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, of April 2005; Authorized Agent Suscribed and sworn to me on this 30th day of April 2005. By: ~A~~ --------~_,,Nrary Public • SUSAN A. FLOHRS NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA MY COM MISSION EXPIRES 01-31 ·2010 Rate Inf orma tion (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $15.50 per inch . (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $15.50. ~ EJ (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.96 per inch . "'-~--&:! Each additional successive week: $5.79. Ji~-; ·J;:~t~ e~i· ~~ -~·en ·~ 11;~,- -~~·~!~~1 .;•{i" ~ '. ·:.i:.·o.~i , LEGAL NOTICE CITY qF ORONO , 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O . .Box 66 -Crystal Bay, MN 55323 'hone (952) 249-4600 Fax (952) 249- 4616 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS The Plannln·g Commission will hold Jblic hearings in the Oron·o Coun-cil hambers· at · 2780 -Kelley. Parkway on · ionday, April 18 , 2005, beginning at 6:00 m. on the matter of reviewing the follow- g land use applications: · #04-3060 -Michael and Donna bertz, 1220 Tonkawa Road , LR ·-· 1 B Jning district, request an· after-t~e-fact Jnditlonal ~se permit and hardcover varj- nce tor the 0-75 ' zone · to ,perm it land Iterations and boulder walls within 75' of Ie .OHWL of L.ake Minnetonka. Abukhadra , 1745 Fox Street, RR -1 B zoning district ; requests preliminary plat approval in · order 'to · create six residential · lot~ on one block ihcludlng c.orisiructlon of a privs1te roadway, • .#05-3099 . ·:.. Mar-y · and . Marn Ix Guillaume, 3060 North Shore Drive, LR - 1 B zoning district, request' a 0-75'. hard- cover variance to permit 15% hardcover where 0% is normally allowed ··and 15% currently exists, a 75'-250' hardcover varl-' ance to permit 34%•hardcover where 25% Is normally allowe_d and 34% currently exists, and a lake setback variance to per- mit a lake setback. of 60' when 75 ' Is n·or- mally required and 40' currently exists, in · order to construct a lakeside dee !< a·nd covered entry. and p~rticolb.oardwalk. #05-3100 -Larry and Sheryl Palm, 1146 WlldhurstTrnil ; LR ..:.1s zoning dis- trict, request a lot area and lot width vari - ance in order to construct a new resi- dence on an existing lot 0.64 acres in area where 1.0 acre In area Is · normally required and 65' in width where 140' ·is normally r~.quired .. '#05 -3 073 -David and Joann Pomlje, 01 Tonkawa Road, LR -1 B zoning dls- ict, request a preliminary subdivision in . rder to create one additional lakeshore · #05-3101 -Jon and Jane isidential lot. · Schwartzman , 425 Oxford Road ,. LR -1 A . . . · ___ zoning district, request an average ·;_ #05-3080 -"-lnterspace-West, Inc.,. fakesho're setback variance to petmlt cori- 'rently exists and a hardcover varia'nce for the 75'-250' zone to permit 51.8% hard- cover where 25% Is normally allowed and · '60.7% currently exists;, in tjrder to con- struct an attached · garage -with living space above . Including a second story . ab_ove_the existing first story home. #05-3105 -Peter Martinson, 4460 Forest Lake Landing, LR -1 B zoni ng dis- trict; requests ' lot area and lot width vari - ances, a hardcover variance to permit 35% hardcover in the 75'-250' zone where 25% Is· normally required, side setback variances to permit side setbacks of 8. 7' where 1 O' is normally required, in .ord er to rebuild on an · existing lot 0:28 acres in . area and 57' in width where ·1 ·acre and 140' of width is normally required , #05-3106 -Cindy and Brad McDonnell , 1420 Balder Park Road, LR - -1 C zoning district, request a 75 '-250' hardcover ·variance to permit 51% hard• • cover when 25% Is normally ·allowed and . 50% currently exists, a structural cover- age variance to permit 1,885 s.t . of struc- ture when 1,500 s.f. Is normally allowed and 1,717 s.t. currently ex ists In order to cons tru ct a covered porch/entryway .. · 060 \'.Y_~y.;z;i!a B,9u[~'lard, ,(eJ]U~~t~ .!;t!J.Q. v structicm ~,t aQ_J n-groui;l_cj po_9.j t?.~-kween tbe .'. eneral development plan approval, com-75 ' _lake setback ~Qd existing house . · #05 -3107 -Jeff Nute of Natural Environments Corporation . on · behalf of Scott Bissen and Michelle ·Morey, "825 · Tonkawa Road; LR:: 18 zonlng 'district, ... requests a conditional use perm it and hardcove r variance to allow land alte r- 'ations within is' of tlie OHWL of La ke Minnetonka . 1ercial site plan approval, and _ prellml-· ary and final pl at approval for. a commer-. ,.. #Os.a.io2-.,,, .