The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-16-1990 Planning Packetp Li PIANNIH6 COMMISSION MEETING TDESDAT, JANUARY 16, 1990 7t00 P.M. 1275 BRONN ROND SOOTH - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - J. Diann Goetten ATTENDANCE PUBLIC HP>\\'1NGS 1. T.'iOO , .m.#1486 Sussex Square Development Corp., 3020 Fox St Revised Preliminary Subdivision Application - Public Hearing 2. 9:00 p.m,Proposed Zoning Amendments A - Section 10.52, Sutdivision 3 B - Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) ACTION ITEMS Review of these items will commence between scheduled public hearings. 3. #145 Alan Carlson, 3140 Watertown Road *■ Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Rearing 4. #1469 City of Orono, Right of Way of North Arm Drive - Near InterH»,*ction of West Branch Rd & North Arm Dr - Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Rearing 5. #1470 Dan & Ruth Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing 6. #1473 Jacquelynn Kelly, 2056 Shadywood Road - After-the-Fact Variances - Public Hearing 7. #1475 John McDowell, 4045, 4105 & 4135 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing 8. #1479 Doug Williams & Lecy Construction Inc., 1020 Tonkawa Rd Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing 9. #1467 Charles & Ann Hommeyer, 4125 Oak Street - After-the-Fact Variances - Public Hearing 10. #1483 Hai-old Vogt, 1342 Rest Point Circle - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing 11. #1484 Roxanne Stasik, 4470 Forest Lake Landing Variance - Public Hearing 12. #1487 Martin Schneider, 2180 North Shore Drive Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 13. #1485 K-P Properties Inc., 340/350 North Arm Lane - Sketch Plan Review TotB.i*4e»«irjm PIAMNING COMNISi::£OII MEETING TOBSDAY, JANUARY 16, 1990 7:00 P.M. ADDITIONAL ITEMS 14. Planning Commission Approval of November 20, 1989 Meeting 15. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the February 12, 1990 Council Meeting. ADJODR] 1. TO: i FROM: DATS: SDBJ: Cc^isslon ity Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne Wabusth, Eulldln, . zoning Administrator January 4, 1990 Aiendment“lrorl|iMl I?''?!?'’?®"?! StreetPublic Bearing ® Preliminary Subdlvnion on Outlet A Wat of Exhibits - S ■ *PP“«‘lon Swbu c: ExhibU D - Ill^lJaf"? Exhibit E - DeTOlloe?'^ T Exhibit E - AmendTfrlu:r ““y'^?^r **'*^®® Application - 1 a. , ® applicant has fil^»H /o^€F"" P„Vt* -r, ®d /s'’l®r%®''„“/*t h°l « hlm=ernVr “s':‘/|he® tile‘^V®^^°" tennis courts^o^*^! 17®?°'’®'^ *° Prohibit the aasocAtl Provide for t^e crLt®-®®- covenants for shall provide for V°" ® homeowners' "e‘=^U"wl?i®^®i"‘->"'*»“the°ten"^ Pe ePProprlate^o es”a"l!s1f»"" ® res!Se«ut a^r U „J® u^e City ">ay wish to consider li“its^oi®lighting®a^^^^ pplicant has responded by orov</i<* ®^ception on the plat The L restricted by the appropriate easement and which use must be approved by the City at the time of final plat approval. The use of the outlet will thereafter be restricted by the appropriate restricted covenant or open space easement.” Please note an outlot is not defined in the Zoning Chapter. Outlets have been used with PRDs to define shared open space or common recreation areas. It would appear there is nothing in the subdivision regulations what would prohibit the creation of an outlot with a Class III subdivision. There are no area standards for outlots. An outlot is not a residential unit for a single family use. In this case# would Section 10.03# Subdivision 9B be applicable? An Accesory structure requires a principal structure. Is it necessary to grant a variance for an outlot created for a special approved use (Yes/No). Section 10.03, Subdivision 9C, Tennis Courts without a roof structure are not considered an oversized accessory structure. The proposed tennis court shall be surrounded by a fence in excess of 6*. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14D, Required Setbacks for Tennis Courts: Front yard: Required=50', Proposed=50' Side/rear: Required*30', Proposed“30• No setback variance will be required for the tennis court structure (60' x 120'). Section 10.03, Subdivision 14C, Lot Coverage Standards - Proposed tennis court shall be enclosed by a fence in excess of 6' in height. Does this apply to an outlot of less than 1.99 acres in area? Total Area Allowed Proposed 27,878 s.f. 4,182 s.f. or 15% 7,200 s.f. (60' X 120') or 26% Was it the intention of the Planning Commission to make this standard applicable for outlots for special use? If it was the intent of the Planning Commission to include outlots into the lot coverage standard, then a lot coverage variance is required. Options of Action - Denial - If denied, the following findings may be applicable: 1. Location of tennis court and Impact on existing rural residential neighborhood. 2. Depending on responses or findings raised with questions noted above, the need to approve multiple variances will prohibit approval of the amended subdivision. i rf ! [ f Approval - If approved, the Planning Commission may consider one or more of the following findings: 1 The creation of the outlets has no negative impact on the Lsted septic sites, nor created a need for lot standar variances for the 17 residential lots. 2. The tennis court does not require setback variances. With the creation of Oulot B, the Developer has Provided fiturt septic expansion area for the substandard residential unit surrounded by the subdivision. 4. outlets A and B are not considered if^17 Outlet A shall be jointly owned by an association of 1 ScLownera for the exclusive use Applicant shall provide appropriate covenants for maintenance of the accessory structure and grounds. outlet B shall be set aside for fo* t^^rriiftrear Of 1hrou\":iTo^r Tut?rr expansion. Developer shell execute a special covenant defining the special use and restrictions on both outlets. The approval of this subdivision is subject to the following conditions : 1. use of the tennis court on Out lot »^o Te Ssrof°thi^ne;rwl?hTrthe^ox Bend Subdivision and their guests. 2. NO outdoor lighting is approved for Outlot A. 3. No other accessory structures are approved for Outlot A. 4 Other conditions deemed appropriate Commission for the future use of Outlot A or Outlot B. OF OROHO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATIO •4 xOPERTI IiOCATION Site Address Sr£(/^r_ i-f-z/y- ZS'JZ - otP£>3, ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^—/f7 ~2J -3> - ^ Please check one — Property abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application Phone (home) ^7S - /^z/^APPLICANT Name T^/r^UA/iC z^eL'eu>/>/-ir^yT Phone (work) _ _ _ _ _ Address: T‘/S r/^XzzX'3 ///ii /City: ^cy/rZ^rzi, zip:_^^2±L OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (work) ilT;’_^,-r nrrjrr ,•-.■) /V< »'h‘i 2 *f 1 W* ’ \ */ *:%/ ■ "jg Address:City: CHEC^i Zip: ■'•EiEit' ■' “. •'■•/•! (attach list if more than one)TAV'WXv* !-•TiriO! ru:;- EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size ^2^ 5J y. 7.y :i r f r Acres Dry Land t ./’cj^s Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels f'< Present Use (check)XN Residential; no. of units Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District /<y —/S_ _ _ _ _ PROPOSAL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites 2. X Number of Building Sites: /5- / Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: 77 Units per Acres ,P7 /Z Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check)X Residential Other (specify) E>LBTB PRELIMIMARY APPLICATIOH 2. 3. MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR CC 1. Completed Application Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 4. 5. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date 1. Payment of fees (parlc fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date FEES SIcetch Plan Review (Class I, II S III)$150.00 Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 150.00* The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature ^ > Oi^ y Date /^/ ^ 97 Owner's Signature Q. /. . A, , W -nr Date /& ^ Applicant must have al^ submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. _L RUN DATE Q5/09/S9 BATCH 009 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. P1AS5A01 PAGE 20 PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 50 04-117-25 25 0004 00570 LEAF ST L P STEHART ft R N STEHART LOGAN P ft ROBYN H STEHART 570 LEAF ST S LONG LAKE HN 55556 58 04-117-25 25 0005 00570 \ LEAF ST L P STEHART ft R H STEHART LOGAN P ft ROBYN H STEHART 570 LEAF ST LONG LAKE HN 55556 58 04-117-25 25 0006 00058 ADORESS UNASSIGNED L P STEHART ARM STEHART LOGAN P ft ROBYN H STEHART 570 LEAF ST ORONO MN 55556 PROP ADOR 0»f«R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 04-117-25 25 0007 00598 LEAF ST KATHRYN A ANDERSON KATHRYN A ANDERSON 598 LEAF ST LONG LAKE HN 55556 58 04-117-25 25 0009 00560 LEAF ST H C FURCIItlER JR ETAL HENRY FURCIftlER 560 LEAF ST LONG LAKE HN 55556 58 04-117-25 25 0010 00400 LEAF ST E T ft S A HILLMAN TIMOTHY HILLMAN 400 LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN 55556 PROP AOOR 0»t€R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 04-117-25 25 0022 05150 RIDGEHOOO CIR J D BRINDLEY ft P J BRINDLEY JANES ft PATRICIA BRINDLEY 5150 RIDGEHOOO CIR LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 04-117-25 25 0025 05100 RIDGEHOOO CIR FRATK J ft PATRICIA K ROOTSON FRANK J ROUTSON 5100 RIDGEHOOO CIR LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 04-117-25 25 0027 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED H H ft S J LAUE HERMAN H ft SHIRLEY J LAUE 594 PARK LANE LONG LAKE HN 55556 58 04-117-25 24 0006 PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR BARBARA K COFFIN BARBARA K COFFIN 5025 HATERTONN RO LONG LAKE HN 55556 58 04-117-25 51 0001 00425 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO S H ft P LAHTON OR HILLIAM 6 LAHTON 425 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO LONG LAKE HN 55556 58 04-117-25 51 0002 00455 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO 3 C ft r NOLAN CHARLES ft ELIZABETH NOLAN 455 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO S LONG LAKE Tfl 55556 PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 04-117-25 51 0005 00505 OLD CRYSTAL BAY GERTRUDE HENTSCHEL GERTRUDE B HENTSCHEL 505 SO OLC CRYSTAL BAY RD LONG LAKE HN 55556 RD S 58 04-117-25 51 0004 00555 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD ROBERT S BRANSON ETAL ROBERT S BRANSON 555 S OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD LOrc'i LAKE HN 55556 58 04-117-25 51 0008 02920 FOX ST CHERRY C STUBBS CHERRY C STUBBS 2920 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55556 r PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 04-117-25 51 02960 FOX ST NINA H HILDMAN NINA H HILDtIAN 745 SPRING HILL RD ORONO HN 55591 0009 58 04-117-25 51 0011 02880 FOX ST LESTER E THOMPSON ET AL LESTER E THOMPSON 2660 FOX ST RT 1 BOX 525T LONG LAKE HN 55556 58 04-117-25 52 0002 05060 FOX ST J CHADHICK ft K L CHADHICK JOSEPH ft KAREN CHADHICK 5060 FOX ST LONG LAKE HN 55556 5/ove? PmiP ADDR 0»tCR N«C TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR HENNEPIN COWITY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST PROP AOOR OlfCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 58 04-117-25 52 0005 00058 ADORESS UNASSIGNEO NINA N MUONAN NINA N NILDHAN 745 SPRING HILL RD OROm MN 55591 58 M-117-25 52 0006 05020. FOX ST NINA N NILDMAN NINA H.NILDMAN 745 SPRING HILL RO ORON6 MN 55591 58 04-117-25 55 0010 05175 FOX ST DAVID A MAASS DAVID A MAASS P 0 BOX 592 LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 04-117-25 54 0011 05090 FAPVIEN U JAR JANN L ot.ST.*'« 1800 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE 900 END AVE SO MPLS TM 55402 58 05-117-25 14 0007 05200 BAYSIOE RO RAT MINKEMA ROBERT L A TERESA N HITXEHA 5200 BAYSIOE RO LONG LAKE MN 65556 58 05-117-25 41 0018 05211 BAYSIOE RD A J ROBBINS A T L ROBBINS ARNOLD J ROBBINS 5211 BAYSIOE RO LONG LAKE MN 55556 REPORT NO. P1455401 PAGE 27 4 58 04-li7-25 52 0004 00058 /ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO .HININt^ N,NILDMAN ninaxn/hilonan 745 SPRING HILL RO ORONO/NN 55591 58 04-117-25 55 0005 05099 FARVIEN LA A E IIENNINGSEN JR ET AL ARTHUR E HENNINGSEN JR 5099 FARVIEN U LOtTG LAKE 55556 58 04-117-25 55 0011 05126 FOX ST A 0 CARLSON A S J CARLSON ALAN CARLSON A SUSAN CARLSON 5125 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 04-117-25 54 0012 05080 FARVIEN LA J N PARKER SBC PARKER JOHN N A BONNIE C PARKER 5080 FARVIEN LA S L0r«3 LAKE rtl 55556 58 05-117-25 41 0014 00565 LEAF ST J A C MC COY JOHN L A CHARLENE M MC COY 5525 HILLJIDE CIR EOINA MN 55455 58 05-117-25 41 0019 00465 LEAF ST HAG KOROtlCIEHICZ JR HALTER J KOROIKIEHICZ 465 LEAF ST LONG LAKE IM 55556 58 04-117- 00058 Ado NINA N MIL NINA N NILDMAN 745 SPRING/hILL RD ORONO MN / 55591 '-25 52 )oAess ojlAN 0005 UNASSIGNEO 58 04-117-25 55 0004 05091 FARVIEN LA J A S OUDZIAK JOSEPH OUDZIAK 5091 FARVIEN LANE LONG LAKE F94 55556 58 04-117-25 54 0007 02905 FOX ST MARK F ENGEBRETSON ET AL HARK A CAROL ENGEBRETSON 2905 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55556 CD 58 05-117-25 14 0004 05240 BAYSIOE RO DAB BOYLAN DONALD K BOYLAN 5240 BAYSIOE RO LONG LAKE TM 55554 58 05-117-25 41 0017 05225 BAYSIOE RD R B A V 0 SHELDON RONALD B SHELDON PO BOX 61 LONG LAKE MN 55556 tH if 58 05-117-25 41 0020 00525 LEAF ST JOTUTHAN CHAPEL JOtUTHAN CHAPEL A CHURCH OP RELIGIOUS SCIENCE 525 LEAF LONG LAKE TM 55554 RUN DATI OB/09/69 BATCH 009 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY X»irORHATIOH rrSTEH PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. P1A35A01 PAGE 26 PROP AOOR ONNER NAIC TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SB 05-117-23 44 0004 0S25O FOX ST GEORGE H DIXON GEORGE H DIXON 121 KASHINGTON AVE S RN 617 MPLS KN 55401 000538 05-117-23 44 03400 FOX ST JA!TS 0 FULLERTON III ET AL FULlLRTON LUIBER CO P 0 BOX 30 HPLS HN 55440 TOTAL BATCH 009 0003B I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEftlEPlN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OP PROPERTY TAXATION# TO THE BEST OF HY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE I sNs id TO: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron# Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin. DATS: January 4, 1990 SUBJ: #1486 Pox Bend Subdivision - Outlot B Septic Potential At your reguestf I have reviewed the septic concerns for the Chadwick residence at 3060 Fox Street in relation to proposed Outlot B of the Pox Bend subdivision. Outlot B apparently is intended as additional future septic area for the Chadwick property. I would make the following comments; 1. The Chadwick residence is generally centered on its lot, and the existing location of the well severely limits future septic development. 2 The existing septic system is northeast of the house and i*3 probably near the lot line. Having extrapolated the topographic contour lines from the Fox Bend Plat, it appears that the drainfield is in an area of 8% to 12% slopes. These slopes would generally not be suitable for replacement with a mound system if the existing trench system ever fails. The LrB and LrD soils on the site might support a replacement trench system. No testing information has been submitteu. 3. Without a site inspection it is impossible to verify that the contour extrapolation is correct. However,it would appear that a flat area of approximately 50' x 100 exists northwest of the house for a potential mound site. This flat area extends into Outlot B, therefore it seems that Outlot B will have some potential benefit to future septic system development on the Chadwick property. 4. This potential drainfield site is shown in blue on the attached drawing and is approximately 100' from the wetland areas both to the northeast and southwest. 5. Chadwick's property is approximately 1 acre in area, and the additional outlot would make it about 1.25 acres in area. While the addition of Outlot B would not make that a totally conforming lot, the potential for finding a future drainfield site would appear to be much increased based on this additional land. 6. Neither Outlets A or B have any effect on tested drainfield sites in adjacent lots. \_ \ l-t \ \ IN \ll N • \ • % /I > \ \ fc'5irUt.o'V \\\\ V ^ ^ \ \.V X 3^ 5® V/^v\' ]! > /r»i/.# '^V 1"'\V y i \\ \!\ V [\ 32* t ^7^l\ / *\ hC \ '\ :\ \ 't / \v A V / \'V > / ‘v \ V.tf. 1/ 4*rltrf.7#At M^SOpf^ W fM.OO OUTLOT.B Qc^c^OUTLOT A p- anuary 8, 1990 lu_ Nina Wildman Sussex Square Developement 745 Springhill Road Wayzata, MN 55391 City of Orono P.0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Tot Planning Commission & Council Re: FOXBEND Outlets In marketing our lots we have found substantial interest in Vision^ OUTLOT with a tennis court to be used by the whole subdi would be placed around the court to screen it from west and make for an attractive setting An adjoining lots still meet the requirments for buildable lota. aesthet:ca of the subdivision would be rllhll the developer building the tennis court with plantings rather than having the construction left to an individual owner ^ Sincerely, SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT NiKa W. Wildman NWW/lh (suasexto) ) i u To:Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson 122189.2 Proa:Michael P. Gaffron» Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: December 21, 1989 Consideration of Amendment to Recently Adopted Accessory Structure Ordinance: Inclusion of Pools as Lot Coverage Introduction - On August 14, 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance 72, Second Series which regulates location, area, and height of large accessory structures (copy attached as Exhibit A). That ordinance amended Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) by limiting the percentage of lot coverage by structures on all lots 1.99 acre or smaller. Prior to adopting that regulation, upon staff recommendation the Council revised and detailed the language such that all roofed structures which extend more than 6' above grade, and any tennis courts, pools, patios, decks and other open structures which are fully or partially surrounded by fences that are more than 6' high, would count toward lot coverage. On September 25, 1989, the Council discussed reconsidering whether pools should be included in the lot coverage calculation, regardless of fence height. On October 23, 1989, pursuant to a memo of October 19, 1989 from the City Administrator, Council directed staff to initiate the process for consideration of such an amendment. Based on the City Cour.cll's discussion, the amendment to be considered would be to revise Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) to read as follows: "C. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exeed 15% of the lot area. The following shall be included in calculation of lot coverage by structures: 1. All roofed structures which extend more than 6' above grade level. 2. Tennis courts, pooisr similar "open" structures enclosed by fences, railings than 6' above grade level structures extends more than entire structure shall count patios, decks, and all when partially or fully or walls which extend more (if any portion of such 6* above grade level, the toward lot coverage). MauIlL V 9- Consideration of Amendment: - December 21, 1989 Page 2 of 3 ^ Pools, includincr pool basin and associated deck or patio areas, regardless of whether such pool basin, ^ck, or patio is enclosed with a fence. ~ Ramifications *- Staff would request that the Planning Corialssion seriously consider the original Intent of the lot coverage code revision. It is staff's impression that the Planning Commission wished to limit the visual density of development on small properties by limiting the percent of above ground structural encroachments. There are typically two types of pools constructed in Orono: 1. In-ground, below grade pools, typically a hole in the ground lined with concrete and surrounded by grade level patios. Typically this type of pool has permanently affixed diving boards, and often is surrounded by a fence ranging from 3' to 6* in height at a distance of 4' to 20' from the pool water surface. 2. Above-ground pools, typically with a wood superstructure containing a 3' high plastic-lined steel basin, which may be p3J^tlally below grade at one end to provide a deeper diving area. The decking around such pools is typically at a height 4' above grade, and may be surrounded with an additional 4' to 6' fence outside the deck area, hence a total pool and fence height approaching 10'. Prior to adoption of the current ordinance, staff felt it was imperative that, if a lot coverage ordinance was to be adopted, the items to be Included or excluded from calculation should be strictly defined. Since a side and rear yard fence height of 6' is normally allowed in any non-lakeshore district, staff felt that on small lots, any upward encroachments higher than 6' would be considered as visual encroachments contributing to visual density of a neighborhood, hence "tennis courts, pools, patios, decks and other open structures partially or fully surrounded by fences more than 6' above grade" were considered as being visual obstructions subject to the lot coverage limitations. The idea that all pools should be considered as lot coverage by structure, without regard for the actual height above grade that the pool extends, would seem to be in conflict with the perceived "visual density" intent of the lot coverage ordinance. t I Consideration of Amendnent - December 21r 1989 Page 3 of 3 Staff RecGSDBendation ** Planning Commission is requested to review and consider the intent of the lot coverage ordinance recently adopted^ and determine whether its purpose was to merely limit visual density of above-grade structures, or whether it was intended as a further hardcover restriction for small lots. Staff would suggest that the two concepts not be intermingled in a confusing ordinance. Staff fails to see a distinction between grade level pool structures and grade level decks, patios, sidewalks, driveways, etc. in the context of visual density encroachments. If grade level pools are to be considered as lot coverage but grade level patios are not, then Planning Commission should clearly redefine the intent of the lot coverage ordinance, and consider whether the 15% limit is appropriate. Staff would also caution that the accessory structure code as it currently exists is not perfect, and is extremely detailed and not easily administered. Our accessory structure code, as well as many of our other unique ordinances, are a tangled web which is extremely confusing to the general lay person. 