•. Katt.ir.yA .-AlexaAder-,0n ial o!fice·develoj:l ment'c6ntalnlng 1'o unit '.be.half of J. Sven Gustafson, 920 Brown ,ts and one common lot to be known as Head South , RR -1 B zoning district, .mber Woods Office Centre, requests lot area, width, and side yard #05-3086 -Philip and Cassandra >rdway, ·1145 Sixth Avenue North, LR . - A zoning district, request a top of bluff etback variance In order to construct a ew res idence encroaching the required. O' top of bluff setback, #05-3089 -Theodore and Deborah lozeboom, 2967 Casco Point Road , LR - C zoning district, request an average ikeshore setback variance a,nd hardcov- ,r variances tor the 75'-250' and 250'-500' .ones In order to construct a second story 1bcive _ the existing .lake side porch . #05-3091 -Catherine Sallas, 3635 Jorth Shore Drive , LR -1 C zoning dls- rlct, requests after-the-fact hardcover ·ar lanoes tor the 0·75 ' and 75'-250' zones, 1 lake setback variance to ··permlt a lake ;etback of approximate ly 50' when 75' Is Iormally required, and an · average akeshore setback variance In order to nalntaln an existing root-to p deck , #05-3097 , \ssoclates on Gropberg and behalf of Hashem setback variances to permit side yard set-All persons wishing to be heard are backs of 15' when 30' Is normally required . encouraged to attend this meeting . Th is Is In order to construct a ·new residence on ' not · a . final agenda and . Is subject to an existing lot 0.93 acres In area and 11 O'. ,change prior to the hearing. Written com- In width when 2.0 acres and 200' Is nor-rnents are accepted and should be sub- mally .required. · · milted to:th e City of Orono .by April 13, #05-3103 -Jack and Karl Olson, 1$66 Shadywood Road , LR -1C zoning dis trict ; request a haracolier variance for the 0· 75' zone to permit 46.8% hardcover wh en 0% Is normally allowed and 48.2% currently exists, a variance to permit a detached structure to be located closer than 1 O' to ·the principal structure , and a-. structural coverage variance to permit 31.9% or 1,799 s,f, of _ structure when 1,500 s.t. Is normally allowed and 22 .!}% or 1,271 s.t, currently exists, In order t9 · construct ·a 22' x 24' deta_ched garage . #05-3104 -David and Renee Mack, 1978 Shadywood Road, LR -1 C zoning district, re·quest a lake setback variance to . permit a lake setback of 55 ' when 75' Is normally required , a 0-75' hardcover vari- ance to permit 27 .9% hardcover where · 0% Is normally allowed and 30 .6% cur- 2005 If possible. Plans are available for review In the City Offices• and all Interest• ad persons are encouraged to· contact the City ·tor-further Information . For an appointment , please call (952) 249-4600 , City of Orono Ely : f'lannlng Commission Michael P, Gaffron , Planning Director Posted at: Orono City Offices Crystal Bay Post Office Long La ke P,ost Office · Navarre Post Office (Published In Thd Laker and The Pio neer newspapers, April 2, 2005), Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Eric Serrano, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE PIONEER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended . B.) The printed Public Hearing, Land Use Apps. which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for one successive week(s). It was first published Saturday the 2nd day of April 2005, and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, Authorized Agent Suscribed and sworn to me on this 2nd day of April 2005 . By:~~ Notary Public • SUSAN A. R.OHRS NOTARY PIJBUC • IIINNESOTA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 01-31·2010 Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $15.50 per inch . (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $15.50. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.96 per inch. Each additional successive week: $5.79. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ss. ) CITY OF ORONO ) CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Denise M. Leskinen, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #05-3102, as mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my han,(ji and seal this 8th day of April, 2005. /' ' /LU Denise M. Leskinen CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (952) 249-4600 Fax (952) 249-4616 NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold public hearings in the Orono Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, April 18, 2005, beginning at 6:00 p.m. on the matter ofreviewing the following land use applications: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. #04-3060 #05-3073 #05-3080 #05-3086 #05-3089 #05-3091 #05-3097 #05-3099 #05-3100 Michael and Donna Ebertz, 1220 Tonkawa Road, LR -1 B zoning district, request an after-the-fact conditional use permit and hardcover variance for the 0- 75' zone to permit land alterations and boulder walls within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. David and Joann Pomije, 801 Tonkawa Road, LR-lB zoning dis11ict, request a preliminaiy subdivision in order to create one additional lakeshore residential lot. Interspace-West, Inc., 2060 Wayzata Boulevard, requests PUD general development plan approval, conm1ercial site plan approval, and preliminaiy and final plat approval for a conm1ercial office development containing 10 unit lots and one conm1on lot to be known as Amber Woods Office Centre. Philip and Cassandra Ordway, 1145 Sixth Avenue North, LR -lA zoning district, request a top of bluff setback variance in order to construct a new residence encroaching the required 30' top of bluff setback. Theodore and Deborah Rozeboom, 2967 Casco Point Road, LR -1 C zoning district, request an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover va1iances for the 75'-250' and 250'-500' zones in order to construct a second story above the existing lake side porch. Cathe1ine Sallas, 3635 North Shore Drive, LR-lC zoning district, requests after-the-fact hardcover variances for the 0-75' and 75'-250' zones, a lake setback variance to pennit a lake setback of approximately 50' when 75' is 1101111ally required, and an average lakeshore setback variance in order to maintain an existing roof-top deck. Gronberg and Associates on behalf of Hashem Abukhadra, 1745 Fox Street, RR -lB zoning district, requests prelimina1y plat approval in order to create six residential lots on one block including construction of a private roadway. Maiy and Marnix Guillaume, 3060 North Shore Drive, LR-lB zoning dis11ict, request a 0-75' hardcover variance to permit 15% hardcover where 0% is normally allowed and 15% currently exists, a 75'-250' hardcover variance to permit 34% hardcover where 25% is normally allowed and 34% currently exists, and a lake setback variance to pern1it a lake setback of 60' when 7 5' is normally required and 40' currently exists, in order to construct a lakeside deck and covered entry and portico/boardwalk. Lany and Sheryl Palm, 1146 Wilclhurst Trail, LR-lB zoning district, request a lot area and lot width variance in order to constrnct a new residence on an existing lbt 0.64 acres in area where 1.0 acre in area is normally required and 65' in width where 140' is normally required. 10. #05-3101 11. #05-3102 12. #05-3103 13 . #0 5-31 04 14. #05-3105 15. #05-3106 16. #05-3107 Jon and Jane Schwar tzman, 425 Oxford Road, LR-IA zoning distTict, request an average lakeshore setback variance to permit constrnction of an in-ground pool between the 75' lake setback and existing house. Kathryn Alexander on behalf of .T. Sven Gustafson, 920 Brown Road South, RR -lB zoning district, requests lot area, width, and side yard setback variances to permit side yard setbacks of 15' when 30' is nommlly required in order to constrnct a new residence on an existing lot 0.93 acres in area and 110' in width when 2.0 acres and 200' is normally required . Jack and Kari Olson, 1966 Shadywood Road, LR -1 C zoning district, request a hardcover vaiiance for the 0-75' zone to pem1it 46 .8% hardcover when 0% is normally allowed and 48.2% currently exists , a variance to pe1mit a detached strncture to be located closer than 10' to the principal structure, and a structural coverage variance to permit 31.9% or 1,799 s.f. of structure when 1,500 s .f . is nonnally allowed and 22.5% or 1,271 s.f. currently exists, in order to construct a 22' x 24' detached garage. David and Renee Mack, 1978 Shadywood Road, LR -1 C zoning distiict, request a lake setback valiance to pe1mit a lake setback of 55' when 75 ' i s n01mally required, a 0-7 5' hardcover variance to pem1it 27 .9% hardcover where 0% is norn1ally allowed and 30.6% currently exists and a hardcover varianc e fo r the 75'-250' zone to pernut 51.8% hardcover where 25% is nonnally allowed and 60.7% cunently exists , in order to construct an attached garage with living space above including a second story above the existing first story home. Peter Martinson, 4460 Forest Lake Landing, LR-lB zoning district, requests lot area and lot width variances, a hardcover variance to pe1mit 35% hardcover in the 75'-250 ' zone where 25% is normally required, side setback variances to pennit side setbacks of 8 . 