1 6 WC'-- I • w / ' - — ; 101989.1 '-X TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and city Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator^ October 19, 1989 vO*t- y SUBJECT: Oversized Accessory Structures Ordinance > Regulation‘o£ Pools Attachment: A. Oversized Accessory Structure Memo Dated 7/21/89 B. August 14, 1989 Minutes (Excerpt) ISSUE - Presentation to Council on background regarding the exclusion of pools in determining accessory structure allowances. INTRODUCTION - On September 25, 1989, Council discussed reconsideration of the issue of pools being included as accessory structures for the purpose of determining "percent of lot coverage by buildings”, only when such pools have a fence that exceeds six feet in height. DISCUSSION - Prior to the introduction of the accessory structures ordinance, any pool under 1,000 square feet that met the applicable setbacks cou.ld be constructed in a yard without any variances. The oversized accessory structure ordinance recently adopted contains a number of specific regulations pertaining to pools as follows: A. Any pool of basin structure greater than 1,000 square feet must meet minimum setback requirement greater than the normal 10 foot setback. B. For all lots under 2 acres in area there is a 15% maximum limit on lot coverage by buildings, which include both principal and accessory structures. Any lot regardless of size would be allowed a minimum of 2,000 square feet of buildings. Pools and tennis courts with fences over six feet high would be considered as accessory structures for purposes of this calculation. As noted in Attachment A, tue issue raised at the August 14, 1989 meeting involved whether the regulation of these accessory structures was one of visual density or mass, or if in fact it was on a different basis than being total structural foot print of a lot. As noted above the exceptions in the accessory structure ordinance were for tennis courts, pools and patios and other open structures, including paddocks and arenas, with fences no higher than six feet in height. These represent a diverse range of "structures". A swimming pool is the most substantial of the above items considered as a structure, as opposed to a paddock or arena which is not so much a structure as an area that is fenced. If the Council desires to include pools in the regulations as accessory structures which count against "lot coverage by buildings" regardless of the fence height, an amendment of the accessory structure ordinance could be referred to the Planning Commission for initiation of the process. Under both the previous and present ordinance a pool of limited size can be constructed on any size property provided the required normal or oversized accessory structure setbacks are met. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information. 2. Direct that an ordinance amendment be drafted. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council request staff to proceed with an ordinance amendment regulating pools as a building type accessory structure, but leaving tennis courts, paddocks and arenas as excluded items when they have walls or fences no greater than six feet in height. Patios and decks would still be treated as structures requiring setbacks or non encroachments, based on their height above grade. _______________ _____ _ __, seconded by __, that the Council having accepted the information direct staff to prepare anPROPOSED MOTION - Moved by ordinance amendment for Planning Commission consideration for inclusion Of pools in the calculation of percentage lot coverage by buildings for a given property. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Planning & Zoning Administrator I I \^L To:Mayor Grabek fi Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Date: Subject: July 21, 1989 - - - - Ordinance Amendment, Oversized Accessory Structures List of Exhibits - . . .Exhibit A - Proposed Ordinance Minor Revisions Since Last Meeting Exhibit B - Memo & Exhibits ' 7/89 Discussion - This item was tabled at your July 10th meeting for further review. As of this writing, I have received no further comments from Council members. A few minor changes have been proposed since your last meeting, as follows: 1. The language that defines pools as non-oversized accessory structures makes it more clear that grade-level, non—encroaching patios will not be considered as part of the structure. 2. For the 15% lot coverage requirements for small lots, structures to be included have been defined as follows: a) Any roofed or covered structure exceeding 6* in height above grade level. b) Any non-roofed structure (tennis courts, pools, decks, etc.) of which any part including fences or walls extends more than 6' above grade level. Since the intent of the lot coverage ordinance is to limit visual density on a property, it would seem that any improvement that exceeds 6 xn height reasonably, be considered a visual impact and should be included in lot coverage. Since the maximum allowed fence is 6', yards that are fenced in with a 6' fence would n^ot b^e counted as lot coverage, but a tennis court fences would be included, as would a gazebo or accessory building. Pools might or might not be included depending their height above grade and the type of fencing or walls existing. Ordinance Amendment^ Oversized Accessory Structures July 21, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Additionally, staff is suggesting that for the lot coverage sections, a minimum allowance be granted for small lots, so that for instance, a typical 50* lot in Navarre would still have the ability to construct a detached garage in addition to the house. The proposed revision sets the allowance for any developed lot at 1,500 square feet, which would be 20% of the typical 50'xl50* lot. Of course, the 1,500 square foot threshold can be raised or lowered if Council is so inclined. 3. A new section has been added to revise and clarify the existing code section which requires an accessory building to be at least 10' away from a principal structure. Staff has consistently required that accessory buildings also be 10* from each other, but it was recently brought to staff's attention that the code as it is written only requires the 10* setback from an accessory structure to a principal structure, and not between accessory structures. The proposed revision will make the code conform to what has been consistently enforced, and will provide the necessary safety and visual density controls staff feels are appropriate. We would not expect a significant number of new variances due to this section. It also will give us the ability to legitimately require that pool water surfaces will be at least 10* from any other structure, accessory building roofed area, or other nearby facility that could be used as a diving board. This is a concern because there was at least one case approximately 10 years ago where an Orono property owner had a pool less than 10' from the overhanging deck on the house and sustained serious injury when trying to dive off the second story deck into the pool. 4. Although not revised in the ordinance draft attached, staff would recommend that you consider revising the rear yard required setback for tennis courts, pools and paddocks to be merely 30* minimum and drop the requirement that such structures be outside the required rear yard area, since that would start to have a significant effect on restricting drainfield sites in the 2 acre and 5 acre zones. Staff Reconendation -> With the changes noted above, staff feels that the ordinance amendment is workable and would recommend adoption. li 7’ ORDINANCE « , SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE BT REGULATING THE LOCATIOHr AREAr AND HEIGHT OF LARGE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by repealing Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) and adding a new Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) to read as follows: C. Area Restrictions. In all "R" districts no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions; 1. Not more than one Oversized Accessory Structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. An "Oversized Accessory Structure" is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet, except that the following non-roofed accessory structures which exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area are not considered as "Oversize Accessory Structures", but are subject to the special setback restrictions of Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (D): - Tennis courts - Pools, when pool basin structure (excluding non- encroachment-type patios) is greater than 1,000 s.f. - Paddocks or arenas 2. Oversized Accessory Structures are regulated by the following table: Maximum Individual Accessory Structure Maximiim Allowed Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas Lot Area Footprint Area on a Property 0-1.99 acre 1,000 s.f.2,000 s.f. 2.00-3.00 acre 1,200 s.f.2,400 s.f. 3.01-3.50 acre 1,400 s.f.2,800 s.f. 3.51-4.00 acre 1,600 s.f.3,200 s.f. 4.01-4.50 acre 1,800 s.f.3,600 s.f. 4.51-5.00 acre 2,000 s.f.4,000 s.f. 5.01-6.00 acre 2,200 s.f.4,400 s.f. 6.01-7.00 acre 2,400 s.f.4,800 s.f. 7.01-8.00 acre 2,600 s.f.5,200 s.f. 8.01-9.00 acre 2,800 s.f.5,600 s.f. 9.01 acre or more 3,000 s.f.6,000 s.f. 3. Any Oversize Accessory Structure shall be subject to the following conditions: Page 1 of 4 E. Greenhouses. Commercial greenhouses provided all outside storage is fenced in such a manner so as to screen the stored material from view when observed from the public street or adjoining lot. Commercial greenhouse structures shall not be located in a required yard area^ and are subject further ^ the general zoning code requirements pertainlnq to accessory structures. SECTION 6. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by revising Section 10.03# Subdivision 12 as follows: Subd. 12. Crowding Principal Building. No accessory building or structure# unless an integral part of the principal building# shall be erected# alterered# or moved within ten feet of the principal building# nor within ten feet of another accessory structure. SECTION 7. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption# and a short summary shall be published in the Laker and Pioneer newspapers. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this _ _ _ _, 1989# by a vote of _ _ ayes and _ _ nays. day of Dorothy M. Hallin# City Clerk James R. Grabek# Mayor Page 4 of 4 iUHUTBS OF »E OHONO COONCIL MEFTI»G OF AOGOST 14, 1989 ACCESSORY STROCTDRE CONTINDED 40. set^c. .or accessor, structures was appropriate. be exSp?“„ter c®onsidirf^^ sw^lnp pools would Plannxng Commission was concerned wi^h said that the covering area. Most pools are cV’® impact of most pools are surrounded by a fence. noted, however, that Goetten,'^*lo“approve 1:he°''ordinance^1'^°”^®'^ Councilmember Accessory Structures. Motion, A^eT-?, Ma”;s”-1,?"„'tion%a°s?ed"'“^ 2 ngihber*s report ORDERING PLANS St SPECS - wtftt m-»Citv ^ #3/HIGHWAY 12 necessary to do PAY RBQDBST #1 - LIPT STATION 10/43 Goetten,”^to”rjproJe paymen?"" #l®^fo/®Lif fCouncilmember projects. Motion, Ayes^M^ Sa"y's-o' 4«oniLs"ed“'°'’ MAYOR'S REPORT: L.M.C.D. MAYOR'S MEETING indica/ed^ ^hey ®wcSld°^like ^more^ c® Mayors had Representatives, because they felt theS w^^®^ ^MCD informed. The Mayors also fe^lt ^®PP adequately and that it was difficult to hav*» y«» ^^®^® ''®t’e too many meetings The Mayors also l««Lned tLI|'’"nifl^.“°" ” n,eetin|! respective LMCD Representative. s-^ J k to recall cheir satisfactory manner! '"® ''«^® "°t performing i^I CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: COONTY ROAD 51 PARKING RBSOLUTIOH #2675 J®-0“»ended ‘^ei?tndinrthe*-N^V^^ Staff hasthan initially proposed. ^ area 200 further east •till tryin/tJ’'i?ork*with°Lnn'^“?'^'*c° ‘"Ah the city was «ea on the louth sfde"oV"co,Siy*liad'l;?*'' “a Mr. Thomas Anderson, 3550 North Shore Driye, said that he V,.' .. \ e/* ' - To;Planning Conunlsslon Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Conunlsslon Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proat Dates Jeanne A. Mabusth# Building & Zoning Administrator January 5, 1990 subject. 10.5J, SubdivLlon 3 - Corridor rezonlng within the Highway 12corrioor. The proposed ordinance amendment is presented for the consideration and action and will be mleting. Council's formal action at their January 22nd >• t S IT.wei ft• *“ih -* V * * # * ■ • * : ORDINAHCB « , SBCOND SBRIBS AM OROIMAMCB AMEIIDIM6 SBCTIOH 10.52, SUBDIVISIOM 3 EMTITLBD "SAMITART SBNBR AVAILABILin* (SPBCIAL RSQOIRBMBMTS FOR RBSOHIMG OP THB BIGBMAT 12 CORRIDCMI STODT AREA) The City Council of Orono ordalne aa follows t 1. Section 10.52, Subdivision 3 is hereby arenieJ *"0 ■Sanitary Sewer and Municipal Water Availability. The available sanitary sewer and municipal water capacity to serve the development of this corridor is currently very limited. Therefore, any plana to develop within this area must either demonstrate that it can occur utilising current sewer and water allocations or they must include improvements to increase the capacity of the myatems serving this area, ir sanitary sewer or SQnioi£al water system isprov^nts are proposed as part ol"tfie“*app Heat ion, then the feasibility of providing this service will also be scrutinized along with an improvement financing plM to wus ^t tbs oosts assooiated with providing this additional capacity will be paid for by the devttlopaent.■ Jff^<>optlon and Publication. This ordinance shall be Se^ lii* ^ after its passage and publication on January hf thm City Ceoncll of Orono oiT thlo 22nd Amf of Jmmuirys 1990 by a vote of___ ayes and ___ nays. ^ January, . * • ATTESTI James R. Grabek, Mayor rorothy M. ci*:v Clerk Published in the Laker and Pioneer Newspapers on the 29th day of uanuAjryy x99Ue To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:January 10, 1990 Subject: #1257 Alan Carlson, 3140 Watertown Road - Preliminary Subdivision — Continuation of Public Hearing List of Additional Exhibits Exhibit T - Exhibit U - Exhibit V - Exhibit W - Exhibit X “ Exhibit y - Exhibit Z - Exhibit AA Exhibit BB Exhibit CC Exhibit DD Exhibit EE Exhibit FP Exhibit GG Planning Commission Minutes 9/18/89 M.C.W.D. Letter 9/29/89 Carlson Letter 12/28/89 Drainfield Covenant Gaffron Memo Cook Report 1/8/90 Watershed Map (Sundee Drainage Study) - Drainage Map Before (Sundee Drainage Study) - Drainage Map After (Sundee Drainage Study) - Staff Sketch - Relocation West Access Corridor - Preliminary Plat - Grading/Drainage Plan - Road Plan - Entrance Monuments - Location Map Status of Subdivision Application - At the September 18, 1989 meeting of the Planning Commission, the subdivision application was tabled pending submission of final septic tests for all 17 lots, resolve of the access plan for the subdivision, redesign to resolve lot standard variances, drainageways to be defined and designated as drainage easements, and preliminary drainage study completed for both City Engineer and M.C.W.D. review. The applicant has submitted all required information as set forth by both staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Carlson submits the amended preliminary plat and supportive information for the Planning Commission's review and approval. Please review Exhibit Z, the applicant's addendum to the revised/amended plan. Please note staff has made the necessary corrections to the lots referenced within that letter as the Orono reviewing staff requested last minute changes in the preliminary plan seeking an access corridor to the west boundary. i .j I 1 Zoning File #1257 January 10^ 1990 Page 2 of 6 Review of Revised Preliminary Plan Lot Configuration - All lots satisfy the 2 acre dry contiguous area standard. All lots except for Lot 2, Block 4 meet the required lot width standard of 200' at the rear of the 50' front yard setback line. Lot 2 measures approximately 196'. Staff would ask that the shared lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 be readjusted to provide the additional 4' of width. Outlots should be redesignated as there is no Outlot C on the current plat. Septic - Please review Exhibit X, Gaffron's review memo of the septic tests submitted with the revised plan. Gaffron confirms that all lots have adequate and suitable area for both the primary and alternate septic sites on each proposed lot, specifically noting that the dralnfield site located adjacent to the plat road on Lot 4f Block 1 has been relocated to the west side of the lot at the base of the hill. Review Exhibit EE, the grading plan shows berming along the 968 elevation of Lots 4 and 5 to prevent run off from reaching the septic dralnfield sites. The Conservation & Flowage Easement has been redesignated along the berm line within Lots 4 and 5, Block 1. Please review Exhibit W, the dralnfield covenant to be filed against the chain of title of each of the 17 residential lots. Gaffron has requested an addition to that covenant. The applicant will be asked to revise the covenant to Include the additional wordage. The following septic sites must be fenced off prior to road construction; Lot 1, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 4 (septic site located in southwest corner only); Lot 6, Block 4; and Lot 7, Block 4. Drainage/Storm Water Retention/M.C.W.D. Review - Please review Exhibits U, Y, Z, AA, and BB, Cook confirms that the run-off from the site has been controlled at the same rate or less that existed prior to development. Note that he also states that at the time the City completes a comprehensive storm sewer plan, the flow from this watershed may be reduced. The M.C.W.D. will complete its review upon formal preliminary approval of the plan by the City of Orono. The retention pond has been designated providing controlled retention before it enters the drainage creek at the west border. The Planning Commission questioned the drainageways referenced by the neighbors in attendance at the September meeting. Note that the drainage easement intersecting at the east edge of Lot 7 has been located and continued through to the wetland. aJ * f▼ Zoning File #1257 January 10r 1990 Page 3 of 6 The drainageway in Lot 2, Block 3 has been shown carrying drainage from the railroad to the wetland to the southwest. In reviewing the grading plansr drainage from Lots 2, 4, and 5, Block 4 will now be redirected along their east lot lines to the shared lot line of Lots 5 and 6 and then out along the road ditch to the wetland to the north. Septic sites will be protected from run-off in Lot 1, Block 1 by taking drainage along the shared lot line of Lots 1 and 2 and out to the west drainageway. Cook has requested that bituminous flvimes be required where water is discharged into the wetland area. He also notes that storm sewer with catch basins will be installed near Watertown Road to control the run-off (section of Watertown Road east of the Intersection of the plat road to the retention pond at rhe southeast corner). Both Mr. Sundee and staff will be able to explain the drainage plan in greater detail at the meeting. If members have any questions or seek additional information prior to the meeting/ please contact staff. Plat Road/Future Road Corridors/Access - After many review meetings with the applicant and applicant's consultants and upon submission of the final draft of the preliminary plan, the Orono staff determined that there was a very definite need for a future access corridor from this property to the west. Review the staff sketch (Exhibit CC), the applicant shows Outlot E extending northward of the original location requested by the City staff. The original plan was to have a future western extension proceed along the section line/ not necessarily in a straight line but within the area of the section line to provide access to all adjacent parcels. The rcadway outlot may be realigned as staff recommends without any negative impact on the adjacent lots. Once again review Exhibit V, Mr. Carlson states his position regarding the driveway outlot providing shared access to Lots 1 and 2/ Block 2. Lot 1/ Block 2 satisfies the lot width at the rear of the 50' front/street setback line from the plat road and also at the Intersection of Outlot B. As the applicant's addendum noteS/ the roadway could be extended northward along the north boundary providing direct access from a road outlot. In light of the Impact upon this property by the the access corridors to the east and west/ the driveway outlot to the north will minimize the disturbance of the heavily treed area. The City Engineer has asked fov road plans for a 16' wide roadway with Outlot B. Outlot D shall be developed up to the edge of the wetlands subject to the private roadway standards either as a rural section to 24' width with ditches or urban at 28' wide with curb. The City will not require the development of Outlot E as it will never serve any lot within this subdivision. f I ■ Zoning File #1257 January 10, 1990 Page 4 of 6 At the September meeting it was noted by one of the neighbors in attendance that it would appear appropriate that Outlot D (extension to the east) be aligned with Silver View Drive. It is not necessary for interconnecting private road systems or layouts to be aligned with other private roadway systems on opposite intersecting collector roads. The Comprehensive Plan does not call for inner neighborhood roads to be straight line roads, but curving as these roadways provide connections through existing improved properties. Cook only notes that it is Important that there is a 100' offset, but certainly not necessary for complete alignment. The roadway has been aligned to fall at the shared lot lines of 2 properties rather than within 1 property as originally proposed in the first plan. Grading/Erosion Control/Landscaping - As of this writing, we have yet to receive a landscape plan although applicant has advised that plantings are proposed. The entrance monument is shown on Exhibit FF. It will stand approximately 5' high and run 10* on each side of the access road entrance. The monuments in excess of 3' are subject to the setback standards of Section 10.03, Subdivision 16, entitled "Traffic Visibility". As monuments are located within the residential lots, it will be necesary to create easements in favor of the homeowners association to allow maintenance and upkeep. As noted above, dralnfleld sites on specified lots must be fenced prior to road construction. Erosion control shall be Installed at the time of grading (refer to Exhibit EE for a cross section of the erosion control fencing to be used). Cook has also approved the grading plan. Options of Action - 1.Denial. If members vote to deny the application, your findings must be based on the standards set forth in Section 11.02, Subdivision 10 (A). 2.Approval. If Planning Commission votes to approve the 17 lot subdivision application as amended, the following findings may be considered: A) All lots meet the standards of the RR-IB zoning district and have been designed so that there will be no need for future variances to develop as single family residential units. 1 H Zoning File #1257 January lOr 1990 Page 5 of 6 B) Septic testing has confirmed that all lots have satisfactory primary and alternate septic sites. In addition, the City has developed additional protections to safeguard destruction of those test sites, especially for those lots where septic expansion is limited. C) This 17 lot subdivision as proposed is consistent with the rural standards of development as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan and appears to be consistent with the intent of the specific rural residential zoning district. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Amend the plat as follows: a) Realign west access outlet (referenced Outlet E on current plan) so that future roadway will meet the section line. b) Realign lot width of Lot 2, Block 4 so it meets the 200' width to the rear of the front yard setback line. c) Redesignate outlets. There are only 4 outlets with the plat. Outlet designations suggest 5 outlets. 2. The following drainfleld sites must be fenced 20' outward from the boundaries of the defined drainfields prior to any road construction or other land alterations: Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 1, Block 4 (septic site located in southwest corner only) Lot 6, Block 4 Block 4Lot 7, 3. Street construction shall be in accordance with City of Orono standards. Stabilization fabric will be required in all areas where organic materials are not removed from under the roadbed. The developer shall provide a soils report for construction of the street through the low area. 4. The east road corridor shall be constructed as a normal street section through the wetland area. The shared driveway outlet should be constructed as a driveway section 16* wide through the wetland area. 5. Bituminous flumes will be required where water is discharged into the wetland area. I ! Zoning File #1257 January 10, 1990 Page 6 of 6 6. Drainfield covenant to be filed against the chain of title of each of the 17 lots within the plat in order to assure future owners knowledge and awareness of the special limitations on the septic of certain lots and the need to protect the existing capabilities of septic test sites. 7. The developer shall maintain adequate erosion control throughout the construction of the road and until all ground cover disturbed on the property is restored. 8. Developer to create easements in favor of the homeowners association over Lots 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 4 for the purpose of maintenance and upkeep of the monuments. 9. City to ask for a Conservation & Flowage Easement over all wetlands and dralnageways within the subdivision. 10. Developer will be asked to grant underlying access and utility easements over Outlet A and the east/west road outlets. All access to the 17 lots shall be via the approved plat roadways. No individual curb cuts onto Watertown Road will be allowed. As there are no specific standards for the consideration of monuments, each developer is asked to provide plans and elevations for the City's special review and approval. The Planning Commission should also make a recommendation to the Council regarding the proposed monuments. ;Sr- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley; Planning Commissioners Cohen, Bellows, Hanson, Brown and Moos. The following represented the City staff; Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron and City Recorder Scheffler. CounciImember Goetten was also present. tl457 ALAN CARLSON 3140 NATERTHON ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. TO 7:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this public hearing, as was Mr. Gary Peterson, Mr. Jerry Sunde, his surveyor, and Mr. Steve Schirmers, his septic consultant. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief introduction of the proposed subdivision. Chairman Kelley observed that the "flag lot" would not meet the required lot width. Mabusth said that a lot width variance would be required for that lot and that staff was presenting two options for accessing that lot. Mr. Doug Merz, 3195 Watertown Road, asked in what direction water from the wetland flowed? Mabusth explained that the water came from the north from Claussen Lake and flows toward the south. Mabusth said that there is a large wetland that drains from the Eisinger property through a drainageway under the railroad tracks. The southern one-third of the property drains to the south and then exits at the southeast corner. Chairman Kelley noted that the applicant is proposing to install a retention pond to slow the movement of water leaving the property. Mr. Sunde said that the Minnehaha Creek W>if*r^>ed District will require the developer to not exceed ,^T«-ievelopment discharge. Mr. Sunde explained the applicar.'* ic proposal to control drainage. Ms. Carol Senn, owner of property to the west of Mr. Carlson, asked whether the pond would be located close to her property line. Mr. Carlson confirmed that it would be close to her property line. Mr. Sunde said that the pond could be located anywhere in -r i i : lA MINDTBS OP THE PLAHNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 ZONING PILE #1457-CARLSON CONTINUED that area as long as it is far enough north so that it catches the runoff. Mr. Merz asked whether due to the lower water levels now existing if the applicant's drainage plans would further slow the runoff from Claussen Creek? Mr. Sunde did not believe it would have any effect. Chairman Kelley asked how much flowage there was currently? Mr. Merz said that it was fairly dry. Mrs. Senn added that in the Spring there is heavy flow coming from Claussen Creek. Mr. Scott Goldsmith, 265 Old Crystal Bay Road, said that he had a flowage and conservatxon easement on hxs property that was required by the City. Mr. Goldsmith said that water comes into hxs property from the north and runs west. Chairman Kelley asked how the slope of the lots would facilitate septic systems? Mr. Schirmers said that all lots would require mound systems. He said he has found areas available that are at 6% slope or less. Two lots appear to have future expansion sites within areas at 7% slope. Along the perimeter of the wetland, erosion has formed plateaus and will allow for septic systems being placed at the base of the slope. Re said that all of the lots had been tested with the exception of Lot 8. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said that there are some steep slope concerns for Lot 8 where the slopes are at 9%. He said that Lot 8 was questionable as a building site. Gaffron said that he is also concerned about the existence of only one primax*y and one alternate site being available for the majority of lots. He said that during the course of constructing the road, lack of extreme care by the contractor could easily result in the destruction of one site or the other, thus losing the buildability of the lot entirely. Mr. Carlson said that he would take necessary measures to assure that those sites would be protected. Planning Commissioner Bellows observed that it would be difficult to achieve access to the proposed attached garage on Lot 6, Block 1, and yet avoid the septic areas. Gaffron replied that indeed he had not yet received a detailed report for each site and it is difficult to determine any specific separation distances without that. Schirmers said that there would be some room to slide the systems around on Lot 6. He said that the slope would allow the mound to wrap around to the west. Mr. Sunde said that the lot was open and would allow for flexibility in the location of the septic system. LJ MINUTES OP THE PLAHMING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 ZONING FILE #1457-CARLSON CONTINUED Gaffron said that staff needs more time to review this aspect of the application once the detailed reports are submitted. Mr. Carlson asked that approval be given conditioned upon approval being given by staff. Mr. A1 Engleman, 315 Old Crystal Bay Road, said that he was opposed to the road outlot being proposed to the east. Chairman Kelley explained the policy of the City regarding the need to plan for future roads. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that the road being proposed does not have direct access to the lots. She also said that she questioned the bulldablllty of two of the lots shown In the plat. She said that sne would have difficulty giving preliminary approval of this subdivision without the septic report. Bellows also said that she objects to the creation of a flag lot. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission how they felt about the shared access being proposed for Lots 6 and 7 along the south lot line. Bellows said that there are many beautiful trees to the south which will call for the road to be placed north of the property line. This in turn will push the house lots further north into the wetland. Mr. Carlson disagreed with Bellow's opinions regarding the proposed road. He said that he had gone to great lengths to find the optimum plan for the road ana there were no other options. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he had reservations about approving a road that runs through the Orono designated wetlands. He said that he may be able to approve such a configuration, but did not like the concept of the additional road beyond the end of the cul-de-sac needed to access the lot. Hanson also said that he objected to the creation of the flag lot and would have difficulty approving the subdivision without having the opportunity to review the septic testing report. Chairman Kelley said that the lot configurations bothered him. He suggested that Mr. Carlson was trying to force too many lots into this development. He said that he did not object to the road running through the designated wetland. Kelley said that he objected to the septic informtaion being incomplete and the creation of the flag lot. Mabusth asked Schirmers which lots would be considered to have the most limited location for septic sites? MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18» 1989 ZONING FILE #1457-CARLSON CONTINUED Mr. Schirmers pointed out specific lots on the diagram and stated that because of the severe slope and poor percolation rates some of the sites will be limited as to septic development. Chairman Kelley asked how the City protects the alternate sites from being destroyed for the purpose of constructing tennis courts and other accessory structures. Mabusth said that the City will have to warn the future property owner, not only the developer of the need to protect those sites. Mabusth said that the City has not specifically done this in the past although those concerns were always addressed when accessory structure permits were requested. Mabusth said that a copy of the mapping of the septic sites approved with the preliminary subdivision would filed with a covenant or another appropriate document. The Planning Commission as a whole, with the exception of Planning Commissioner Cohen, did not object to the road be located in the designated wetland. In regard to configuration as a whole, Cohen indicated that he believed the plan was calling for more lots than the area can efficiently handle. Bellows said that the configuration as shown would not get her approval, due to the flag lot and pushing the parcel to its limit of development. Brown said that he would vote favorably if it is demonstrated that the lots can handle two septic sites and if there are no variances required. He also conditioned that upon the septic being approved. Hanson said that he had trouble with the northwest configuration, the flag lot and that he felt the density was a bit too high. Moos opined that the development was too dense for the topography and that she too objected to the flag lot. Mr. Carlson asked the Planning Commission ft,-* -J.r -iion and more specific information as to what they would like to see him do. Kelley said that he would like to see all lots meet the width standard, irrespective of configuration, including a direct access to the lot. Bellows summarized that the road through the wetlands is no problem, but it must provide direct access to the dry buildable portion of the lots. The Planning Commission suggested that Mr. Carlson may have to revise his proposal showing one less lot along the east side in order to meet the 200' front width. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by ! 1W MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18 r 1989 11 iZONING PILE #1457-CARLSON CONTINl- Planning Commissioner Bellows» to table this application until such time that the septic report has been reviewed by the staff and Planning Commission. Planning Commissioner Brown questioned how the City would protect the draintile or drainage ditches running through this property? Mabusth replied that they would be protected with drainage easements. Kelley placed the applicant on notice that he should submit information pertaining to the location of the draintile before coming back before the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1440 1ST NATIONAL BANK OP THE LAKES 2445 SBAOYWOOD ROAD COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 7:56 P.M. TO 8:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Bank. Mr. Mark Winter was present as a representative for the Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief explanation of the application being presented. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of the commercial site plan for application #1440, and the installation of an additional lane. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1441 DON COPLEY 1185 TONKAWA ROAD VARXANCSS CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 8:03 P.M. TO 8:09 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Copley was present for this matter Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that staff's hardcover calculations had been incorrect due because a portion of the 0-75' setback area was not included. Staff has calculated that there will a 1.2% increase in hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. Mabusth said there will be a 1 to 1.5 encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line. Planning Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Copley whether he would be willing to remove existing hardcover in order to keep the percent of hardcover the same? Mr. Copley said that he would prefer not to remove any of the existing hardcover. 1 p IVIIIMIMEHAIIA CSUiEK in/ATEHSHED nir-isMi:: P.O. Box 387. Wayzala. Minnesota 55391r.U. WWV t ——._________a Sp*Ml«. P« U»»n«»* John E Thomas ______ Permit Application No. 89-167 Owner: September 29, 1989 Alan G. Carlson 3125 Fox Street Long Lake, MN 55356 for a IMot slo,.e family ros.deottal subdivision called Indian Creek. Dear Mr. Carlson: At thf regularly scheduled September 21, 1989 meet!»g «f the Board of Managers, the subl«rpermlt application was tabled pending receipt of! L’evatlon. size, type and slope of the creek's crossing of Watertown Road, atc^luofort nL!!;'ain'eievat1on for the subw.tershed north of E"S:;,S s !Wr_.. Revised plan Including the first floor elevation of Improve structures " ^rarc^^^.:nint^fu5?Sg'2?;i^^^^ :rof ?Sl?Ut.on deta.l. Revised plan including drainage easements. ,rfo™aUon'5J™urlne^rp!cHy^?'t2e°d"°ra^^ to be used to acco-odate Stormwater from the southern portion of the site. i‘,r,:r£ s.‘S rsi.’iSi Managers scheduled for October 19, 1989. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 473-4224. 8. 9. 10. 11. JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS Engineers for the District Ronald S. Quanbeck, P.E» bt cc: Board L. SmithG^unde, Sunde Engineering ^uty of Orono i _4^ December 28, 1989 '^jiMMsWa OK 2 9 S89 Alan G. CariSOTT 3125 Fox Street Long Lake, MN 55356 Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zone Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55356 Dear Jeanne: As you know, the preliminary plat which we submitted for Indian cleek utilizes an outlet for the access to Lot Block^. I would like to state the factors which influenced the use of the outlet. Lot r. Block ^ has 200 feet fronting on the main road. However, a driveway which came off of the main road would have to travel about 400 feet through low ground. Consequently, we preferred other alternatives for access to the building site on Lot 6. Our preliminary plat uses the Outlet B configuration for access to^Lot The road's cul-de-sac ends on the high ground of the treed area approximately 400 feet from the northern boundary of the property. Instead of providing Lot/I ^^^h an easement over Lot J(, we felt It was 'VcoSJd SlsJ Seeover which Lot I's driveway could be built. that driveway. An alternative was to simply continue the main road along the path that Outlet B occupies and provide ^he c^- de-sac at the junction of Lots/4 and We have the necessa^ high ground on those two lots to accommodate the drainfield locations would not be impaired by the road. I have asked Sunde Land Survey, Inc. to provide you with a drawing showing that configuration. Considering the two alternatives, the Outlet B design is preferable to extending the road for a number of reasons. 1.Aesthetics favor the use of Outlet B. A single driveway going up to Lot and ^ will be far less disruptivG of th© ar©ai and mor© a©sth©tically pl©asing than a wide paved road. The present cul-de-sac located in the high ground in the treed area will be a very attractive turn around point for motorists. There is simply no good r©ason to run turn-around motorists up the hill to the Junction of Lots & and ?. / 9^ 2. •3 [1 4. Minimizing the length of the road is consistent with Orono City Code Section 11.32.subd.2.b.4. which states that "roadways shall be laid out . . . to require the minimiun number of roadways necessary to provide convenient and safe access to property." At the September Planning Commission review, the commission specifically recommended that I consider the use of such an outlet to access the northern properties and suggested that I go out to the Hunt Farm Subdivision which utilized the outlet concept to access two properties. The Outlet B plan is consistent with other subdivisions with similar topographical considerations such as Hunt Farm and North Stream. To summarize, Outlet B provides a far more aesthetic access to properties than using a wide, more lengthy road, and it is in furtherance of Orono City Code and consistent with the Planning Commission's prior recommendation and prior Orono subdivisions. Very truly yours. Alan G. Carlson I WL '*• *■ Dralnfield Covenant Each lot has two Orono approved sewage treatment sites. To protect those important sites from inadvertent damage or destruction, no owner shall permit any cars, trucks, or earth moving equipment to enter upon the lot of any other owners. Additionally, no lot owner shall construct any driveway, erect any building, or permit earth moving equipment on that owner's lot without first: A.Erecting a clearly visible fence during construction twenty feet from the boundary of its sewage treatment sites along that part of the site that is between the site and all areas which are assessable to earth moving equipment; and B.Erecting a clearly visible fence during construction along that part of the owner's lot line that is between an adjacent owner's sewage treatment site and the areas on the owner's lot which are assessable to earth moving equipment. To assist each owner in identifying the location of drainfields, the developer h staked each dralnfield at its corners. Further, the dralnfield locations are shown on the Preliminary Development Plan on file at the City Hall, City of Orono. W 1 TOS Jeanne A, Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date January 8, 1990 Subject: Preliminary Plat of Indian Creek - Additional Septic Review The applicants have slightly revised their plat since my memo of November 7th, and have provided additional testing on various lots. I would make the following comments: 1. For Lot 1, Block 1, I was previously concerned about the location of the drainfield site in the southeast corner, near potential dralnageways and road construction. At our meeting with the applicants on December 15th, they indicated that along Watertown Road, the existing ditches would be used, and that drainage from the west side of the new private road would be culverted to the east. Additionally, the site evaluator confirms that the system can feasibly be moved further west to meet the minimum 20' lot line setbacks and should not be affected by road construction. This site definitely must be fenced off during road construction, however, this appears to be a viable lot. 2. Nothing has changed on Lots 2 and 3, Block 1. Those lots appear to have acceptable drainfield sites and adequate room to place a house. 3. The easterly proposed drainfield site near the proposed road in Lot 4, Block 1 has been eliminated. The new alternate drainfield site is shown at the base of the hill but above the flood plain elevation. Per our discussions with the City Engineer, the location of the Conservation and Flowage Easement and the flood plain demarcation line have been moved to a lower elevation near Lots 4 and 5 based on the berm systems to be created upstre2un (see grading plan). The drainfield sites on Lot 4 seem to be quite suitable, and elimination of the site near the road is a very appropriate measure. 4. Similar to Lot 4, the drainfield sites in Lot 5 are feasible and suitable in light of the grading plan with berm system. I 0- 5. Lots 4 and Block ^and Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, as noted before, all appear to have reasonable drainfield sites. We would encourage owners to locace houses and other lot improvements as far from the drainfield sites as possible where houses are directly downhill from those sites. A Indian Creek - Addn Septic Review January 8, 1990 Page 2 of 2 ,n6. In Lot 1, Block |2r applicants have advised that the existing road ditch system will be used to direct flow from the private road to the southeasterly ponding area. As long as this is followed through, the drainfield sites on this lot will not be affected by grading, but again should be protected from any traffic or soil disturbance. 7. Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block i, all have suitable drainfield sites located away from road construction and appear to be relatively good building sites. <{8. In Lot 6, Block t, the west end of the drainfield site is fairly near road construction and should be ,strictly protected. The drainfield sites in Lot 7, Block ?“are in an open area near the end of the existing field road, and should be protected from inadvertent traffic. In general, all of my previous septic concerns have been addressed and resolved. While some lots will benefit more than others from prudent site planning, each lot appears to meet the code requirements for primary and alternate drainfield sites. We are in receipt of a revised "drainfield covenant" drafted by the applicant, which is to be filed in the chain of title as a separate document, for each lot within this subdivision. I would recommend the following sentence be added between sentences 1 and 2 of that covenant; "In most cases, these are the only two feasible sites on each lot, and must not be disturbed. The existing natural topsoil must remain in place and must not be subject to any traffic which will cause even the slightest compaction." Then start applicant's next sentence; "To protect those important sites . . . " as a new paragraph. Note that the covenant requires a fence 20’ outward frcsn the boundaries of drainfield sites which are accessible to earth moving equipment, and further requires fencing along the lot lines during construction so that construction traffic does not drive on adjacent lots. Based on the above comments, I would recommend approval of the current preliminary plat revision. From our discussions, a propos&i road outlot and potential future road connection to the west through the northerly half of Lot 5, should not have any effect on drainfield sites. ■ I .1 I J 4 ^ m Bones troo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Ctio G Boocjifoo PE Pcc^ W tyiicne. P£ Joiecn C AncJcr-*. P£ £ Torrvf. P£ C 0*vcyi P£ a Coo* PE T'xnjv £ Noyei P£ toow G Scnun<r«. p£ \Urwtn L SorwM. P£ Kciin A Ootaon PE RKr\MO W Poitcf. PE Oon^ C Buf9«n3L PE Jerry A BouOoa P£ Mjft A HjTion PE :«3 K PE \t<rjei T aiutmjnn PI Rooen R P?tfftf«, P£ Oivo O Louou. P£ Thomji w Pttenon. P£ C Lyncn. PE Janies ft \Uyno. PE Kcnnetri p Anceruyv PE \!jf* R Rofi. PE Rooert C Pusie*. AIA Trxjrrvii £ Angui P£ Mowvm J a Soriora PE Oaniei J Eogenon. PE Mjfk A Se<x PE Pn#p j Cjsweii PE / f.Ufi D Wafi<v PE Tncmai R AncJenon. Al>^ Cory P Ryynoer. P£. M*e» B Jensen PE. L Pn*NJ Grjvei at. PE Crunei A £r*.ison Leo M P jwwe<s*y PUrUnM CXson Susjn M EOerka C PA Engineers & Architects January 8, 1990 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Re: File No. 139-1457 Indian Creek Dear Jeanne, tfe have reviewed the preliminary plat submitted on the Indian Creek subdi vision. The plan as submitted is acceptable provided an outlot is provided to the vest for a future street. The storm water drainage calculations have been provided for the subdivision. The runoff from the site has been controlled at the same rate that existed prior to development or less. The City may reduce the flow from the watershed in the future when the comprehensive storm sewer plan is completed. The developer has provided a ponding area to mitigate the filling in of the wet land required to construct the streets. Drainage easements will be required along all lot lines and at other locations as shown on the plan. The street construction will be in accordance with City of Orono standards. Stabilization fabric will be required in all areas where the organic materials are not removed from under the roadbed. Three feet of good soils will be required between the fabric and finished subgrade. The developer shall provide a soils report for construction of the street through the low area. Outlot D shall be constructed as a normal street section through the wetland area. Outlot B shall be constructed as a driveway section 16 feet vide through the wetland area. The developer shall grade the ditch along Watertown Road to provide for a standard roadway section. The construction of bituminous flumes will be required where the water is discharged into the wetland area. Storm sewer with catch basins will be placed near Watertown Road to control the runoff. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. GRC:li 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 6I2-636-4600 ;,;1 To:Planning Conunlsslon Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson 4. From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: January 8/ 1990 #1469 City of Orono, North Arm Drive & County Road 151 Intersection - Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit P Application Kilbo's Memo Siren Plan for City of Orono Elevations/Detail for Siren Updated Property Owners List Survey Pertinent Code Section - Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (D) - As amended February 23, 1987 [specific LR-IB section - Section 10.24, Subdivision 3 (A)] Review of Revised Application - Per Planning Commission's directive the Police Chief has presented a plan relocating the siren tower to the intersection of North Arm Drive and County Road 151. As of this writing, staff has received no comments from the neighbors notified within the 350' radius. The Public Works Director has asked that the siren be set back 100' from the center line of the intersections of the roadways and placed to the back slope of the right-of-way of North Arm Drive. In addition, the Director has asked that an access drive of a minimum 12* width be installed for easy access to the siren. In reviewing the comments of the Planning Commission at the earlier review, members questioned the type of pole to be installed. The anodized aluminimum pole is similar to the type installed at the water treatment plant in Navarre, this type was approved by the City because of longevity and minimal maintenance characteristics. Planning Commission members noted that the galvanized steel is aesthetically more acceptable. Pertinent staff members will continue to recommend the anodized aluminimum pole, not only because of its longevity and ease of maintenance but that as the pole weathers, the color blends with the natural surrounding environment. The galvanized steel pole will be more noticable. The zoning staff will advise Council of both preferences. The Planning Commission may wish to expand upon the their reasons for recommending the galvanized steel pole. I f Zoning File #1469 January 8, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Once again, the siren is necessary for public safety, event of a tornado or other catastrophic event. It is n®®’^®^ ^ this specific area to provide coverage as set forth the siren plan for the City. This site location will satisfy the height requirement so that the 4,500* radius is met If approved, the Planning Commission should note the following conditions: 1. Controls for siren to be attached to the pole in water tight enclosure 10* off the ground. 2. Poles should be installed at a minimum 100* from center line of intersection of North Arm Drive and County Road 151. In addition, the pole should be placed in the back slope of the right-of-way with an access drive of 12 minimum width. 3. If Planning Commission wishes to request the galvanized steel pole, please list reasons why. bi( L 1 T • • CITY OP ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 1 L (nJ!L Property Identification Nxmber (P.I.D.) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Please check one - Property // abstract or // /h torrens? (for Conditional Use Applications only) Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Phone (home) Phone (work) 47S-7BS-7 Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City Zip 5?~ 3 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _v5^ A-wv. ^ Address Phone (home) Phone _ _ _ _ City _ _ _ Zip Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PEES - CONDITIONAL DSE PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) After-•the-Fact Fee $100.00 a) /' \/$150.00 b) $150.00 c) $250.00 d) $200.00 f) Commercial/Industrial Use f) Land Alteration Grading and filling “ designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS $150.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $150.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _ _ _ _ $250.00 Rezonlng _ _ _ _ $100.00 Appeals _ _ _ _ Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District L fL & Present Use of Property (P/. ^ Residential _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) ■* I DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTjLjrxxun \JK f\ ^ Describe request in detail: /CaSI - *.A^JL!y 2. 3. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certificate of survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). Plat Map. As an addendiim to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Land Use Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ __ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrc-es to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verificction of this request. Owner's signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Ccmnlssion Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change -prior to the meeting. Interotfice Memo Date: September 26^ 1989 To:Jeanne Mabusth, Zoninq Administrator From: Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police Re: Conditional Use Permit - Emergency Preparedness Siren This is a request for a conditional use permit for the installation of an Emergency Preparedness siren at NSP pole jp the right of way at 8-i>5 Windjammer L.ane in the city Orono. This request for conditional use permit is pursuant to Zoning Code Section iO-20, Subdivision o (D) which requires a conditional use permit and approval for public service structures. The City proposes to install a weather siren at the Water Plant. The pole is a standard "telephone pole" with siren at a height of 55' above the ground. The siren enclosure at the top of the pole is about 6 x 2 x 4 and can be any color specified- The system will be within the fenced area of the Water PI ant- Use of the siren will be for weather or civil emergency only, and is NOT a fire siren. This siren will be tested monthly (1st Wednesdav each month, 1 p.m.). The area of coverage is rated at a radius of 4,500 (see the City s c^ren plan attached). The siren has capability to be used directionally as a voice loudspeaker in the event of the need for an evacuation. F'lease note that over the past 11 years, I have had requests for such a siren from a number of residents. Ml iirn 1. Bones troo Rosene Anderllk & Associates Engineers & Architects October 10, 1989 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attnt Ms. Jeanne Mabusth ORO G BonnhDo PE Houcn W ftwene PE Joseph C Arx»n It PE DrjOBcyd A Lefnoefij PE P<hA#o E PE Jjtfnrs C C(son. PE Cenn 9 CtXJC PE TNxtvis E Noyn PE Pobrrt G Schix»*chf PE Mjfva-! L SorvjU PE Ktm A Gordon PE PchaftJ W Fouer. PE Donjid C Bunjj'Ot. PE Jerry A Booroon PE Mj't A Mjnvorr PE K E<^J PE M<fvjd T RALtffTvjnn PE RoOert 9 P*f**tr^ PE O Losmxa. PE Thomjs W Ppterson PE Mchjei C Lynch. PE Jjrn« R M^Lind. PE Kcnr^ P Anjenon PE Krrfh A BJChm.»nn PE Mart R RO#i PE RoOerT C Rusveif A i A Thorrvw E Anguv PE McMrjrO A Sjrh>tl. PE Dane! J EtJgwTon PE Mjrfc A Seia PE Phr*<5 J C^SV^ PE. Mjrt 0 PE. rhomji R Andenoh, A ' A Gty r ffyr^fyje* Chines A EnrfcJOh Leo M Pj^s^ Hjilin M Ohon SuMh M EberWi C PA . v: ;-T .7 ccr I! •« « « Ret File No. 139-1469 Orono Police Dept. Siren Dear Jeanne, Ve have revieved the request for placeoent of an I^ergency Preparedness Siren in the vicinity of NSP pole #40 within the Vindjav^ner Lane right-of-way. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Ve recommend that the siren be placed atop an anodized aluminum pole which is the same type of pole used for the siren at the water treatment plant. An anodized aluminum pole would be a long lasting pole and would require little maintenance. Controls for the siren must be attached to the pole in watertight enclo sure 10 feet off the ground. An antenna is situated at the controls for activation of controls by radio signal. The siren rotates 359* and then reverses direction back to its original position. The siren is activated for 3 minutes when tested on the first Wednesday of each month at 1:00 P.M. A 125 decibel siren will register 125 decibels at 100 feet and 70 decibels at 4500 to 5000 feet. There is currently 1 siren located in Navarre and 2 in Long Lake. An additional siren is needed in the Windjammer Lane area as it is a popu lated area currently without a warning device. The siren is necessary fer public safety in the event of a tornado or other catastorphlc events. Placement on high ground is preferred so that the 4500 feet radius of coverage is met. The concrete feet deep. footing for the pole is anticiapted to be 24* in diameter 6 If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK t ASSOCIATES, INC. Michael C. Lynch MCL:11 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4S0C ity of Orono, Minnesota 'j * f-I r;i. I • • i Property Ovmers List for City of Orono application #1469. Revised 1/8/90 07-117-23 11 0008 Margaret Blazk 835 Windjaitaner Lane Mound, MN 55364 07-117-23 12 0028 Gerald Helgren 865 Windjammer Lane Mound, MN 55364 07-117-23 12 0030 Mary J. Vogel 875 Windjammer Lane Mound, MN 55364 07-117-23 12 0029 Ronald & Judith Davisson 860 North Arm Drive Mound, MN 55364 07-117-23 12 0008 Fischer Development Co -I 6801 W 150th Street Apple Valley, MN 55124 07-117-23 12 0007 D J Farley & E C Farley 890 Forest Arms Lane Mour d, MN 55364 07-117-23 12 0006 Royetta Marcotte 850 Forest Arms Lane Mound, MN 55364 07-117-23 12 0005 T K & A Samuel 830 Forest Arms Lane Mound, MN 55364 06-117-23 32 0002 Lakeview Golf of Mtka Inc 855 Red Oak Lane Mound, MN 55364 06-117-23 44 0001 Vincent H Larson 790 North Arm Dr Mound, MN 55364 06-117-23 44 0016 Richard Franzel 800 North Arm Drive Mound, MN 55364 To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson I From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator January 10, 1990 Application - Applicant has revised his request to merely a lot into to bring tho northerly 4.1s lire V?a Vn^ouirorTbl r1 “*in7n7 ‘fricirrelcl°i l«%"'nl=r\hlr!rp°r<;el''"‘* now owns th 4.1? List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhik.it E Exhibit P Revised Preliminary Plat Drawings Applicants' Letter of Request 1/9/90 Planning Commission Action Notice 11/22/89 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/89 Memo & Exhibits of 11/14/89 ^°”^^^5*^s/Standards of Zoning/Subdivision Code vs. Comprehensive Plan Discussion - attached proposed preliminary olat between'the%xistino”h^ proposing a lot line rearrangement parcel „l\i Vt J buildable acres, and will have approxlmatelv eoo' outllt"*^*faa?!l-^''® portion of the proposed driveway llt,„t . Mdltionally, applicant is proposing a 40' Sliillli ®°“‘heast come? Please review applicants' letter of request Staff f^nrJes \s%l-.?r ““d|.-|i?"ea “/e i‘r^th Sr4 L°l sS?h^*Jn ixcha?oe^® additional area to the northeast. While p“Ef aSeVHpsrvel, and does not detract from the bulldability of Lot 2. 5 Zoning File #1470 January 10r 1990 rage 2 of 6 '.J Regarding lot width, the City '^shluld'bS to require ^e \^ne- will be defined at the an outlet, so that the tronr j. a-han within the narrow widened portion of _ variance for lot width is corridor. This way, a possible future proposed Lot 2. Access Issues - Three issues present themselves regarding access for this proposal: I. What should be the width of Outlot A? (Please review also Exhibit P.) Since we know that Beiersgord haa a «•>' ®»””®"use''it 15? ‘‘’5eaa'*l£'’ws‘ l°ot °eve5°ls ’'grrnted" ^rianoes to build. Therefore,?hn^o“i5rof^“{ut7oV h W Jl^li-ly i ir£’:5Si%a^%Tera?^?eaa ^ara r/ivate-^-af-- than a private driveway. devel"o “5n^^^\o"ua:^%.^rr^jbe r^t^R^Strong/Massopust on South " 50* outlot, per thedevelopments have been required to provide a 5U ourio subdivision code standard* Because outlot A abuts the White property J:o the there in a potential that the «^ite property would be developed with access via Outlot A. wni.eo^ that such a development would ' outlot A, the subdivisionadditional 10' to the proposed 40 °“ti°t *' J ^ systems incode section ll-«v Sb^'^itision 1 s ates that st«^^ new subdivisions shall be layed Jits th« now is the S?5r55?i??r?i55 « 55?t?n 'a total 50- wide outlot from the Parten property It would seem to be ®" “fft5YncreVse’^to*'3*or”more 555 555L5555“fYS: sYbd?5fston code when it has the opportunity to do so. h Zoning File #1470 January 10» 1990 Page 3 of 6 If the Reiersgord property develops before a future Sr'SrKirTpS Outlot A would be when Lot 1 is divided. The northerly 20' wide proposed outlot segment will serve necessarily subject to an underlying road and utility easement to th. City. Staff would question whether the driveway can be constructed within the 20* corridor provided. If could grant a widened easement to Lot 2, or the outlot could be increased in width. Either way, the fire code stand^ards would require that a 20* driving surface with emergency vehicle tu around be provided for this extremely long driveway length. What part of Outlot A should be paved now? What part should be paved at future development levels? If It is the City's intent to start requiring that private roads be upgraded as old existing subdivisions reach a certain level of development, that would be a positive change in policy, but with many raunifications for homeowners. help pay for it? In the Parten proposal, is this a subdivision that should have a trigger at the 3 unit level, or at the 4 unit level, or at any specified level? Is it the intent of the subdivision code to apply road standards to this mere lot line rearrangement with access outlot creation? III. Should the City request a road and utility easement over all, a portion, or none of Outlot A? gflBspiiiiiip roads for which the City has underlying easements, would have to be available for White's future use if he so desired, with no cost-sharing stipulations. [ Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 4 of 6 If Outlot A was to exclude the northerly 20* wide section, making that part Outlot B, the 20' strip might be considered a private driveway serving only 1, possibly 2, houses and serve as merely a private driveway without the strict requirement for underlying road and utility easement. The preliminary plat drawings show that the existing road easement serving Reiersgord's property is "to be released". While this would be a logical proposal, if the easement holder agrees to such a release, no Information has been provided to suggest that that property owner is willing to release his 60' easement. Additional Discussion - As noted at your last meeting, the property owners to the north have stated that they do not feel an access to Bayside Road is necessary to serve their properties, and they believe they have legal access across the Luce Line to Turnham Road. The City has no obligation to provide access for these property owners, and the current applicant does not propose to provide them with access. A brief review of the White property to the south suggests that it might be feasible to subdivide that property with probably no more than 3 new 5-acre lots making use of Partens' Outlot A. Of course, there is no guarantee that White would want to develop using Partens' Outlot A. A short cul-de-sac might conceivably be developed to serve White's acreage with its own road system from Bayside Road. The applicants have provided a 15' wide drainage easement over the ravine in Lot 1, since blockage of that ravine could affect drainage of properties to the west. City Engineer's Recomnendation - The City Engineer in reviewing this proposal has suggested that under the most comprehensive approach to development in this area, the entire length of Outlot A should be 50' wide, it should be extended to serve the properties to the northwest, and should be totally upgraded to a paved standard either now or when the 3rd housing unit is built (which could be by further subdivision of Lot 1 ^ by construction on Reiersgord's property) or by construction on White's property. Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 5 of 6 The Engineer recommends a 50' wide drainage easement over the ravine due to its extreme breadth and depth. He states that a 30 easement would be the miminum width drainage easement that would be accentable. Applicant shows a 15' easement based on discussions u -.th staff prior to the Engineer's input. Remember that the area of the easement will not count as buildable lot area for this or any future division. Also recommended by the Engineer is a provision to give the City access to the Nature Conservancy parcel via a future easement right. Apparently the Nature Conservancy has approached the City to transfer its ownership to the City, with covenants its preservation as open space. Xf this occurs, the City would like the abiltiy to acquire a future easement to gain access to the property. Varieuices Required - While the 40' outlet does not recessarily present itself as a variance to the zoning code, it does not strictly meet the intent of the City's subdivision standards due to the existence of the Relersgord property and easement. Lot 2 requires a variance for lack of frontage on a public road. Technically, staff ••„ould interpret that neithar Lots 1 or 2 require a lot width variance, since they both have more than 300' of frontage on a private road or private driveway outlot. Staff Recommendation - All things considered, the current proposal has merit and solves a number of concerns in this neighborhood: 1. Increases the area of the northerly parcel to a conforming acreage and provides it access via an outlet to Bayslde Road. 2. Provides a dedicated access corridor to the Reiersgord property to the east which, if some day granted variances, could possibly be developed as a residential lot. . applicants' goal is to merely make the northerly parcel buildable by increasing its area and providing it with legal access to Bayside Road. However, in attempting to accomplish that single reasonable purpose, the City is forced to consider the impact of this minor develotment as it affects and is affected by potential development of neighboring properties. The long-term goals and the developer's short-term goals do not necessarily match, and the City could potentially place extreme financial burdens on the developer in attempting to accommodate all future area development concerns. LI Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 6 of 6 Staff therefore is suggesting consideration ofthe followng "compromise" position: Based upon the above discussions, staff would recommend approval with the following revision: A. Outlet A from Bayside Road to the southeast corner of the 10 acre parcel, be expanded to a 50* outlet width. B, Revise drainage easement over the ravine to 30* width. Staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Granting of standard drainage and utility easements along all lot lines, i.e. 10' along perimeter lot lines, 5' either side of the interior lot line between Lots 1 and 2. 2. Applicants to grant a standard road and utilities easement over Outlet A subject to a private road covenant to be filed in the chain of title in Lots 1 and 2, providing for private ownership and maintenance of Outlet A. 3. The property owners are placed on notice that at some future date that Lot 1 is subdivided to create an additional lot, the City will require upgrading of Outlet A to private road standards. Furthermore, at such time that any other abutting properties are developed that will make a use of Outlet A for access, such development shall trigger the requirement that road be upgraded to City private road standards even if Lot 1 has not been split. 4. A turn-around or back-up apron shall be provided for each of Lots 1 and 2 for emergency vehicle access. If such access is provided by a loop driveway, the minimum center line radius of that driveway loop shall be 50', with minimum 20' driving surface width. 5. Because this is a lot line rearrangement. Park Fee for Lot 2 need not be paid until such time that a residence is constructed on Lot 2. 6. Drainfield sites have been defined on each of Lots 1 and 2 and the property owners shall protect those sites from any use or disturbai.ee which would render them unusable as sewage treatment sites. 7. Applicants are to grant City future right of entry to Nature Conservancy property via an easement at future City request. January 9,1989 To: Orono Planning Commission From: Ruth and Daniel Parten Re: Proposed Plat for Bayside Woods Per your suggestion we have prepared a two lot plat for your review. Based upon our discussions with city staff we have attempted to address the current and long term concerns of the city for the development of this area. Perhaps a few comments regarding the configuration of Lot 2 would be helpful in evaluating the proposed plat. The 20 foot wide driveway outlet follows the natural contour of the land in that area. By staying away from the east property line as shown the driveway avoids an area with steeper slope and many mature trees. The proposed location of the driveway minimizes the need for grading, filling and tree removal. In considering how to add area to Lot 2 in order to meet the 5 acre size requirement we v'isited the site several timej and concluded that the most desireable solution would be to enlarge the lot toward the east, but we don't control that property. However, we do have land adjacent to the only building site on this neighboring parcel, and it seems reasonable that some future owner would be interested in an exchange of property that would be of advantage to both parties. Therefore, the driveway outlot is located away from the east property line, setting up the possibility of an exchange between these adjoining owners. The 40 foot wide driveway outlot covers the existing driveway and provides room for any necessary enlargement. At the suggestion of city staff wo have shown a 15 foot wide drainage easement over the seasonal flowage area in the ravine. In preparing this proposal we have attempted to balance good development thinking with a desire to preserve the rural character and sense of privacy experienced in the woods. This proposal is intended to provide for the long term development of this area and we request that ycu recommend its approval to the Council. I ZOHING PILE NO. 1470 CITY OP ORONO NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 * , .Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473--’357 Date of Notice: 11/22/89 _ _ _ _ _ _ mm mm m » mm mm mm mm mm ^m mm mm TO* Daniel Parten COPIES TO* 1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, i4N 55356 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TYPE OP APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OP MEETING: 11/20/89 Vote: 4 For 0 Against Planning Cdmoisaion recouniends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES & SPECIAL CONDITIONS - Tabled pending submittal of revised preliminary 2-lot plat proposal, excluding northerly parcel. Planning Commission generally favored a proposal for a 5J3'*foot outlet to tha east lot liner and a 25 •30 outlet continuation to Lot 2 (see attached sketch), likely requiring merely a private driveway rather than paved road. This proposal should be submitted at least 10 days prior to the January 16th Planning Commission meeting. A copy of the site topography is being forwarded to the City Engineer £or review of the need for drainage easements. Please contact City staff at 473-7357 if you wish to discuss your application further. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning CoaoBission, Tuesday, January 16, 1990; meeting starts as 7:00 p.m. 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 Commlsslone I 11 I i M 11 HINDTES of the planning commission meeting NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING FILE #1481-MCCOORTNEY CONTINUED relieve drainage going into the house? Mr. Wenkus replied that ultimately it would be due to the fact that they were putting in a walkout. He said that he had not applied for the building permit and just assumed that dirt would be excavated away from the foundation and the swale would be used for drainage. He said that a reading with a transit indicated the need to cut an additional 6" to 12" nearer the house to enable drainage to occur. It was necessary to take that same additional cut near the lake. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of the after-the-fact conditional use permit, the hardship being the need to relieve runoff concerns on the other side of the house. Chairman Kelley questioned whether the City should take a drainage easement across this property? Gaffron said that he could look into that aspect. Kelley amended his motion to include direction to staff to look into the dedication of a drainage easement and make a recommendation to the City Council, Hanson seconded. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1470 DAN & ROTH PARTEN 4300 BATSIDE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:55 P.M. TO 9:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Parten were present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief history regarding this application for a 3-lot subdivision. Chairman Kelley questioned whether it would be possible to split Outlet A into two outlets. One portion would end in the northeast corner with a cul—de—sac and Outlet B would serve the two lots in the back. Because Outlet B would serve only two lots, it could remain a dirt road. Kelley said that the issue to him is serving the lots to the east as well. Mr. Parten asked Gaffron to show the Planning Commission the proposal for a 2—Lot subdivision. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked where the septic system is located for Lot 1? Gaffron indicated that the alternate site is still located in Outlet A and the 60' easement creates a configuration for Lot 1 so that it is not contiguous with Outlet A. MINDTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINL«- Kelley observed that if Outlet A were put in with only a 50 easement. Outlet A and Lot 1 will be contiguous. Gaffron suggested creating a more narrow Outlet A. Hanson noted that such a configuation would create "the ultimate flag lot". Bellows indicated that she did not approve of this configuration. Hanson indicated that the land would lend itself well to development with the adjacent property# Bellows suggested the property be developed as a 3-lot PRD with the hoLllTlustered. She said that what the Partens are proposing more closely resembles a conventional subdivision. Mabusth interjected that the Planning Commission s to have the septic systems included in the homestead pad with a PRD proposal made it very difficult. syst.r i:rn/"Sea ““ Irea. sep^!rsystem location is an item that had to give in order to not have this application be a typical subdivision. Ms. Parten explained that the PRD being proposed is the best that can be done due to the topography of the land. guarantees a certain amount of lots. MS. Parten said that she was frustrated because she could not understand how there could be 50 acres in an area that will not sustain 4 lots. 2-lot^8ub™isiln he^UgglsSd Sith°the^2 outlots. ^ Bellows replied that she was uncomfortable with the overall shape of the subdivision and the location of the alternate septic site for Lot 2. Mabusth suggested that it would not be uniaue findings that would still allow denial of other ^ uni^e applications seeking lot area variances for lots. Mabusth said that the extension of the inclusion of the Styles property placed restrictions deSellpSLt of the parcel. Mabusth said that an area variance \ \ himutes of the planning commission meeting no R 20, 1989 !' MHISG file subdivision. Mabusth noted Bellows indicated that she would prefer to see a PRD if there is to be a subdivision of this property. She said that the Ihould not resemble a conventional 3-lot subdivision and that it may be impossible to accomplish that. Kelley asked Bellows if she would accept a PRD that would have the 3 pads on Lot 1 and the septic systems on Lot 2? Bellows said yes she would accept that. Gaffron advised the Planning Commission that there is an "Clifciu-^d^that the area for the drainageway would not have to be exclu from the total area if developed as a PRD. Trt n"o\'\%“b%°/larar..s =lu»«rin, hc.a„ but rather there are three separate building areas. Bellows said that the Partens may not be able to do all that they want to do with this property. M«s Parten said that they would be willing to clean up some rtf fhe citv's oroblems with access. She noted that when making SA/uit.^\"a! ?a%%%n“’sa"a\b-t'Vt al.^rAA^a^^tu^ftb-’a-t fbta parcel cannot be subdivided. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if a f been made as ?o whether easements exist for the northwest lots to cross the Luce Line? Mr. Asao said that he and the Dieters have an easement in the form of a right-of-way from the DNR. Planning Commissioner Brown suggested leaving the Styles* property undeveloped. Mr Asao said that he had looked at the possibility of purchasing the Styles' property which would bring his proper y P to City standards. Kelley said that would be favorable hut it would also require the Partens to put in ® Liveway to serve two houses. Kelley asked for tlannlnq ConStission as to the Partens proceeding with a 2-lot To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:November 14, 1989 Subject: #1470 Daniel Parten, 430r; Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision ' Continuation of Public Hearing Application - 3-lot Plat List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Memo from Applicants Large Size Proposed Plat Drawings Planning Commission Action Notice 10/20/89 Memo & Exhibits of 10/10/89 Discussion - The applicants have met with staff and have attempted to address Planning Commission's concerns with their revised proposal, a 3-lot plat. This proposal results in three lots of 4.3, 4.4, and 6.0 acres respectively. They would be served by a 50' private driveway outlet that connects to the Reiersgord property to the east and to the Asao property on the northwest. Each lot would meet the lot width standard as measured at the 50' setback from the road outlet. Lots 2 and 3 would require a lot area variance. The applicants request that they not be required to pave any portion of the road/driveway within the outlet. They propose to construct an 18' wide gravel driveway to the turn-around area (see Sheet 2 of the large scale site plan) and a 14' wide gravel driveway to Lots 2 and 3. Alternatives - Please review the applicants' memo. They have considered two alternatives to the proposal. Their Exhibit A indicates a two lot plat excluding the northernmost parcel from the subdivision, wherein each lot would contain 5 acres, being served by a 50' private driveway outlet. Under this scheme, they would not be required to pave, and this would be considered as merely a shared driveway. Such a proposal does not resolve any of the concerns with surrounding properties and would likely make it harder in the future for those access problems to be resolved either by the City or by the affected property owners. r_ C •: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MBBTING HOVE 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED subdivision of the 12 acres/ subtracting out the acreage dedicated to the 60* easement that runs the whole south lot line. Kelley suggested putting in a 50' outlot that follows the southerly lot line all the way around to the east lot line. Gaffron observed that such a configuration would create two flag lots. Brown said that he would favor the 2-lot subdivision. Mabusth advised that the flag lot would require a width variance. Mabusth suggested putting a 25' outlet the extends up to Lot 1 on the east side. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Chairman Kelley to recommend approval of the preliminary 2-lot subdivision of 12+ acres, less Outlot A which will run 50* from the southerly boundary to +he east lot line. Outlot B will run on the eastern boundary commencing at Outlot A to the south up to the lot line of Lot 1 at a width of 25*. It was suggested by the applicant's surveyor that the outlot will need to be wider than 25' to contain a driveway. Kelley said that he did not want to create substandard lots. Mabusth suggested that it may be better to have the property owners work out the details. Kelley suggested tabling the application until further information is available regarding actual lot areas. Bellows said the issue of drainage easements had not yet been addressed. Kelley withdrew his motion. It was moved by Planning Conunissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application pending transmittal of a plan addressing the issue of easement vs. outlot, site drainage and subdivision of the 12+ acres rather than 17+ acres. Mr. Parten asked for clarification of what drainage information they needed to submit? Gaffron explained that the City may require a 20' to 30' drainage easement be taken over the existing drainageway. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1471 DARTLE OPHOFF 2699 KELLY AVENUE COBDITIOHAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC BEARING 9:42 P.M. TO 9:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Dphoff was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief review of this application for a conditional use permit to repair a sea wall. Mabusth said that the City Engineer had reviewed the application and found the proposal acceptable and recommended that the To; From: Date: 11190.2HD Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator January Ilf 1990 Subject: Code/Comprehensive Plan Conflicts Needing Future Resolution A. Conflict Between Subdivision Code & Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan defines a "driveway" as an allowable type of access to serve a maximum of three residents, not subject to any public easement or access right. It says that driveway width (i.e. the actual traveled width) will be regulated in cases of more than one user or where there is excessive driveway length. The Subdivision Code (not the Zoning code) provides private road design standards that state for 3 to 6 residential units, a right“Of—way width of 50' is required, with a minimum paved width of 24'. The Subdivision Code requires an outlet for a private road serving 3 or more lots [Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (C)]. Clearly, there is a conflict between these two documents. B. Conflict Between Zoning Code & City's Development Intent Both the Subdivision Code and Comprehensive Plan provide for and encourage the development of private roads in the rural area [Subdivision Code S 11.10, Subdivision 21 (C); Comprehensive Plan Section 7-12, Subp. 4 "Rural Transportations Policies). Yet the City has interpreted its Zoning Code as stating that, by extrapolating of definitions, all newly created lots must front on a public street, therefore new lots proposed to front on private roads require a variance (see MPG memo of 3/6/86). The definitions for lot standards seem in dire need of revision. It is the City's clear intent that development with private roads is appropriate.To do so should not require variances. Zoning File #1470 November 14, 1989 Page 2 o^ 3 The second alternative is shown on applicant's Exhibit B as a PRD layout. The proposal appears somewhat contrived in order to place the alternate drainfield site for Lot 1, within Lot 1. Applicants feel that the PRD concept is not necessarily appropriate since the shared nature of the open space would tend to negate the privacy aspects of the low density development. Applicants further are concerned about the marketability of the PRD as it applies to this specific property. Certainly applicants are correct in that the property does not lend itself to clustering, as was the case in the Luce Line Ridge PRD development just to the west. However, with 3 lots on over 17 acres, as a PRD no lot area variance is necessary since the road outlot can be credited for meeting the density requirement. Issues - 1. Does the Planning Commission feel comfortable via the proposed standard plat in granting the necessary lot area variances for Lots 2 and 3, to be less than 5.0 acres in the 5 acre zone? If so, the proposed plat would seem to address the general issues outlined by the Planning Commission previously. If not. Planning Commission should consider the PRD alternative, in which the lot area request is '.o longer a variance. 2. Is the applicants' proposal for an 18' wide gravel road to the cul-de-sac, with an extended 14' gravel driveway to Lots 2 and 3, acceptable to the Planning Commission? If not, what additional standards would Planning Commission recommend? If Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval for lot area variances for the standard proposed three lot plat, there are number of unique findings that might be made that would set this application apart from other future applications requesting lot area variances in the 5 acre zone: 1. In order to provide future access to neighboring land locked parcels, the City is requiring an unusually lengthy outlot road that subtracts from the overall acreage. 2. Due to the extremely hilly topography and "stretched out" nature of the parcels encompassing the property, the length of roadway to serve only three parcels is necessarily of an excessive length. 3. The overall density for the three proposed lots is 5.6 acres per residence, meeting the intent of the 5 acre minimum lot size standard of the RR-IA zoning district. Zoning File #1470 November 14, 1989 Page 3 of 3 If Planning Commission feels that these and other appropriate findings provide a substantial justification to grant the lot area variances requested, such that the precedent-setting aspect would be minimized, then a recommendation for approval of the proposed plat would be appropriate. On the other hand, if Planning Commission feels that granting the lot area variance here will ultimately lead to pressure for lot area variances on less unique properties in the 5 acre zone, then the PRD concept with three distinct building pads and commonly owned opc>:i sf ^ce. could be considered. Staff would also note that if a recommendation for approval be forthcoming, the plat would be subject to the standard drainage and utility easements, a drainage easement over the major drainage ravine, park fees, private road easements and covenants, etc. u; - TO; Orono Planning Commission FROM: Dan and Ruth Parten RE: Bayside Woods Subdivision > . I. Proposal - Three Lot Subdivision We propose a 3 lot subdivision with road outlet, including an 18 foot wide gravel driveway to the turnaround, and a 14 foot wide gravel driveway to Lots 2 and 3. Lot 1 is arranged to incorporate an alternate septic site as shown. Variance Recruest *1 - Lot Area Proposed Lots 2 and 3 are 4.3 and 4.4 acres respectively. Lot 1 is 6.0 acres and the proposed road outlet is 2.3 acres. The overall density of this project is 5.6 acres per residence. The unique terrain of the property together with the creation of a 50 foot wide road outlot of 2.3 acres creates a hardship that we feel justifies the granting of a variance. Variance Request #2 - Paving We recognize that at some future date the driveway Outlot could access up to six properties and provide access to three landlocked parcels. The additional cost of bituminous paving for the 1,250 foot long driveway to the turnaround is approximately $23,000. We feel that*if paving is a requirement, those costs should be shared by all benefiting parties. Therefore a variance is being requested to waive, for the present time, paving of the driveway. II. Alternate #1 - Two Lot Subdivision If a variance for paving is out of the question we propose a two lot subdivision, shown as "Exhibit A". The additional expense of paving the driveway and turnaround make a three lot plan economically impractical. This plan produces two 5 acre plus parcels with no variances required. ¥ Page 2 - Bayside Woods Subdivision '■.'II. Alternate #2 - PRD Exhibit B is an attempt to create a PRD as requested by the Planning Commission. The intent of a PRD (as explained by staff) is to cluster home sites in one area of development and leave open space for the enjoyment of the residents, maintaining the overall density of the project at 5 icres or more per residence. The topographic features of the property, potential septic sites, and the natural building sites make clustering of homes unfeasible. The use of open space around building sites when the sites are separated as these are, would infringe on the privacy of the residences and therefore make the lots less marketable. EXHIBIT A ? i EXHIBIT B I CITY OP ORONO ZONING PILE NO. 1470 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box €6 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 10/20/89 TO: Daniel Parten 1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES TO: TYPE OP APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OP MEETING: 10/16/89 Vote: 7 For 0 Against Planning Caamission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES & SPECIAL CONDITIONS - Applicant to submit revised proposal(s) for review. General comments by the Planning Commission: 1. Septic alternate site for Lot 1 (existing house) must be within Lot 1 if a standard plat is proposed. Some flexibility may be possible if a PRD is proposed. 2. Whether a standard plat or PRD is proposed, Planning Commission might consider granting lot area variances, given the overall 3 residence/17 acres density. 3. Planning Commission would prefer that access corridors be provided to the Reiersgord, Asao, and Deters properties, given the access concerns with those properties. 4. 50' outlet corridors would be appropriate throughout the subdivision; paved width of actual road/driyeway to be standard 24 ir all houses are served, perhaps some flexibility on paving it less houses are served. 5. Applicant advised to propose both a PRD and a standard plat for consideration. November 10, 1989. In all cases, the application must be continued with the requested information w.thin 120 days or the City will consider the application as formally withdrawn. 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. I / To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:October 10, 1989 Subject: #1470 Daniel Parten, 4300 Baysxde Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoniitg District - RR-IA, 5 acre, unsewered Application - 3-lot Clast III subdivision to create two new 5 acre building lots in addition to existing residence. List of Exhibits C D E P Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map - Property Owners List - Preliminary Plat Drawings(c '-' -r rf . - Letter from Neighboring Property Owner White - Sketches by Staff Including: 1. Neighboring Property Ownership Acreage Layout Scale Concept Plan Showing Building Sites Existing & Proposed Driveway System Staff Conceptual Sketch A Staff Conceptual Sketch B Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit ■ i 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Staff conceptual bxeccn ... / N Exhibit G - Subdivision Code Section 11.10, Subdivision 21(_c. j - H.03.2W Pertinent Facts - 1. Proposed lot areas are as follows: Proposed Lot 1 * 5.2 acres (existing house) Proposed Lot 2 * 5.0 acres Proposed Lot 3 » 5.0 acres Outlet A « 1.87 acres Total Acreage = 17.06 acres (per survey - does this figure include 33' of right-of-way for Watertown Road?) 2.Proposed Lot 1 would not abut a private or public outlet road, but is proposed to be served by an easement driveway, which conflicts with Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (c). Lot 1 contains the existing house and the existing primary drainfield. The site evaluation report on file indicates there are no suitable alternate drainfield sites within proposed Lot 1 and the only apparent alternate site is within Outlet A. The southerly 60' of Lot 1 contains an existing private "road" easement in favor of the Reiersgord property to the east. Applicant has not excluded this existing road easement from his calculation of lot area as required by the subdivision code. Zoning File #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 2 of 5 3. Proposed Lot 2 is a "flag" lot which would have 60' of frontage on Bayside Road per the proposal. The flag portion of Lot 2 also is covered by the 60' existing road easement, which again was not excluded from the area calculation by the applicant's surveyor. Primary and alternate drainfield sites for Lot 2 would be located along the northerly lot line of Lot 2. 4. Lot 3 abuts the Luce Line Trail and was the subject of a prior variance application which was never completed. This subdivision proposal increases the area of that parcel to 5.0 acres (including the proposed road easement). One of the issues with that prior variance request was access across the Luce Line Trail, which the applicant could not obtain. The current proposal leaves Lot 3 with no frontage on a public or private outlot road, but gives it about 158' of frontage on a proposed 30* private road easement. 