7' where 10' is norn1ally required, in order to rebuild on an existing lot 0.28 acres in area and 57' in width where I acre and 140' of width is nom1ally required. Cindy and Brad McDonnell, 1420 Balder Park Road, LR-1 C zoning district, request a 75'-250' hardcover variance to pennit 51% hardcover when 25% is normally allowed and 50% currently exists, a structural coverage variance to pennit 1,885 s .f. of sti·ucture when 1,500 s.f. is normally allowed and 1,717 s .f. currently exists in order to construct a covered porch/entlyway. Jeff Nute of Natural Environments Corporation on behalf of Scott Bissen and Michelle Morey, 825 Tonkawa Road, LR -lB zoning disti·ict, requests a conditional use pern1it and hardcover vmiance to allow land alterations within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. 2 All persons wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend this meeting. This is not a final agenda and is subject to change prior to the hearing. Written comments are accepted and should be submitted to the City of Orono by April 13, 2005 if possible. Plans are available for review in the City Offices and all interested persons are encouraged to contact the City for further information. For an appointment, please call (952) 249-4600. City of Orono By:, Planning Comm~ ~rJJ~ Michael P. Gaffro;, ·Planning Director To be published in the Laker and Pioneer on April 2, 2005. Posted at: Orono City Offices Crystal Bay Post Office Long Lake Post Office Navarre Post Office 3 RUN DATE: 3/23/2005 38 101172312000 I PROP ADDR 860 BROWN RD S OWNER NAME DAVID M SK.EIE & WIFE T A.XPA YER DA YID M SKEIE NAME/ADDR 860 BROWN ROAD SOUTH WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723120004 PROP ADDR 940 BROWN RD S OWNER NAME A & C JOHNSTON T A.XP A YER ALEXANDER/CATHERINE JOHNSTON NAME/ADDR 940 BROWN RDS WAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 10[l723120002 PROP ADDR 920 BROWN RDS OWNER NAME JEFFREY SVEN GUSTAFSON T A.XPA YER JEFFREY SVEN GUSTAFSON NAME/ADDR 4400 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK MN 55384 38 1011723210008 PROP ADDR 825 BROWN RD S OWNER NAME MARTIN P/BRIDGETT P PARADISE TAXPAYER MARTIN P/BRIDGETT P PARADISE NAME/ADDR 825 BROWN RDS WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723120003 PROP ADDR 930 BROWN RD S OWNER NAME BJ JUDGE & J M MORRISON TAXPAYER BARRY JUDGE/JULIE MORRISON NAME/ADDR 930 BROWN ROAD WAYZATA MN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SE VICES DEPARTMEN , TO :½,EBf:1 ) ----------_" OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. ,7 2 'l f/,r:' ,.--/--; --;; _/ /l 1 /7 ,1,,...-. - DATE-J _-:; ~) BYi ,-I,///'(/, -~ _,,,.z/ -'· I I l ____/ ( o5-31ol- PAGE: I ·: LEGAL NOTICE CITY .OF ORONO ,bd_ zonln\f'di§trict:'. ,~quests preliminary plat , ,H .apprpy.iirJn·prd~t.,lo create six residential ,., ,. ! lot~,q.o,!:)n~. f1jq~~ in cluding construction of the 75'-250' zone to permit 51.8% hard-· _ cover where 25% is normally allowed and -2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 6_6 . ':· : ', a p~vi>,te rbadway. . . • JJl'-'! .. 1 }1 "11/'Yf 1n.1 ,, · . ' 60, 7% currently exists, In order to con- struct -an attached garage with li ving· space above including a sl!cond story Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (952) 249'4600 Fax _(952) 249-4616 #05-3099 .,. Mary . and Marnix -----Gulllaume,-3060 North Shore Drive, LR - 1 B zoning_ district, request a 0-75' hard- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS · ,•·~,;iqOy~r \iariance-: to permit 15% ·hardcover . •-'•'wfier1f 0% fs' normally" allowed and 15% . -.. above the existing first story home. The Planning Commlss jqn will hold currently e~ists; a 75'-250' hardcover vari-· bile hearing~. In the O(ono -Council•:-:' ance ta pe'rfliit 34% hardcover where 25% ambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on . Is normally:; allowed and 34% currently inday, April'18, 200$, beginning at 6:00 exists, and ·a lake setback va rianc e to per- n. on the matter of reviewing the follow:·• ·. mit' a lake setback of 60' whe n 75' Is nor- I land use applications: · mally required and 40' currently exists, In ' order to construct a· lakeside deck and #04-3060 -Micha~! and Donna covered enl(Y and portico/boardwalk. ,ertz, --1220 Tonkawa ·Road , LR -1B nlng district, request . an after-the-fact nditional use permit and hardcover_ vari-. ce for the 0-75' zone · to permit land erations and boulder walls within 75' of 3 OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. #05-3073 -David and Joann Pom lje, •1 Tonkawa Road, LR--·1 B zoning dis- :t, request a _preli minary subdivision in der to create one additional lakeshore sldential lot. · #05-3080 --lnterspace-West, Inc., 160 .Wayzata Boulevard, requests PUD _ ineral development plari approval, com-·· ercial site ·plan approval, and prellmi- Iry iind final plat _approval for a commer- !1I office development containing 10 unit ts and one common lot to be known as 11ber Woods Office c'entre. ' #05-3086 -Philip and Cassandra rdway, 1145 Sixth Avenue Nortti, LR - ~ zoning district, request a top of bluff itback variance .in ·order to construct a. 3W residence encroaching the required l' top of bl _uff setback. · 0 #05-31bO -Larr/ and Sheryl Palm, 1146 Wlldhurst Trail , LR -18 zoning dis- trict, reque.s! a lot area and lot width vari- ance lo oi'der to construct a new-'resi- dence· on an'.existing lot 0.64 ai;res in area where -1._0 acre in area Is normally required and 65' in width where 140' Is normally required. #05-3101 . -Jon and Jane Schwartzman, 425 Oxford Road, LR -· 1 A zoning dis_trict,. request an average lakeshore setback variance to permit con- stru6tion of dn incground pool between the 75'. lake sefback and existing house. . . . · #05-3 102 -Kathryn Alexander on behalf, ·of "· Sven Gustafson, 920 Brown . Road Sooth, RR -1 B zoning district, · requests lot area, width , and side yard setback va rian ces to per!Tlll side ya rd set- . bacl<s of 15' when 30 ' is normally required In order to construct a new residence on an ·existing lot 0:9·3 acres In ·area and 11 0' in width when 2.0 acres and 200' is nor- ;mally required . · · · #05:.3103 -Jack and Kari Olson,· #05-3089 -The;dore and Deborah 1966 Shadywood Road , LR -1 C zoning ozeboom, 2967 Casco Po int Road, LR -district, request a hardcover· variance for :; zoning district, request an average the 0-75' zone to permit 46 .8% hardcover . keshore setback variance and hardcov-"!hen •0o/o is normally allowed an_d 48.2% r variances for the 75'-250' and 250'-500' currently exists , a variance to , permit a ,nes in o"rder to construct a second story detached structure-to be located closer bove the existing lake side porch . than 1 0' to. the principal structure , and -a structural -,coverage variance ·to permit #05-3091 -Catherine Sallas, 3635 31 .9% or 1,799 s.f. of structure when lorth Shore· Drlve,.LR -1C ·zoning .dis-1,500 s.f. is ~ormally allowed and 22.5% ·let, requests after-ttie-fact hardcover or 1,271 s.f: currently exists,. in order to arlances for the 0-75 ' and 75'-250' zo nes, construct a _ 22' x 24'. detached garage. lake setback· variance to permit a lake etback of approximately 50' when 75' is #05 -3 J 04 -Dav id and Renee Mack, ormally required, and an average 1978 .Shadywood Road , LR -1C zon ing 1keshore setback varianc~ in order to_ district, request a lake setback variance to 1alntain ·an existing roof-top deck. · permit a l!\ke se tback qf 55' when 75' is normally required, a 0-75' hardcovet .va'ri - #05-3097 Gronberg and . ance to permit 27.9% hardcover where ,ssoclates on behalf of Hashem . 0% Is normally allowed and 30 .6% cur- 1bukhadra, 1745 .Fox Street, RR -18 rently ·exis.ts and a hardcover variance for #05-3105 -Peter · Martinson, 4460 Forest Lake Landing , LR -1 B zoning dis: trict, re.quests lo) area and lot width vari- ances , a hardcover variance . to permit 35% hardcover in the 75'-250' zone where ·25% is normally required , side setback varianc·es to permit side setbac ks of 8.7' - where 1 0' is normally required, in order to rebuild on an-existing lot 0.28 acres In · area and 57' •in width where 1 acre and · 140' of width Is normally required . #05-3106 ·_ Cindy · and Brad McDonnell , 1420 Ba lderPark Road, LR - -1C zoning district, request a 75'-250' hardcover variance to permit 51.% hard- cove r w:hen 25% Is normally allowed and _ 50% curre_ntly exists, a ~tructural cover- age variance to permit 1,885 s.f. of struc- ture wheri 1,500 s.f. is normally allowed • and 1,717 s.f. currently exists in order to construct a covered por_ch/eritryway.- #os:3107 ..: Jeff Nute of Natural ·Environments Co rporation on behalf of Scott Bissen _ and Michelle Morey, 825 Tonkawa Road, LR -1 B zoning district, . req uests a conditional use permit and hardcover variance to allow land alter- ations within 75' of the OHWL of La ke Minnetonka. · Au persons ·wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend this meeting . Th is is · not a final agenda and Is subject to change prior to the hearing. ·written com- ments are accepted and should be sub- mitted to the City. of Orono by April 13, 2005 if . possible. Plans are available for review in the City Offices and all Interest-. ·ed persons are encouraged1o contact the C ity for. further information . For an . appointment, please call (952) 249-4600 . City of Orono Br: Planning Com_missio'n - Michael P. Gaffron, Planning Director Posted at: Orono City Offices Crystal Bay Post Office Long Lake Post Office Navarre Post Office (Published in The Laker and The Pioneer ne wspapers , April 2, 2005). Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Eric Serrano, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualification s as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed Public Hearing Land Use Apps. which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for one successive week(s). It was first published Saturday the 2nd day of April 2005, and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, Authorized Agent Suscribed and sworn to me on this 2nd day of April 2005. By: ~~=90©eQ,\A 1/ r-~-------.__...Notary Public SUSAN A. FLOHRS NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 01-31·2010 Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space : $15.50 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $15.50. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.96 per inch. Each additional successive week: $5.79 . 03/24/2005 14:02 FAX 9524710639 STONEWOOD ~ 001/002 4420 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 PH 952-471-0584 FX 952-471-0639 www.Stonewood.com . MN 1.D. #20330592 STONEWOOD DESIGN I BUILD LLC --------------------.. ·--""'""""'-··~--·---- I\,fr. Michael Gaffron Director of Planrung City of Orono 27 50 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: 910 Brown Road Dear Mr. Gaffron, Thursday, March 24, 2005 Please reconsider Staff recommendation to deny a pending side yard variance for the above stated property. I personally visited with you when the property was acquired for redevelopment last year. You gave me very professional and useful direction regarding the lot limitations. We discussed several topics: • Demolition ti.meframe. You suggested a possible soils condition and / or lot configuration that might limit drain field locations and sizing, and that I might preserve the existing structure until I had a handle on this variable. • Sewer availability or lack thereof. As a result we worked out new city sewer service to the lot at our expense; installed by the City with assessment possibilities through Gregory Gappa, P .E. • Setbacks. We reviewed the regulations and viewed area photos showing footprints and lot sized of adjacent properties. My recollection was that at first you stated that the City did not readily grant sideyard variances in cases where adjacent properties have built close to the common property lines. However; after jointly reviewing the City photos showing the adjacent structures to be considerable distances from the common lines and adjacent properties considti.ng of considerably greater sizes than the 910 Brown Road parcel, I left the meeting feeling confident that we 03/24/2005 14:02 FAX 9524710639 STONEWOOD [4)002/002 March 24, 2005 were 'on the same page' as far as getting a reasonable side yard vanance. Since this meeting we have committed the property to a resident planning on building a new home that is appropriate and customary for the surrounding area, and have Kathy Alexander deep into the plan development of a home spanning a 70 foot width utilizing an angled garage so as to have just a comer rather than an entire wall plain along the proposed setback requested. • The existing home is very obsolete. Although currently occupied, it is not insulated, properly wired or plumbed, nor is structurally sound. It is ready to be replaced, • We have a lot width and size hardship being a narrow and small lot in an area surrounded by large parcels. • A fifty foot with structure does not conform to the homes in the area, and is not in sync with the value needed to support any redevelopment that is in tune to the neighborhood's potential. • The granting of the variance will not create distances between structures on flanking properties that are less than 60 feet ( double the individual side yard setback requirements). Please review this application and reconsider the pending Staff recommendation. Very truly yours, Stonewood Design Build, LLC Page2 Stonewood Design Build, LLC -4420 Shoreline Drtve -Spring Part<, MN 55384 -www.Stonewood.com City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting.*) Street Address: For Office Use Onl : 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 City Planner: ANIU ~.,.__~..,....,....,.-=----r-=---:----Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Meeting Date/Time: _....,2/_f-". t"""'2, _ __,"--·-=•~=,S-(J.'-'-'/11_,__ __ _ PC Date: /tPti t-/IJfUh'f1.t:;1 Main: 952-249-4600 Fax: 952-249-4616 What is the purpose of a pre-application meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: 02.o .-:;, • Wo\00 gc,A.;t? Property Identification Number (PIN): \ o -\ \7-L~ -\ -Z. -000-Z... Zoning District: 'Q_\ \,B Size of Property: :4:0,4t:26J l DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: □ Average Setback ~ide Yard Setback □ Rear Yard Setback □ Hardcover □ Lot Coverage j21. Lot Area □ Other: □ Front Yard Setback ){2(.Lot Width Applicant's~ HARDSHIP: Applicant has received the Hardship Documentation Form, Initials: understands it as it has been explained to them, and is aware that it must --+=---'--- be completed and submitted in conjunction with their formal variance application. OTHER INFORMATION: *Please note: Your variance application will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this for ill e completed y City staff. Applicant Signature: Date: ~!v(cn I 30.33 R=20 --:, ~ 14.78 --'34..24 ~1 1l ~1v ~ ~ 3 1 (6) O> ~ ,.~~ -:,,- ~ :g 0, "' O> <o ;:; 1 (18) -✓ 27.92 347.86 ~ 1~ \' :....=..:_____;~_. "' ~ 1 ~ ~-2 (19) 44.87 / ,, .. ..,, ~cfe2 .. ,rs. ~ 666.39 ~\ g0•fa' Ne9 •41•5o~w 1154.93 (27) •"'· "'' ~- 321.05 CARRIAGE !'l>o;~ (8) 10-117-23-21 (9) ~"<?cPl7 i..l'vv • .,.,..;. '°«- ,, ;!l ,o.'t,~.4~~ 'f. ,.,, ~•O· 393.38 HILL 6 (37) ~ (\f::l~~~ <o /~ .. .,..c:? ... ,3..09 177 '36 :.. '~.io 11 ~ ~ 12 :g (28) (29) ~ (1/ (UNDEVEL6PED) ,,, ~~. ~- _,:i #'.,, 228.37 KING ST 140 N89 '41 'S0'W "' ~ 631 1 237.62 (10) ~ .t o<I:-'<'-~ -4r :v ~ (2) / / ~GI\~'? .J~ (:Jr, "'t,;~ ~ ~~'<-0" ,l" 0-t 4,0 ' '" ,_;-,_o V o,.fli ,f"' r,'I><, ~ (35) .?7~..>7 ,<>/-~ rv,"7cJ'-"' ~ ~ 2 0 .. .. .., ~- 40RODS (4/ (5) 400 (2) (1) v,K'~c Ji>~~k g ~ (1) 10-117-2 3-12 ,/ / / (3) (4) / / / / ;o0 / / / / ~ / / / "~'), '> fb~7S" 3 (9) <o ~ ~ (7) 546,vl cs4'~,s6-~~ DAT A PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with M.S . 13.04, Subd . 2, "Rights of subjects of data", we would like to inform you that you r request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1 . The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested . 2 . You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3 . The information may be shared with other local , state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license . 4. If your requested perm it or license requires Council action to approve , some information may become public. 5 . You have certain rights under M .S . 13.04 (see following page) to review private data on yourself. 6 . Your full name is required to process this application or permit. irst tl(iiddle (o~ 15 S trnJe'.,l;VQcd C',oLAJ± Last Address Eden pca)ne HN City State Zip Phone I understand my righ t s as stated above. ~§i~-7 ·\ ., '•.· t i I . J i , I CITY of ORONO April 1, 2005 Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Stonewood Design Build LLC Jeffrey Gustafson REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 4420 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 Re: Zoning Application #05-3102, 920 Brown Road South Dear Mr. Gustafson: The City of Orono is required to notify you within fifteen (15) business days of your initial application as to the status of your request for lot area, lot width and side setback variances for your property located at 920 Brown Road South. Your application was received on March 22, 2005 and has been deemed as incomplete. The following additional information is needed in order to complete our review of your application: 1. Elevation views of the sides and rear of the proposed residence, as well as floor plans for the basement walkout and upper story. These plans would appear to be a critical element in supporting your request for side setback variances. 