5. Outlot A was proposed for possible sale to the abutting property owner at 4360 Bayside Road. However, since septic testing indicates the only alternate site available for Lot 1 would be within the area of Outlot A this poses a problem. The proposal does not strictly meet the requirements of the septic code, which requires that drainfield sites be within the building lot which they serve. 6. The proposed dividing line between Lots 1 and 2 generally follows a deep ravine. The proposed 30' easement road was located to fit the existing topography. The property contains steep slopes which significantly limit the potential roadway locations. 7. A number of variances would be required in order to approve the plat as proposed: A) Lots 1 & 3 would require a variance for lack of frontage on a public roadway. B) Lots 1, 2 & 3 would require lot width variances. At the 100' setback from Bayside Road, Lot 2 is only 60' wide where 300' in lot width is normally required. Lots 1 & 3 do not front on a public roadway nor a private road outlot, hence they each technically require a 100% variance for defined lot width. C) Section 11.03.24, the definition of "minimum lot area", requires the exclusion of private or public access easements from the calculation of lot area. With this in mind, the actual defined areas of Lots 1 fi 2 are each about 4.0 acres, and that of Lot 3 is 4.95 acres. Each lot would require a lot area variance. Zoning File #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 3 of 5 lot I™?"''® Subdivision 21 (c) to allow 3lot development without a private road outlot. ^ Discussion - R«"idVntia“^' ““ -99ested* t”"app"ca„°t" tha? a"'??an“e"d s rather than road easements to serve the subdivision. ?ea!Sln«r?oThV north“‘\Tnl?fa ‘th neighborin, Lo?s 2 and ® ^-^Iveway thir^irserve would be about 2,!SS IX TXXXXX. ’ by sta£V?or^di^r-u«/^'^®^ “* three conceptual layouts provided s;^i;;“E“iS“7^‘Tj£E“ a 10^ tid'lL‘^ni^k^°^With^th^°Q“^^ contiguity is merely through wiae necK. With this configuration, there is still an an^®4of"^ need for an outlot east of the 30* driveway corridor uS V-x - Slscuss?" ^^^^«J«~™“«“rtwfco^ligur^^^^^^ Is'onVIo? typica ’l’^"‘b^‘oc'k" ^''uhdV'* .'“""“PCw?! sketch B, which shows a tlrrl7u%:rx «n«-«To “^°"BacJ“Lt>,lTe rSluiremintl l?so®®tS; t private road and meet the lot width req\ired"tid?h on\“he pJfvJt”°rlaT""'' L. . 1-1 ^ A.:ir • j 'i 'i. t Zoning Pile #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 4 of 5 However, the negative aspects outweigh the positives in this layout. The required 5 acre minimums are not met. The road could not feasibly be constructed within the outlet due to the steep slopes which would have to be cut or filled. The road wipes out the only feasible drainfield sites for Lot 2. The alternate site for Lot 1 is still on a separate outlet not attached to Lot 1. Again, conceptual Sketch B looks good on paper but does not accommodate the topography or physical characteristics of the property. Conceptual sketch C, Exhibit F7, suggests a planned residential development (PRD) giving each building site a 2+ acre building envelope, with the remaining subdivision acreage as an open space outlet. Outlets B & C would be private road outlets. Outlet C could conceivably be narrower than the standard 50' private road outlet, since it would serve only two lots. Staff Reconmendation - Given the information provided by applicant, staff would recommend that the following issues be addressed for the applicant so that he can return with a revised proposal more in keeping with the subdivision requirements while still relating to the natural characteristics of the land: 1. Should this be a normal plat subdivision, or should it be a planned residential development? 2. Is there any justification to grant variances to allow development with easement roads rather than private road outlots? 3. If a private road outlot is required, should it continue to the Reiersgord property? Further, should a private road outlot be continued to the Asao and Deters properties to the north, so that the Luce Line driveway crossing for those two properties might ultimately not be necessary? 4. Will Planning Commission require that the alternate site for Lot 1 be within the boundaries of Lot 1, if this is a plat? or, if this becomes a PRD, will Planning Commission allow the alternate site for Lot 1 to be within the open space outlot? 5. Presuming that whether this is a plat or a PRD, the Planning Commission will not waive the standard requirement that outlot roadways be excluded from lot area, if the remaining acreage after exclusion of roadways is less than 15.0 acres, will Planning Commission consider granting of lot area variances with the subdivision? A tn. V Zoning File #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 5 of 5 Additional Coanionta -A ------ J;vie«"?f dra“nV,”tnl i I ft r L ft J n ""Z£ f 'W CITY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION y OF cr<m OFFICE PROPERTY LOCATION Q, Site ..iHrese ^300 Ba^sJe Sac/. t1apl<^ ............. 31 — I l*i - 23^3“" OO^^9t0, cool Please check one - Property Attach legal description to application APPLICANT Neune "IDanl*Par-t-cr n Phone (home) / "7 Phone (work) Address : 10161 k«gq>3 "Poac^ City; L'sLfL_ zip; OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) 0/~ ~7 3/.^ Name 6)c^o'^2.~‘C)^ Phone (work) IDO.,-./ Zip:Address; /O/L^ / (attach list if more than one)<U EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check) £ n no nc. /'~1 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)__ _ _ _ _ _ / Present Zoning District__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ PROPOSAL _ _ _ _ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) \/^ Subdivision for New Building Sites /Number of Building Sites:Z Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density; Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) Units per n Acres gc.-tfS Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) 2. 3. MINIMDM MATERIAL HECESSART FOR COMPLETE PRELIMIHARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 4. 5. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date L. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 3. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature^_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential)300.00 + 20.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) ♦(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 150.00* The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all/^c[33'itional^^ee^/''@lstai54.ished by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Date Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. i ) f n li • « ..* .*4 .................*.v>....................... • ■#1 1 •• iT It *'*« \ •”»$ i 4 ♦•• 1* ...... -—>■« Y^-1 ------ ««•./i M (;i .r« (4)(1) (5)1 I • M » »»%» >r n4) 'c. RUN DATE 09/08/69 BATCH 003 PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 38 06-117-23 11 0003 042A6 BAYSIOE RD vex CAPITAL INC VCI CAPITAL INC PO BOX 375 LONG LAKE HN 55356 HENrJEPIN C0lt4TY PROPERTY iriFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY CAttlERS LIST 38 06-1)7-23 12 0001 0A360 BAYSIOE RD J A OLSON APE OLSON JAMES A OLSON A360 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN Iff! 55759 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE ^ 30 06-117-23 12 0002 0^300 BAYSIDE RD SCIIUTZ-0*NEILL CORPORATION SCHUTZ-0*NEILL CORPORATION 1015 TOTA<ANA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAIC/AOOR PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OHT^R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 06-117-23 12 0003 04355 BAYSIOE RO VCI CAPITAL INC VCI CAPITAL INC PO BOX 375 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 41 0009 04115 HATERTONN RO M R I M E PLANK MICHAEL R I MARY E PLANK 4145 NATERT06tl RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 42 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HINNIFRED M BRYANT HINNIFRED M BRYANT C/0 MERLE STILES 1801 LAKEVIEH TER LONG LAKE rt4 55356 38 31-118-23 43 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED P ASAO A J ASAO PHILLIP ASAO 125 TURNHAM ROAD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 21 0001 04465 BAYSIDE RD HAP JOHNSON MARK S A PATRICIA P JOHriSON 4465 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 31-116-23 42 0001 04245 CHIPPEHA LA R L SORENSEN ETAL ROBERT L SORENSEN 4245 CHiPPEtU LANE MAPLE PLAIN MT4 55359 38 31-118-23 43 0003 00038 ADDRESS UfUSSlGNED MDffilFRED H BRYANT HltAlIFRED H BRYANT C/0 MERLE STILES 1801 LAKEVIEH TER LONG LAKE HI4 55356 38 31-118-23 43 0008 04300 BAYSIDE RD SCHUTZ-O'riEILL CORPORATION SCHUTZ-O'NEILL CORPORATION 1015 TONKA)(A RO LOT)G LAKE MT) 55356 38 06-117-23 21 0002 04455 BAYSIOE RD HAP JOHNSON HARK S A PATRICIA P JOHNSOTi 4455 BAYSIOE RD MAPLE PUIll HN 55359 38 31-118-23 42 0003 04355 CHIPPEHA LA FREDERICK E SHEftAliEK JR ETAL FRED E SIfEMANEK RT 2 BOX lb MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 31-116-23 43 0006 00125 TUHIIHAH RO P R ASAO A J A ASAO PHILIP R A JOY A ASAO 125 TURrOIAH RO MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 31-118-23 43 0009 00038 ADDRESS UIASSIGNED NATURE CONSERVANCY NAIURE CONSERVAfCY 13a3 STM ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS Mil 55414 ih- PROP AODR OltlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 31-118-23 43 0011 00145 TURNHAM RO KEITH L HOHELL ET AL DAVID A DETERS 145 TURNHAM RO MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 31-116-23 44 0001 00038 ADDRESS UIASSIGNED STATE OF Mllf4 STATE OF Him 38 31-118-23 44 0004 00038 ADDRESS UIASSIGNED THOMAS E REIERSGORD ETAL THOMAS E REIERSGORD 4500 H 44H1 ST HPLS m 55424 VCIcapitalY OCT - 6 VCI capiul, inc. KQ BoxtlS.* Long Like, MN SS3S6 • (612)476-2637 October 3, 1989 JEANNE A. MABUSTH Building & Zoning Administrator CITY OF ORONO Orono Village Hall P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re; Residential Subdivision 4300 Bayside Road Dear Ms. Mabusth: In conjunction with the Parten applicati'ia for a proposed three lot residential subdivision of a property located at 4300 Bayside Road, I submit the following information. If blaclctopping of the north-south access road from Highway 84 is being considered, the following information may be pertinent. 1) The blue quarter-section map which I have tends to indicate that that road is part on our property. (Our property abuts that road on the east and north of Highway 84.) I visited briefly on this with Mr. Gronberg, and he indicated that he thought it appeared that way also. 2) When that access road was put in, it was raised above elevation so that drainage on the extreme southwest corner of our property was restricted so that there appears to be about a third of an acre which has now become inadequately drained and uncroppable, particularly in wet years. 3) If a culvert would properly drain that corner before the blacictopping, it obviously would malce that partial acre more usable again. If a telephone or other visit on any of the above is appropriate, I will be most pleased to be available. Very truly yours. t P. White I • L / \ ) y t ? > ^‘5'7"»TT7TT S89*460rE 330.03 ! l^^ i .y^ PfU^^ . I ^ /fyip r»3w$io «e*t CASCMcriT v' V .•' . • V- .148.04 .'/* §09*46'orE \ / / •*' /\»2 ,/X'<> ,^- zi: #/ /i:i4i N89*44*32 “W 593.53 C D A. .,f^^F-V V// a: % 4 Vro mi C "J*45fr NTO 129 29 ^(sn^c> T^rZlV/^^OAcV TKtW '^ Y ^ T c?-l*>. Sro ^\ss. P»iAiMFiei.6r , u / / =200 STATP si^^rrCH *A* &iH. F-S" no i»o H4 70«59’55"W 129 29 /" / '2^5:^ / r •• t1 > I' (Lot^ ACie^ACi6 2.tl^ AC. ST/^P CPf^C^Tt'^M^ I*' ^ */ -ZDO I O.L.C Ikl: Subd. 21. Special Requirements for Class II and III Subdivisions. A. Improvements. All public and/or private improvements required by the City to be completed by the subdivider prior to Final Plat approval, shall be fully completed and shall have had a certificate of satisfactory completion issued by the City Engineer prior to endorsement of the Final Plat by the City. All public and/or private improvements required by the City to be completed by the subdivider after Final Plat approval shall be fully set forth in a subdivider's agreement to be executed prior to Final Subdivision approval. All local streets in subdivisions where sewer and water are not available shall be private unless otherwise approved by the City at preliminary subdivision approval. The City reserves the right to determine whether a road is to be public or private in all areas of the City. B. Public Roads. Public streets and roads will be recuired to be platted, constructed and dedicated to the City when lathorizei%Y°the*^°Comcil, shfll subject “J;’'® subdivider's agreement to be executed prior to Final Plat approval. Private Roads. When the Preliminary Plat has been appro^ on* the basis of a private access road providing the only access to three or more lots, the private road shall be identified on the Final Plat as a separate outlot. The private road shall be identified by name if the road serves four or more lots. Whenever a private road outlot is proposed, the subdivider shall be required to provide for \association or road maintenance agreement acceptable to the City in order to insure ownership and maintenance of the road outlot. D. Road and Utilities Easements. The Council may, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and/or.City staff. 1. Whenever a private access road is authorized, the required outlot shall be included on and conveyed in a road and utUltiea e«e«ent^ln_^the set /bVx/r yes°=li?ed^''anV dyd\ti?^d'lo7 Vub'uc” usr^n pW' This shall include areas shown on record plat drawings as drainage and utilities easements". a."-!*.., .. ..,ean.Arki- t«53 Whenever a road and utilities easement is required, the easement shall be fully approval using the legal descriptions of the Final Plat thereafter be filed in the chain of title of the property concurrent with the filing of the Final Plat. ORONO CC 442 (4-1-84) in S 11.03 21. "Improvements, Private" - Any improvement, required by this Chapter, which improvement the City or subdivider uct at subdivlder’s exoense and for whir-h ♦-ho ^ —------— ^ --------------------- -----------^-----------f ^ ^ MW*lbii/UXVXvlC.L shall construct at subdivider's expense and for which the City will not assume any responsibility for its maintenance and operation and which shall not be dedicated to the City. 22. "Improvements, Public" - Any improvement, required by this Chapter, which improvement the City or subdivider shall construct at subdivider's expense and for which the City will ultimately assume the responsibility for its maintenance and opera tion upon issuance of the certificate of satisfactory completion. 23. "Lot" - A tract, plot or portion of a subdivision or other parcel of land intended as a unit for the purpose, whether immediate or future, or transfer of ownership or for building development. Every platted lot shall be a buildable lot or an outlot. 24. "Lot Area, Minimum" - Each lot shall contain the minimum a<^a required for each proposed lot as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of wetlands, public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water or areas at or below the flood plain elevation for a specific property. All rural lots must comply with the City's on-site septic system provisions of the City Code. In urban areas served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dry buildable land equal to the minimum areas as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code or half-acre, whichever is less, (exclusive of public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian ease ments, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water wetlands or areas at or below the flood plain eleva tion for a specific property) and have legal access to the building site without encroachment of a wetland or flood plain area. 25. "Lot, Buildable" - A lot or combination of lots or outlots which meet all of the requirements of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code and this Chapter for the intended purpose. 26. "Lot, Outlot" - A lot which is intended only for public or private roadways, open space or other use, which use must be restricted by the appropriate easement and which use must be approved by the City at the time of final plat approval. The use of the outlot will thereafter be restricted by the appropriate restrictive covenant or open space easement. 27. "Lot, Corner" - A lot situated at the intersection of two (2) streets, the interior angle of such intersection not exceeding 135 degrees. ORONO CC 419 (4-1-84) f^EED & POND. LID AT TORNEYS AT LAW i»4?i SMOfiiiiNi; miivi 1* 0. nox g MOUND. MINNCSOfA S«j3r.4 <M)OU PIlONr (61?) 417 7777 I AX (61?) 4/? ???*4 IIOGI M W. MCI I) PAUl I. POND* niCIIAfUIN. INDfUl/ jtrrntY s. mcmick SC01T P. MCINS •CofUtlod Chtt TiliU Spcc/j//s/KAY L. DUNN I CQ9l Attltlanl November 28, 1989 Mr. Philip Asao 125 Turnhara Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 Dear Phil: I am returning herewith your Title Insurance Policy No. RO-126552 together with the deed recorded March 8, 1988 as Document No. 5383878. YOU asked if you have legal access to your property over the driveway you know use. While it is possible that the driveway you now use does not precisely correspond to the legal descriptions of the easements of record, it is my opinion from examination of this title policy that you have legal access to Turnham Road. I enclose a photocopy of the county surveyor's half section on which I have indicated in red the approximate location of your easement. Please understand that this red line is a freehand sketch. Please let me know if you'd like me to do anything further in this matter. Sincerely yours. REED & POND, LTD. < « <■* -. Roger W. Reed RWR:bw Ends. I Lxhibit A Tr.e Kes: : 2 cf the South 265 feet of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the southwest 2 4 cf the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32. Township 118 North. Range 23. West of the 5th Frincipa] Serician Hernepin County. Minnesota, together with an tastr.e.'-.t for I.-.gress and Egress over a strip of land ten feet on either side of a lire ccr.re:;:;r,£ at ttie Northeast corner of the West 1'2. of the Northeast 1/4 cf t:.e So-Jtr.west 14 cf the Southeast 1 4 cf Section 31. Township 118. Range 23; t.-.er.ce West alor.g the north line the.'eof. a distance of 1C5.0 feet, to the actual point cf oeginning of the line to be cescribed; thence angle left. 74 degrees. S: ri.nutes. a distance of ICO feet; thence angle right 18 degrees. 00 r.;nutes. a distance of l€2 feet; thence Southwesterly a distance of 180 feet rcre or less, to a - feet tnereef. cf the West 1/2 of the South 265 thence Soutneasterly. a distance of 160 feet rore of less, to a point on East line cf the West 1 2 of the South 2C5 feet thereof, which point is 1 — cn tr.e North line wnicn pcir.t is 44 feet East cf the Northwest corner thereof: the point is 100 • •" • Sc w t f t.ne .*» c r t ne as t c rr.ne r t.ner eci . a;« j w,ici c . erh*- n.*- r.g. ..1.Ca• ....m « pa;t cf said f.trip inclu/rd in the first aoc-ve ;:tscr:bed fact: togetner with a.'j easerent fer i.-.gress and egress over all that part cf the Northwest 1.'4 cf t.ne Scutneast 1.4 c: Sectic.". 21. Township 118. Range 22. described as fellows: regi.-.ning at a pci.nt SO feet North cf the Southwest corner cf the Nort.nwest 14 cf the Scutneast 1 4: thence North 1 rod; thence East and parallel with the South line 255 feet; thence Scutheastc-rly cn a 3 r.inute right curve 135 feet; tnenoe Scutn : rod tc the right cf way cf the Electric Short Line .Railroad Corpany: tnence Westerly alc.-.g said rig.nt cf way to the pcir.t c: beginr.i.'ig: tegetrer with an easen.ent fer ingress and egress ever the West 16.5 feet cf tne Srutn 2,2 cf tne Nertnwest 24 of the Scutheest 2 4 of Svcticn 21. Township lie. Range 22, lying North cf the ease-rent r.e.':t arc\e described and together with a- ease-ent fer ingress and egress over a 20 foot strip of land being 26 feet cn e.t.ner side cf t.'.e fcllcwing described line or e.xtensicn thereef; Ccr.-e-.cing at tne Northeast corner of the West 2 2 of the Northeast 2 4 cf the Southwest 2 4 cf tne Sc.t.heast 2 4 cf Section 22. Township 22S. Range 22. thence West along the Ncrt.n line thereef. a distance of 205 0 feet; thence angle left. 74 degrees. 20 rinutes to the South line of the I’.'iL property ■fcrrerly the South line cf the .Minneapclis industrial Railway cf-way wnic.'j is tne actual point c f beginning cf the line to ber: ^ r. - Ccs:::» . • u . •^ W w ..r.cr..•w. «>«« • w North line cf t.‘'e IriL property (forrerly the North li.ne of the Minneapcl is Industrial Railway right-cf-wiv) ir.z there terr.i.nating. S.I/2 SEC. 31, T.H8, R.23 ORONO-30 ©i(*lt 0 0 --.....X' I .* y «.o I • ^SJO % t I « • •» •*> ‘chippeW H ^ \ CHIPPEWA ■ ’/ NNC AP9L46» **•••• < • • r-—!-^- I IA6AA. © « * • ilUl I flUBlI C»#“S WPP To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson 4 Proa: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator January 9, 1990 #1473 Jacquelynn Kelly, 2056 Shadywood Road - After-the-Fact Variances - Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J - Application Applicant's Addendum Property Owners List Plat Map Plan for Current Deck - Comparison of Hardcover & Setbacks for Former & Current Deck Gaffron's Memo to Mabusth Re: Hardcover Gaffron's Worksheet/Sketch 1-3 Hardcover Fact Sheets Staff's Sketch of Variances Needed for New Structure Survey Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 [(A) - Lakeshore setback required for current deck] Required * 75' Existing » 71.4' Variance “ 3'6" or 4.8% (B) Average lakeshore setback required for new structure. Setback of 19-20' at maximum encroachment point beyond average lakeshore setback line. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover variances. 