2. Proposed hardcover broken down by zone. The 929 .4 elevation shown on the adjoining property is the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of the northerly basin of Tanager Lake which is considered as part of Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, although this is not a lakeshore lot, it is subject to hardcover limits. Your surveyor must confirm: a) Location of75' and 250' setbacks from the 929.4 OHWL b) Area of75-250' hardcover zone c) Area of 250-500' hardcover zone d) Proposed hardcover within each zone Please post the Zoning Application sign at the entrance to the property. I am advised that the address on the mail box is 910 Brown Road South and this should be changed to 920 to avoid confusion when the Planning Commission visits the site. I am in receipt of your letter dated March 24 with regards to the side setback variance request. I want to make it clear that in the meeting last year, in response to your questions, I provided comments and suggestions as to how a side setback variance might be presented to the Planning Commission in the best light possible. However, I did not commit to supporting such a variance, and there is at least one very similar and fairly recent precedent case for a 100' lakeshore lot in the 2-acre zone on Stubbs Bay, where the Planning Commission recommended denial of variances from the 30' setback requirement for a rebuild. Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us #05-3102 April 1, 2005 Page2 Further, it would be inconsistent for staff to lend strong support to a setback variance in a rebuild situation unless there is a clear and compelling hardship present. The fact is, the property is byno means unbuildable absent a side setback variance. Substantial high-quality homes 30' to 50' wide and oriented lengthwise are being built on lakeshore properties in Orono every day. It will be up to you to convince the Planning Commission that a hardship exists and that a house developed within the required setbacks will not be in keeping with the neighborhood. Application #05-3102 is incomplete.Your application is being published for a public hearing at the April 18 Planning Commission meeting; however, your application can remain on that agenda only if the requested information is submitted in a timely manner, i.e. no later than Monday, April 11, to allow adequate time for review. As review progresses on your application, we will contact you if further information is required. I am certainly willing to meet with you to discuss your application if you wish. Call me to set up a time -952- 249-4600. ~ly,/~ Michael P Gaffron Planning Director cc: Kathryn Alexander "'"'" ...... 1114• ? ~ z I I 401 EAST LAKE STREET ' WAY2ATA,MN 55391 I ? -RMl:lhcr Phone: 952.473.8777 ' FAX: 952.473.8222 I I TW. I I I I I I ' I I I I I ' n I ,. 41P I l!a!llliiH -.....,.. N I ~ I I I I I I __ .J_ __ ~ ----- NI.T ! I I I .... I ' I i • ...... " • I! ... ~ Ill .... m 2P"Rff } , ... ~ ~ -·-~ 947.2 X I I f\ , , , I 2:r ~,I ~II ~'I ~I ~:! I -:,P.'/.)1- f=Pof~ -s112uq-uf2E l R ·1 1 B ZONING (2 ACRE MIN .) REQUIRES VARIAN CE FOR < 2 0 0 FT WIDT H SETBACKS FRONT=50 SIDES=30 REAl)-=50 EXISTl ~~G 0.93 AC RE 1 10 68.3 4 ·1 SOUTH I ~-\13"7 \ HOU.9£.--_ .. .,..-. ('' 'r-:~q':>t, •J I . I ,r , v , l c--.: ,-. .-z <'' 15 NORTH I / .,·· -----, _ . 2 4 2 N 39o)~9 -,·-:54-u -£--·-·-----. 400.04 I '· ', '-, 0 --:::-75 3i:Z•oSf./Q .0 7 AC 7 5 -2 5 0 PROPOSED 0 .93 ACRE ·110 / I (,.! "1-·: CJ) I s / ~--+·---.;;t,:.::p~,C S$8_ \ ov ~ ! /.f/ //. ' ' 2 5 'p + ~, q- i .p '" i PROPOSED ELE VA TI ONS ~' X 0% = ---0--SF HC 2 18 25 SF /0 .5 0AC X25% = 5456S F HC -, 15340SF / 0 .3 5 AC X 30% = 4600 S F f'\C.\,lUlr'\C...:> V l"'\l'\1/"\l'ivL.. I v" < 200 FT WIDTH 0.93 ACRE SETBACKS 110 _ , FRONT=50 68.3 ~ I '° (/) ~.U A'-.;Kt. LOT WIDT . REA -50 ---242 1f:ORTH I SIDE SE lli1 \ SIDES=30 41 SOUTH #;• 1~l~ / N 89° 19~4"-E----400.04 6;' Jl,S~~ £. .¢!!:_ -. ---'i.<.'v.9"<-"iJ :; 0 --~ ---/ ~••S>-9 \ ' 9,t>.'t:>"' ~ PROPOSED ELEV A TIONS GARAGE FLOOR=954.5 TOP OF FOUNDATION =954.8 LOWEST FLOOR=946.0 {WO) ~' .', 0 SF (0%) 0 30 60 .· _.·90 L I i r SCALE IN ---FEET 'PROJECT NO. EXISTING SF HOUSE SF #930 HOUSE IS 9.0% OF TOT AL LOT AREA JeooK I DI Ill 111A ,r =Noild.lS:5930 ~a 1'011:m.si<aNXl SO::i .lON J.1NO 1~019 775 8 2 5 2135 2155 / 2140 /pa, .aoo 92 0 ---- http://www13 .eo .hennepin .rnn .us/output/HL2_ WWW13506445601 l 165.jpg Page 1 of 1 I 860 930 940 1000 7/13/2006 Page 1 of 1 http://wwwl3 .co.hennepin.mn.us/output/HL2_ WWW13506445601 l 155.jpg 7/13/2006