0-75' Zone: (note rip rap is excluded from hardcover calculations) Previous ■ 0 s.f. Current * 16 s.f. or .23% 75-250' Zone: Allowed « 3,161.25 s.f. or 25% Previous ■ 7,239.46 s.f. or 57.2% Current » 7,697.46 s.f. or 60.9% 250-500' Zone: No changes proposed within this zone. Excessive hardcover is reviewed at Allowed = 455.4 s.f. or 30% Existing ■ 984 s.f. or 65% (exclude portion within right-of-way * 835 s.f. or 55%) I Zoning File #1473 January 9, 1990 Page 2 of 4 Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) required for current deck. - Side setback variance Required Proposed Variance 10 9’ 1'or 10% Review of After-the-fact Application - On September 6, 1989 a Stop Work Order was issued for renovation and remodeling work within the Interior of the home and deck addition being done without a building permit. On that same day a permit was issued for the renovation and remodeling work within the interior of the house. All work on the deck would have to cease until hardcover facts were submitted and an updated survey. On September 15, 1989 the contractor submitted hardcover calculations and an updated survey. The contractor was advised of the need for an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variances. At that time it should be noted that the partial deck structure had not encroached the 0-75' setback area. On September 19, 1989 a citation was issued because work was continued on the deck. Additional foundation posts were installed. On November 9th the Zoning staff conducted the customary on site inspection of the property as part of the variance application procedure. Staff found the deck completed except for required railings. Staff advised the City Attorney of the current status of the deck and requested that he send a letter to the applicant's attorney advising of the continuing violation. The City Attorney's office has advised the the owner's associate, J2unes Michael Klein, has pleaded not guilty to the citation. A court date has not been scheduled as of this writing. The City Attorney has advised the City to continue with the variance review as the courts will be awaiting the City's final action on the variance application. zoning Pile #1473 January 9, 1990 Page 3 of 4 Review of Deck Proposal - The applicant has constructed a deck that encroaches 19-20’ in front of the average lakeshore setback line in addition to the 75' lakeshore setback. The deck has also been found to encroach the required 10* side yard setback. Hardcover facts have been noted above. The current deck would require hardcover variances in the 0-75' zone and approval of additional hardcover within the 75-250' setback where an excessive amount exists over the allowed 25%. Please review Exhibit E, the applicant's addendum has noted that there is no difference in the area of the f the current deck. The plan shows the underlying 14 x36 5 deck with 3'x7' stair structure. Note that the increase within 7b- 250’ setback area is 442.2 s.f. or 3Jj%. The ,<3«ck was located 83' from the lakeshore. The current deck is 71 4 from the 929.4 elevation of the lakeshore. Please also review Exhib 1, staff's sketch designating all required variances for current deck. Options of Action - 1. Denial based on the following findings: A) Unacceptable/insufficient hardships have been presented by applicant. What are acceptable hardships for this property? B) The encroachment of the 75' lakeshore setback line is not necessary nor acceptable. C) There is no acceptable hardship that would allow the encroachment of the required side yard. The applicant has failed to support variance request with a matching removal of existing hardcover. If Planning Commission is consistent with previous Council approvals of similar variance requests, additional hardcovers would also have to be removed. Dgnijil v^ould require the immediate removal of the existing deck. Zoning Pile #1473 January 9, 1990 Page 4 of 4 2.Table. Planning Commission may wish to table the application providing applicant with the option to come in with a revised deck plan (no hardcover or encroachment of lakeshore setback - establish a reasonable setback beyond average lakeshore setback line) and plan for the removal of existing hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. Planning Commission may also wish a trimming back within the 250-500* setback area. Planning Commission may establish a limit as to an acceptable amount of hardcover percentage within the 75-250* setback area currently at GO.9%. What is an acceptable level for this property? What is consistent with previous similar applications? The total area of the property is 21,119 s.f. or .48 acres (required area is 23,560 s.f. - the property meets 90% of the area requirement). 3.Approval. If you can find that the current application meets the Intent of the lakeshore regulations of the zoning code, the comprehensive plan of the City, and to be consistent with the City's action in previous similar applications, than Planning Commission members may grant approval of the proposed application. Obviously the only feasible options of action available to the Planning Commission would be either a straight denial or the tabling to allow applicant to bring in a revised plan more in keeping with the City's current standards and policies. - . i-t 11 t nee CITY OP OROHO - VARIAHCB APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) ^ . 00 ^H 1 ? fAfter-the-Fact Fees (Double application fa4y PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2056 Shadywood Road Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 38-17-117-23-31-0014 ii/r r w Please checJc one - Property abstract c torrens?^ w w V V V Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.^ • a m \ » VW * w k . • . APPLICANT N2une dacquelynn M. Kelly Address;2056 Shadywood Road Phone (home) (612) 471-0421 _ _ Phone (work) Q'.ll) 338-81?3 _ _ Zip; 55391 - .JvC City; Wayzata OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Same as above Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City:Zip; Date Property Acquired August 1989 (month/year) I Oc3nO (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $5,000.00 Describe request in detail; Repair and replace existing attached deck. VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) Other • % HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practi'cal difficulty'resulting-=-frbm strict enforcement of zoning regulations; See attached statement_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ h DESCRIPTION OP DNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; See attached statement_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 2. 3. 4. 5 5. 6. 7. 8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her Icnowledge. Applicant's Signatures Date - / f-8^ OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackdeieiigee and agfees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. Owner' s Signature 'iL a ye^llCsubmi t ion Meeting. Date -8^ Applicant must hay^^^rliCsubmit^ls^nto the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting, ^lanrllng Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please malce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ir-i // / _ K H yr DE8CRIPTIQM OP HARDSHIP AMD DE8CRIPTIOH OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS f;L iL i . .. -./4 ■4. •• #> <*f •/.j X/ * In August 1989, the applicant, Jacquelynn Kelly, purchased the property which is the subject of this Variance Application. At the time of the purchase, there was a rectangular-shaped deck attached to the back of the home, between the home and the lakeshore. The deck was in disrepair and in a dangerous condition, as the deck floor was rotting and the supporting posts for the deck were not secured in the ground. Ms. Kelly specifically bought the home because she liked the deck area which overlooked the lake. After moving on to the property, Ms. Kelly retained an architect to assist her in repairing the deck. The architect suggested to modify the design of the deck somewhat and to repair and replace the underlying post so that the deck would be strong and secure. Ms. Kelly arranged for these repairs. After repairs were underway, Ms. Kelly learned through her construction worker and her architect that the new deck would be in violation of both the Orono Hardcover Ordinance and the Orono Setback Requirement. She also learned that the old deck was certainly in violation of the Hardcover Ordinance and may quite possibly have been in violation of the Setback Requirement. The new proposed deck actually provides less Hardcover than the old deck. Ms. Kelly is presented with a unique situation. She purchased this property because of the deck area which overlooks the lake. She had no idea that she was violating any ordinances and really had no warning that she was in violation because there seemed to be no problem with the existing deck structure. Ms. Kelly's new deck is substantially completed. She will be faced with an undue hardship if she is forced to remove this deck because she has spent her funds to hire an architect and construct the deck. Further, if she is forced to remove the deck, she will not be able to use her property in the manner she intended to use it when she purchased it a few months ago. Allowing the new deck to remain will be within the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in that the existing use of the land for a deck area would be retained, while the new deck provides a stronger and more secure structure. £ 0A1£ 10/ia/«9 batch 002 PROP AOOR ONNER hmc taxpayer nahe/aoor 31 0003 05740 SUNSET OR R 0 NAE6ELE ETAL ROBERT 0 NAE6ELE 570* SUNSET DRIVE SPRING PARK HN 55380 PROP AOOR »*«R NANE taxpayer fMNE/AOOR 1^"557-23 31 0012 02032 SHAOYNOOO RO BAR POTAS RONALD F POTAS «90 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA HN 55391 PROP AOOR omcr nahe TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 50 17-117-23 31 0015 ,®'“0YNOOO RO W5*. R BLESI ETAL HR NEIL R BLESI 2060 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA m 55391 PROP AOOR OAtCR NAHE taxpayer NAHE/AOOR 50 17-117-23 31 0002 k 2’I b J’^'^NOOO RO K A 0 EVENSTAO SS'SiiviglS' HAYZATA HN 55391 2 ?ESSr2016 SHAOYNOOO RO ^ HAYZATA 194 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PACE 4 02024 ^SHAOniWD^RO^ P 0 BOX 206 SPRING PARK Ml 55380 50 17-117-23 31 0013 02000 SHAOYNOOD RO JOHN F SCHOLL ETAL JOHN F SCHOLL 2000 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA HN 55391 58 17-117-23 31 0014 jfr«« ^“*OYNOOO RO^ JACQUELYNN N KELLY Jacquelynm m kelly shadynood RD NAYZATA IJI 55391 02M0 SHA0YHM0°R0^ R H CARLSEN ETAL ROBERT H CARLSON 2080 SHADYHOOD RO •4AY2ATA f94 55391 CITY OF OROriO CONVEYED 2/0/82 ST DEED 161106 total BATCH 002 00010 i/ £ L - • • J ! / •* —__ _^ Uj L- ‘Sopp:>Kr i OLD . I GAxefio. 1 I I • y X X N / V 3AMe^ 't^O-e-iiO. 4IOSC? ■^^o'-jvv/boD d:>. * t , WET A ’KfcA CtAAKi&t-38.C:.^ // rtWOVCIt Pv ’e\/iou>^ 75 - a.50r~^3 6. ^4',St,f7 C Dee£ ... I ^f\-ll.c'Si.one !^Y««.wioa\ 0«c/(l =- f*3 ^ C.u.vv.*,;/'6e«.£ i 7/V }i ScALe To:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Frosi:Michael P. Gaffron, Date:January 3, 1989 Subject:Hardcover Review Shadywood Road As you requested, I have reviewed the r>urvey and hardcover calculations provided by the applicant at4d would make the following comments: 1. I did not visit the site but did carefully review the survey, which is quite detailed as to locations of various hardcover items. 2. In the 0-75' zone, actual square footage of deck is approximately 16 square feet. The applicant also apparently included the area of shoreline rip rap as hardcover, which we ordinarily would not consider as hardcover. Therefore, the hardcover in the 0-75' zone is apparently 16 square feet or 0.23%. 3. In the 75-250', applicant's calculations show 59.76%. My calculations come up with 60.9%. This includes a portion of rock landscape bed across the northerly lot line. Approximately 1/4 of the 75-250' hardcover is in rock bed areas. Also, the bituminous driveway area is extensive, comprising about 1/3 of the hardcover on the property. 4. The 250-500' zone is relatively small, and contains about 65% hardcover. This includes driveway pavement, rock beds, and a small storage shed. I included 149 s.f. of rockbed in the right-of-way, in my calculations. HARDCOVER CALCULATIONJQ^SHET ssraACJC zone: (cihcli ons)/o-7^ "^75-250 ExiSTINfl HAED^OVgH IN ZONt -----^ A* * House I. 6aRA6I c. Orivemay Ot. Sidewalk E.Patio/Deck F. LandscapeAREAS UNDERLAIN »V . . PLASTIC SHEfiTINS LEN8TH X X _ X , X . X . X . X . X _ . X X X . X . s« Other _ X __X$ __X —. X . WIDTH 250-500' 500-1000 S.F( . S.F. s.fV S.F. K S.F. . S.F. . S.F. S.F. « S.F. . S.F. . S.Pi , S.F. S.F. S.F. !L Total Handcoven in Zone Total Property Area in Zone A U] , ifin . 9^ • HARDCOVER CALCULATION HORKSHE1L-. SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75^'"^"^g0^ 250-500' 500-1000 ExisTiNfl Hardcover in Z one A. ’ House -/ LENSTH ^ * HIBTH X X X . (D ^ Si l^f Sif^. Si Fi B. Garage C. DRiyCHAY X X X ^£fL_ «.«>. (S> ^ S.R. B.. Sidewalk - x , 4^7.f y 5.^ " 5,,. . J.f. (5> E. Patio/ Oecx F. Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY . . PLASTIC ENBETtNa X X X X . j.jf, |ol7 ^ - -8.P ■ • 5 ^ s.f. «, Other x' rz.. 3 'L , SiPi 8.P. S<P. S.P./ ^E£Z-1 s.F. [aJ'70.^’7; . S.P. E Total Harocover in Z one - . Total Property Area in Zone fj] 7f^U'7 Afn X 100 = — •• •• 7L<i7 •; ;./oc> q «/, HARDCOVEl CALCUUTION WORKSHET S8TBACX 20N8: (CIHCLf ONE) 0-75' 75-250"^0-500500-1000' E xutimo HARfl^ovea in ZoNg A» * House LSNOTH HlfiTH __________ X_______ SiF X X X 1. Sapam X ■ « c. D rivsway • - X • X• • d .Simwalk ; _X . * ■ 9. X - !l. - X ■ t.l g. Patio / Oeex X f.Unoscapb X ...AXtAS UNOIXLAINlY X ^. ^ .... FLASrtC SMgrriNo X _ •• • • • . X • ■ • • 8. OtHM • • •■••••• • X . /J.s m *.B. »• .... Total HARocoveA in Zone •• • • •• Total Propeaty A rea in Zone IaL __ - f.B. Y mo = ^77 •-y . S.F. • • S.F. S«F« S.F. S.P. S,F, = 27 3 £W ;t|o^ p.o.p r;- V <r ? * V «o . rv y * ^ ^ ^ i r N ^ ?! i V WSi ^ N ^ O V) o i v 0 0 ^ ? »» q '■V s'J 'I ^ ; 1li Vf^ *S POPMAM, H aIK, SCHNOBRICH & K aUFMAN, Ltd . J300 PIPCR JAFFRAY TOWCR HINNCAPOLiS, MINNESOTA S5A03 WAVNC a POPHAM PUYMOMO A HAIR POOCR aCMNOPNICN AC nv CR raw Fhan ftopcirr MiNiSM ROl.Fi; A. WOROff N O. MARO WMITCMCAO •RUCC 0» WIU.IS O RORCIVr .fORMRON OA«rr R. MACOMRSR RORCRT P. R vR m HuOn V. RWWMMCTTi III FRCOCRieP e SROWN Thomas k. scpo WAMCS R. ORUCK ^CFFRCT SL HACPCRN BRUCC O. MALASR80N t^AMCS R. STCILCN JAMCS R LOOKNART ALLCM W. HINOCRAKCR CkJFFORO M. ORCCHC CX WiLklAM AAUFMAN pAuw H. Ticra MICHACL a FRCCMAN HOWARO SAM MYCRS, III LARRY a CSPCC «AMiS S. MAYCRON THOMAS A SARRCTT ^AM<S A, PAYNS OAVtD A. ^ON<S LCC B. SHCC hV ALAIN FRCCON LCSUC OILLSTTC MiC haSWT. niuan THOMAR M. RIPRINS ROSCR7 O. MQILANCN THOMAS r NCLSON THOMAS A RADIO DAVID L. MASMMAL.L RAT huCCN M. MARTtM VOHN C« CHILDS oouolas R scaton Thomas c. Sann CP RIOHASO a, HAP v^H SSuCC SL MSPmCSTCHS SCOTT C. RIOHTCR PAUUU. LINSTROTH SCOTT A smith SRIAN N. ^Ohn SOH SRAOLXV A. FDU.SR OONAI.O M. kSWIS KCNNCT h ROSS* OaviO m. Strand SCOTT K. OOcOSmith OiRARO P. Mii^CR CLI7ARCTH A. Thompson KC ith a halaC laho mark S. PCTBRSO h tcwcrhonc e\z ^35-saoo rCLXCOPICR i33l Ol2-d3A«27ia dki OJS-3SA-27SI tan «ia*a2A*3603 SLMTS SAOO ilOO SCVCNTCCNTH STRCIT OCNVCR, COLORADO S0202 TCLCRHONC aO)*S01*i400 TCLCCOPICR JOS-SSA-J iua SUITS SCO SOUTH isoo M sTRsrr. h. w. WASHINGTON^ O. C. ZOOSG TCLCR mONC Z0a-SSS-S300 TCLCCOPICR aoa-sss-sjis DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (612) 334-2687 "^ihotht w. kuck SRUOC A. PCTCRSON RUTH A. MICKSLSCN ^ANHA SCVCRANCC Thomas c« micxcnmauscn hicmacl o, christcnson U. MlCHARU SCHVIARTS VCFFRCY m, CAIRNS SLACN i. MAAS LCWIS JL ROTMAN tqod m. «;0hn 30N LOUIS A. SMITH SRUCS H. LiTTL* MARK F. PALMA hvsscll s ponsssa SRYAN L.CPAWFOMO MATTHCW C. OAMON JOHN W. PROVO WILL U FRICOCRO PAUL S JONCS WILLIAM O. hITTLSR C llKN sue PARKER ORCOORY Q, RROOKCR hrian w. ohm ORCOORT O. SCOTT ROSANNC S. ZAiaCNwCSCR CCCILIA M. MIC hCL ROBERT a CASTLE THERCSe M. MANKCL VULie FLeMlND'WOLFC ocsorah a. OYSON BENSON K.WH1TNCV KATHRYN M. \MALKSR OEOROC JU SOCHA SHANE R. KCLLCV MARK r. TCM CYCK OUANC R. NOCCKER OCC ROWS OARY P OSNOCU0 JOHN M. baker KAR>:n M. HANSEN SUSSAN pace •SHAPIRO 8TCVCN M. PHILLIPS LJNOA S. FPIEONER ANDREW S. Parker JOT M. WALOCRA MATRICIA a. O'LEART KARCN R. COLE OF eOJHPCL FRED L. MORRISON vuC iTh YOUNOER • A«»I1TCD Ik CMMfPMMA INCLUOINO THE FORMER LAW FIRM OP HALPCPN 4 DP uCK November 9, 1989 BY MESSENGER Dennis B. Johnson, Esq. Stuart C. Bear, Bsq. CHESTNOT & BROOKS 3700 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 south Ninth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Re: James Klein/2056 Shady Wood Road Gentlemen: Today, I received a telephone call from the Orono City Inspector informing me that your client, James Klein is continuing to construct a deck at the above address despite the stop-work order, the need for a variance and the citations which have already been issued to your client. The purpose of this letter is to request that you immediately contact your client and have him cease construction on the deck at once. Obviously, any continued work on the property will result in additional citations and may directly Impact any attempts to obtain the necessary variances. Further, I believe it would be in your client's best interest to remove the deck until such time as the Planning Commission has an opportunity to review the variance request. In that regard. SO0*39Wd TdiOi w* Dennis B. Johnson/ Esq. Stuart C. Beat/ Esq. November 9/ 1989 page 2 please contact Jeanne Mabusth as soon as possible bo discuss the need for amen .^.ants to you variance application. Please contact me if you have any questions. BLC:srp:999 cc: Lyle Oman (by PAX) Jeanne Mabusth (by FAX) • .* i i J Tt>:Pla.nning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froa:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning &Zoning Administr Date:January 11, 1990 Subject:#1475 John McDowell & Charles Hayssen, 4045 - 4135 Bayside Road - Lot Line Rearrangement/Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits - n Exhibit A - Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Letter from Hennepin County 1/3/90 with Attachment Letter from Hennepin County 11/30/89 Proposed Easement Sketch & Legal Description Letter from Applicant Hayssen Affirming Endorsement Sketchesf 3 Options Notice of Planning Commission Action 11/21/89 Meiao & Exhibits of 11/16/89 Discussion - At your November 20th meeting. Planning Commission tabled the applicant's request pending further information regarding Hennepin County's position on access via the existing private opposed to new access directly from Bayside Road. Additionally, you directed the applicant to pursue obtaining the easement over the existing private road. Hennepin County originally reviewed this request in November 1989 and determined that there is no safe access within Lot 2's Bayside Road frontage. The County at that time supported the use road'^^^°^ A to provide access for Lot 2 via the existing private At the same time, McDowell was pursuing the issue with Mr. White as to whether any or all of the McDowel 1/Hayssen/Alt properties could use the existing private road. McDowell and White have tentatively agreed that Alt and Hayssen can continue to use the existing private road. McDowell's Lots 2 and 3 would not be allowed to use the private road. White would agree to convey an easement to McDowell through the tiangular wetland area north of Lots 2 and 3. The easement would appear to be easterly of the wetland boundary. This 30' driveway easement would be merely a shared driveway 2 and 3. Hennepin County in their letter of January 3rd located and approved this specific access point, as meeting the minimum site distance standards for a shared driveway. Zoning File #1475 January 11, 1990 Page 2 of 4 The County also strongly recommended extending Outlet A across Lot 2 to eventually serve McDowell homestead lot if Bayside Ridge Road" becomes a City street. Their intent is to centralize the access locations by removing as many driveways as possible from the County road. The County noted that accessing lots by Bayside Ridge Road would ultimately be the most appropriate outcome if the legal issues could be resolved. Access Issues - The following would appear to be Issues for discussion regarding access for the subdivision to create Lots 2 and 3: 1. Proposed Lot 2 has frontage on Bayside Road and has 200' of width at the 50' setback line from Bayside Road. However, because there is no safe access along Lot 2's Bayside Road frontage, Lot 2 and 3 would gain access via an easement through the White property. The center line of this proposed easement is at the northwest corner of proposed Lot 2, hence the easement will abut Lot 2 and Outlot A. Does Planning Commission have any concerns regarding the use of this easement for legal access to Lots 2 and 3? 2. Outlot A was originally intended to provide a legal access corridor to "Bayside Ridge Road" for Lot 2. Given the new proposed easement, is Outlot A strictly necessary? Note that Hennepin County proposes that Outlot A be retained, and be extended across Lot 2 to abut Lot 1, so ^hat^ even Lot 1 has the potential for future access to Bayside Ridge Road. Notwithstanding the goas of the County in reducing County road access points, iu would seem to be a rather unusual move to redirect McDowell's homestead drive way to a point 1/4 mile west of his house. However, one could argue that, at the same time Lot 2 should have Outlot A for a future access to Bayside Ridge Road, Lot 3 should have an outlot along the north end of Lot 2 so that it has a legal outlot access to Bayside Ridge Road. 3. To date, staff and applicant have not discussed the alternative c' the City condemning access across White's property over the existing "Bayside Ridge Road". A search of Council minutes for 1957-58 indicates no City review or approval of R.L.S. 748 (which was filed with the County on ^/15/58). Such review was not required at that time for a Registered Land Survey. 1 Zoning File #1475 January 11, 1990 Page 3 of 4 However^ if White's contention that the R.L.S. and subsequent ownerships created "landlocked" lots is correct^ and if it is in the City's best planning interest to have these lots use the existing private road, then absent private easement agreements the City could consider roadway condemnation and charge tha costs back to the benefitting properties. To summarize, the Planning Commission is presented with the following options: a. Approve plat as proposed with outlets for Bayside Ridge Road and Outlet A, access to Lots 2 and 3 via a 30' easement across the White property east of the wetland. b. As (a) above, but require an extension of Outlet A along the north end of Lot 2 so that Lot 3 has a continuous legal outlet access to Bayside Road. c. As in (b) above, but extend Outlet A across the north end of Lot 2 all the way across to Lot 1 as proposed by Hennepin County. d. Recommend approval subject to acquisition condemnation of public road access over the existing private road, force all lots to use "Bayside Ridge Road", keep Outlet A as proposed for Lot 2's access to "Bayside Ridge Road". e. Request that applicant consider some other option. Staff Reconmendation ~ If the Planning Commission can resolve the access issues, staff would recommend approval of the proposed subdivision and lot line rearrangement, finding that each lot exceeds the required 200' in width, each lot has frontage on an acceptable access road or driveway outlot, that each lot contains the required 2 acres of dry buildable land, and each lot has suitable house locations and tested drainfield sites. The following conditions of approval are recommended if one of schemes a, b, or c is chosen: 1. Designate Bayside Ridge Road on the plat drawings as an outlot rather than a named road. This outlot road and any other outlets created within the subdivision are intended to remain in private ownership and be privately maintained. (Since under the first three schemes noted above, no additional lots will be created that access to Bayside Ridge Road, it would appear that under current policy, no upgrading of Bayside Ridge Road is required as part of this subdivision.) Zoning File #1475 January 11, 1990 Page 4 of 4 aid 3^®"^*''^ Dedication Pees shail be paid for Lots 2 plat®draSiSgs“"^"*’* ‘ Eases,ents to be shown on the .vijv. v.r„i,s‘i:s,v‘.v.‘■ HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC WORKo Operations Division 320 Washington Ave. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 Phone: (612) 935-3381 January 3, 1990 John McDowell 315 East Lake Street Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Re: Bayside Ridge, CSAH 84 (Bayside Road) John: At your request Hennepin County has reviewed private driveway access possibilities for the proposed Lots 2 and 3 from the above plat onto County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 84. The only location lies Immediately west of the crossroad culvert under CSAH 84. approximately 220 feet west oTThe property corner shared by the White property, proposed Lot 2 and CSAH 84. If and when an access easement Is executed across the White property, It should be at least 30 feet wide to provide for a 16 foot wide driveway (minimum) plus appropriate side slopes. If this shared residential driveway becomes a necessity, a permit for construction within the CSAH 84 right-of-way must be processed through this office prior to construction. Hennepin County also strongly recommends extending Outlet "A* across Lot 2 to provide for future access to Lot 1 If Bayside Ridge Road becomes a city street or CSAH 84 Is realigned and reconstructed. Finally, providing access to all lots via Bayside Ridge Road Is the best alternative for everyone concerned, residents and the motoring public alike. Hennepin County supports this concept the strongest. If the legal tangle can be sorted out. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter and please call with any further questions. Sincerely David K. Zetterstiom Entrance Permit Coordinator DKZ:p1 cc! Mike Gaffron, City of Or^no HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer 3 * I ' ll- Ir HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division 320 Washington Ave. South /' Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 Phone:(612)935-3381 November 30, 1909 Mr. Michael Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron: RE: Proposed Plat - Bayside Ridge CSAH 04, South side, approximately 200 west of CSAH 135 Section 6, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 1796 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 ana 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: - For future Improvements to CSAH 04 the developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of right of way making the right of way 40 feet from the center of CSAH 04. - No location along the CSAH 04 frontage of Lot 2 meets the minimum sight distance for the posted speed limit, and therefore, Hennepin County supports using outlets to provide access to Lots 2, 3, and 4 via existing Bayside Ridge Road. The existing access from Lot 1 will be the only direct access to CSAH 04 permitted from this plat. Any revision to an existing access requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any construction. Contact our Operations Division for entrance permit forms. - All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but Is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact our Operations Division for utility permit forms. - The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within Countv right of way. ' Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. Oavid W. Schmidt, P.E. Transportation Planning 0WS/L0W:1w HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opporlunity employer y < S ATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC. 106 SOUTH BHOAOWAV • WAYZATA. MN S5391 TELEPHONE 612-476-6000 SCAll I’tioo' BOOK ^ACI rii( NO. SiM-Co : Prepared for JOHN MCDOWELL 4135 Bayside Road Orono, MN 55359 January 10, 1990 Mr. Michael Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron: We hereby affirm our endorsement of the application for a lot line rearrangement previousl> submitted on our behalf by John McDowell. ±J •* » • * •*v •. *. *.» i ir -t r :\ -ir _r“t—*• - S •••*.. o t'V< e/tJ LMC. OP COUMTY RD /40 4 64. %zi 30 FT Oe>V£W*T 8 3 TB 7 M «*4o‘s4“^ s Lvaeor WfjLof: .A4e lAOPNCUA., se^.^,T.in,»c.Z5. AYS IDE •r; eA6CA^e^rr *' JX__r ^ UjC- • U»^o7^Opr»oM B F7^\ 8 ^;m09*4O'54*E -. \\ I V \ r- \ ka « m\-V\ >' 1 ✓ V ^•1& V f\}^' , II* > t #• > t .N / ^ I? 7 “’*5^ '-k V V V • ><0 I O, . fA7^ i t 'if ». .* /.y.. A. j • V *! t j I - <* /• *•*!'*• i!>’; rve* l>CT<^M '=^'0't'' ■•‘i’ ‘ * ' • «r»v r*r ,.feso;.. kjj '^.OETA . • •— • • * • •,t < r l' ‘I .. . .f- _.,.s. ••‘W-ifvxv .. •■■. "-V I ;!:;-i.vV:’,l . • • — * PILE NO. 1475 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 NOnCB OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 11/21/89 TO:John McDowell 4045 Bayside Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 COPIES: Charles Hayssen 4135 Bayside Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 11/20/89 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against Planning Coanniasion recoannends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES « SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission tabled the application, requesting applicant to: 1* Provide further information regarding Hennepin County position on access via interior roads vs. access directly from Bayside Road. 2. Pursue the easement over the existing private easement access road. As noted at the meeting, the City would allow a revision of the existing application to include just the lot line rearrangement, if applicants desire. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the January 16th meeting is January 5, 1989 or February 9th for the February 20, 1990 meeting. If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Department (473-7357). If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder Clerk after review and approval by the City Planning Commission. 'A To: Prom: Date: /. Planning Conunisslon Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron/ Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator «}>ivember 16» 1989 Subject $ #1475 John McDowell & Charles flayssen, 4045/4105/4135 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-lA, Single family lakeshore residential, unsewered Application - Lot line rearrangement and subdivision to create one additional building site from three existing tax parcels. List of Exhibits Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit <• A - Application B - Plat Mfti> £ Area Map C - Property Owners List D - Proposed Plat Drawings E - Survey with Locations of Existing & Proposed Houses & Driveways F - Survey Noting Proposed Lot Areas G - Map of Area Property Ownership H - Air Photo I *• Letter from Applicant's Attorney Re: Access J “ Letter to Hayssen dated 7/28/89 Pertinent Pacts - 1. This proposed plat accomplishes two purposes: 2. A) Rearrangement of lot line McDowell homestead properties. between the Hayssen and B) The remaining 6+ acre portion of Tract A, RLS #748, is being split into two 3-f acre building sites. Note that, per Exhibit E, Hayssen's pre-existing north lot line is approximately 22* from the house constructed in 1988. The setback approved on the site plan for the building permit for the house indicated a setback of 34*. The property owner later pivoted the house around the northeast corner of the garage and made arranget.ents with McDowell to purchase an additional piece of property, but this did not come to staff's attention until after the house was finished, per the letter of 7/28/89 (Exhibit J). The proposed subdivision leaves a side setback of approximately 100'. The rearrangement also places Hayssen's septic system completely within his property boundaries, while maintaining the appropriate setbacks. . 4-0 n /• ^ «■ Zoning File #1475 November 16, 1989 Page 2 of 4 3. The applicant is proposing a north/south division line to create two building sites. The applicant noted that the ridge line and location of drainfield sites suggests that the proposed house locations are centrally located within each proposed lot, and that an east/west lot line would result in less functional lots due to the slope of the north half of the lot. In order to provide interior access to Lot 2, applicant proposes a 25' outlot to the proposed "Bayside Ridge Road". Applicant would prefer to serve Lot 2 with a separate driveway from Bayside Road, but it is questionable whether the County will approve an access site on Bayside Road, especially if an alternate access is feasible. Remember that Orono Code requires that all newly created lots be served by Interior roads whenever possible. 4. Applicant has provided a 25' corridor for what is shown on the plat as "Bayside Ridge Road". This corridor generally parallels the private driveway that serves four existing residences. Although not shown on the survey, the existing driveway location is west of this outlot, on the Rezabek property (see Exhibit G). Staff would anticipate that an additional 25' outlot could someday be added to the west of this proposed outlot, for private road purposes. 5. Primary and alternate drainfield sites have been tested in each of the proposed new lots. The Hayssen property has alternate drainfield sites to the south and west of the existing system. The McDowell residence at 4105 Bayside Road exceeds 5 acres in area and appears to contain a number of possible drainfield sites. Alternate site testing is not required. All of the sites tested require mound systems. 6. The neighboring property owner to the north and west, Robert White has challenged the validity of the easement across his property out to Bayside Road (see Exhibit I). The City Attorney has preliminarily reviewed the concerns and has suggested that, since Minnesota Title insured the access easement on file, it would likely be up to Minnesota Title to take whatever steps are necessary to provide access to the affected properties. The City Attorney advises that any approval of the proposed subdivision be conditioned upon the applicant providing suitable documentation that the access issue has been resolved, prior to filing of the division. Zoning Pile #1475 November 16» 1989 Page 3 of 4 Mr, White has indicated verbally to City staff that he does not intend to cooperate in validating the existing easement, and would prefer that the new parcels in addition to existing residences at 4135 and 4165 be served through some other corridor. If the applicant ultimately fails to gain access over the existing driveway, a revised subdivision would likely have to be reviewed by the City. Discussion “ RLS #748 was filed in 1958. Some time in the late 1950s or early 1960s, the residence at 4185 Bayside Road was constructed, along with the driveway within Tract F, which at that time was the Tearse property. Mr. White granted the Tearses an easement across White's property to get from Tract F to Bayside Road. Some time after that, Tearse granted an easement (over the White property easement) to E.W. Spencer to serve his properties known as Tracts A, B and C. Mr. White claims that Tearse had no right to grant the additional easement over White's property. Staff discussed with the applicant early in the subdivision process that the City would require a 25' outlet for the existing private road. It is anticipated that at some future date, the additional 25' to create a standard 50' private road outlet, would be dedicated from the adjacent property. Applicant was advised that the City would require interior access for both Lots 2 and 3, hence applicant is providing an additional Outlet A along the north end of Lot 3, to serve Lot 2. The west line of Lot 2 then becomes the front line and the lot width standard is met. The alternative would have been to make Lot 2 a flag lot. Siiaff RecoaiBiendation - The applicant is providing a private driveway outlet adjacent to the area of the existing access road. Because this is a two lot subdivision. City code does not require construction of a new private road. Both new lots abut an interior access road as required by code. Each new lot contains in excess of the required two acres, each lot exceeds the required 200' in width, and each lot has suitable house locations and tested drainrield sites. The lot line rearrangement incorporated into this plat leaves adequate setbacks and potential for septic system expansion as required by City codes. Zoning Pile #1475 November 16, 1989 Page 4 of 4 Based on the above, staff would recommend approval of the proposed subdivision based on the following conditions: 1. On the plat drawings, Bayside Ridge Road shall be designated as a private road outlot, "Outlot B". Outlot B is intended to remain in private ownership, and be privately maintained. Because this plat effectively only creates a fourth building site where three building sites already existed, no upgrading of the private road is required as part of this subdivision. 2. Lots 2 and 3 shall be served by private access driveways via Outlets A and B. (Does Planning Commission feel that there is any justification to allow access for Lot 2 directly to Bayside Road? No word from Hennepin County on their position as of this writing.) 3. Standard Park Dedication Fees shall be paid for Lots 2 and 3. 4. Standard Drainage & Utility Easements to be shown on the plat drawings. 5. Prior to filing of the subdivision, applicant shall satisfy the City Attorney that proper legal access is provided to the property. CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^-A/ ^ I . •» I ./■ i ^ ,-4 , / / « Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0C>~ 1 1 / ~2 5 ^ / Please check one - Property _ _ abstract or ^torrens? Attach le:jdl description to application. APPLICAN' Name Phone (home) ^ j '0^3 "L- ^h'.xJ ^ ^Phone (work) V 7 ? - 30CtJ^i -f rr rrr Address; ^ ^ /3?^ij^,' City; Zip:_f5^^3^^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Ncune Phone (home ) Phone (work) V't yvrimr——:f *. .v» *-‘>KL'__.. ; •>. J . I • •• I U‘ ' f ^ 'I iLI n?2»i . I wv. . * f I T w I f ’ i v/l'//C Address: (attach list if more than one) City:Zip: EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size /iT /ST sy Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total» all parcels Present Use (check)Residential; nu. of units Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District L -/.4 PROPOSAL 1/ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Subdivision for New Buildi..g Sites 3 -1-^ "7 Number of Building Sites: L¥ Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) 33 Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per _ _ Acres Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) MINIMOM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form 2. 3.P^®liininary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Owners List of owners within 350’ (you must obtain Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _Date 4. 5. 1. Payment of fees (parJc fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ Date FEES Sketch Plan Keview (Class I, ll & m) Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $150.00 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Date Date hQ-L-) !srl ion-) Applicant must have all subny/4tals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I S7 Jl I • V 5. • . V ' ■ • • ' •m*.* • * .• i-»y%’a^ ';?. • •••7* >. vvjc • y ;«f - -i*-. . , _z,-s - ^ ' - *-*•. • ___r " *. .- -— .,. KUN DATE 10/25/89 MTCH 002 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI455901 PAGE 2 PROP AOOR 0I«CR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 58 06-117-25 11 0005 06246 BAYSIDE RO VCI CAPITAL INC VCI CAPITAL INC PO BOX 575 LONG LAKE MN 55556 PROP AOOR OttCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SB 06-117-2S 13 0001 04246 BAYSIDE RO ROBERT P HHITE ROBERT P NHITE 4245 BAYSIOE RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55559 PROP AOOR OIMER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 06-117-25 14 0008 00058 ADDRESS UNASSI ALLAN E 0F2ABEK ET AL ALLAN .* '•••;Ri.EY REZABEK 4185 RC MAPLE PLAIN :1N 55559 GNBO ri PROP AOOR ONNER NAIK TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 06-117-23 14 0017 04105 BAYSIDE RO JOHN 0 MCOONELL JOHN 0 MCOOHELL 4045 BAYSIOE RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55559 H PROP AOOR atCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 3B 06-117-23 14 0020 00405 TONCAHA RO K I C OEOOLPH III KARL A CHRISTINE OEOOLPH 405 TONKAHA RD LONG L.UCE m 55356 38 06-117-23 11 04050 BAYSIOE GAM C0TA4ELL CARY 0 COtMELL 4050 BAYSIOE RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 0004 RO 55359 38 06-117-23 13 0003 00038 ADDRESS WUSSIGNEO VEDA INC VEDA iix: PO BOX 375 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 14 0012 04185 BAYSIDE RO ALLALl E REZABEK ET AL ALLAN A SHIRLEY REZABEK 4105 BAYSIOE RO tUPLE PLAIN MN 55359 h''f 38 06-117-23 14 0018 04135 BAYSIOE RO CHARLES N A HELEN F HAYSSEH CHARLES N A HELEN F HAYSSEN 4135 BAYSIDE RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 14 0021 JAMES N JEr^EN JAMES N JENSEN 14051 HELLItiGTON HAYZATA FBI 55391 38 06-117-23 12 0003 04355 BAYSIOE RO VCI CAPITAL INC VCI CAPITAL INC PO BOX 375 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 14 0003 04045 BAYSIOE RD JOHN 0 MCDOWELL JOHN D MCOONELL 4045 BAYSIDE RO FUPLE PLAIN FBI SS3S9 h'f 38 06-117-23 14 0014 04000 BAYSIOE RD RICHARD R STUELAFU) ET AL R R STUELANO A R L BARBEAU 4080 BAYSIOE RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 14 0019 04165 BAYSIOE RO J A M ALT JAMES A A MARIE A ALT 4165 BAYSIOE RD ORONO FBI 55359 10 TOTAL BATCH 002 00014 'MWiwd*. J ) 'I e/U. r C' =«/ ft \4\/dy/ tf TTt.7) i. A\ ,,^ X-m ^ ►“ A»3 '\o.B*r8 UJo tei Ui n lA K iL ►iO«‘' t:S ' 8 > V •J* L • • tt O- T t »- c EX'V. LAW orriccs LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD t40MCT LO*aCM* •tower MAROi.0 O r«lLO. jm » ACLCN t. tACM* TMOMAS o rciwocRO* M. tMCAMAM* OffOAOC ACickT* CMAMtCS A. OAfTOM OAVIO M. COM* •TCRMCN II mrxjkum* C ma A lCS a mats * LOWCLL J MOTCOOOM* o«o»oe r McouMwiOLC. MC ma MOO ACPtw. j« raioiiic r aoscnouatt * •mow C. STAMMS* «I0MH M WtMMAM STCVCN 9 OAMvrrfM* WA mcs M OOMSCr ■AT mu CCM M OMAMAM STKMmcw j Oavi OSOM* STKMMCN N UTMAN* OA«lO C ZAi.«* tOWAMO M MOCMS»tLOCM* ■OaCMT LEWIS MAMMOW9* AtNT C MiCMCr MUOM M. MATNAMO* rMCOCMiCM ». MOMMIS JONM C MUIMW ••AOtET J. dLUAN WtCMACL A MCAiCM* ••AMTMA C. SMAMO* OAVtO N MATMCS CAMOCTN CMAUMCMt ^AMCS V MOTM* MOMMT L. Ocwat AMOCLA M MOmmanw MOOCMT M TMAVif JAMES 0 OULLAMO* JOSEMM M riMiEr* LAWMEMCE J. riELO OAVIO « AEkkET mama s wEtrz* OAVIO i. LILkENAUO OAVIO AAWTOA SUITC 2300 130 SOUTH rirTH street MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55^02 telephone (612) 33S-ISOO TACSIMILE (612) 33S-I6S7 November 9, 1989 m<maehJ*» ^COWELL V STOWTZ OOUOLA^M OMEEMSWAO ELLEN O/SA MAMOAMCT H VAM VALHC*! AawSELA M CMMSrr mama a. UWOOMEM ■OSANME NATMAMSOM Smemmi l. RNUTM MiCMAEL O TATLOM JOMM W eETMINOEM TMOMAS m SAWOCMS MOMENT IEOLOV1TCM TimOTmt welch OMECOMT C. SMOWN SUSAN M MOMINEN OEMMA O STNEMLOW NE(KN A LAMSOW NAWCT WVLTOEM NEiMEMT VlMCINIA M. CONE catmanine moscmee MtCMELLE A millEM TIMOTmT M MCTENSON jENHirCM’A.MAMA s^AE sn .;i^no .'jm *^tMM ^LJMEENE MAMC O SIMMSON *UN C. MCELHArrON AAMESV-MEMTMANO LAWWtNCE M SCMAEFEN ■monwcm l. rouNO MOnal O j SCMULTI CANOLTNV WOLSAI OfOMOE • ^EONAAOltMTt ■#$•» am 'muml m STMCEriisrT .se.I •S**SOlCT OCiNAMO I•###■ .#•§• AMOS S. OCINANO I >SSS ••#§ I • MEn E SCOTT M MATMICIA SCMArrcM OAHIEL O rOTM OAWICL M SATOMIUS or eo«.«M4 WPiTCP*S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (612) 335-1543 Mr. Michael Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron; « « represents John D. McDowell. Mr. McDowell owns oart creating a driveway easement for the benefit of Tracts A, B and c! f f t .t ^ ® c, R.L.S. 748 fromEdson and Harriet Spencer in 1987. m connection with that McDowell subsequently sold Tract B and part of Tract A to Hayssens and Tract c to James and Marie Alt. Minnesota Title examined title on both occasions and issued policies to the Hayssens and the Alts insuring the validity of the driveway Title will have an obligation to take whatever steps are necessa*-v to secure a valid driveway easement. necessary .1^ h Mr. Michael Gaffron November 9, 1989 Page 2 Rather than delay the approval process until this dispuce is resolved, we suggest that the Planning Commission and the City Council approve the proposed plat subject to the condition that Mr. McDowell demonstrate legal access over Bayside Ridge Road to County Road No. 84. Please give me a call if you have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD Fredric T. Rosenblatt FTR/jek Enclosures cc: Mr. John D. McDowell cb\ncdow\g«i f f ron. I tr t’J ..'•*J.’, "«• *: •y»*» • ri*.* • »■< *• « •«» •.*-.•rr%•• • • •. /\\ < CfTY OF QRQNa CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66*CrystaJ Boy, Minneeou 55323• Manidpal Office* On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 28, 1989 Charles Hayssen 4135 Bayside Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 Re: Proposed Subdivision Dear Mr. Hayssen: During a recent attempt to complete a diagram of your septic syst^ for our permanent records, it became apparent that the new mound drainfield system extends over your north property boundary. ^ Lyle Oman of our staff asked Bob from Bruce Bren Homes o check into this, and a few weeks ago on my desk appeared a survey verifying this. The survey also indicates the house ended up being placed less than the required 30' setback from the north xoz line. The survey suggests a proposed lot division which will leave your residence approximately 100' from the side lot line, and places the mound system totally within the property boundaries. This subdivision appears to be logical, appropriate, and necessary. However, in order to legally accomplish this subdivision, you need to file a formal subdivision plat application, per the attached subdivision application form, . . ^be pleased to meet with you to discuss this questions. Please contact me at 473- 7357 if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Michael P. Ga.5rron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator cc: Bruce Bren Homes, Attn: Druce, 325 Broadway S, Wayzata 55391 Sathre Bergquist Inc., 106 Broadway S, Wayzata 55391 John McDowell, 4045 Bayside Rd, Maple Plain 55359 Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning'Administrator Mark Bemhardson, City Administrator Lyle Omam, Field Inspector BUILDING A ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINtSTRAnON A FINANCE - 473-7338 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 THOMAS L. OWENS attobnby at law 1512 PIRST BANK PLACE WEST 120 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA SS402 (612) 338-2919 VIA MESSENGER November 16, 1989 Hike Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator city of Orono 1335 Brown Road South Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: Proposed Plat of "Bayside Ridge" My Client: Robert P. White 4245 Bayside Road Dear Mr. Gaffron: My client is in receipt of the City's Notice of a Planning Commission hearing on November 20 to consider John McDowell's application for a lot division and preliminary plat approval. I am writing on Mr. White's behalf to object to these proposals and express his concerns. Mr. White's homestead lies Westerly and Northerly of the proposed plat. The pertinent boundaries of his property are depicted in green on the map enclosed for your reference. The map also shows in red the pertinent boundaries of the larger tract which was owned by Mr. McDowell as recently as mid-1987. Finally, outlined in orange on the map are most of the boundaries of the homestead of Mr. and Mrs. Allan E. Rezabek. The second map enclosed shows, highlighted in yellow, the approximate location of a recorded driveway easement in favor of tih0 Rezabsks• propeirty and running across Mr# White's property# The owners of Tracts A, B and C of Registered Land Survey No. 748 do not have the right to use the existing driveway, and the owners of Tracts B and C have no legal right Bayside Road. By letter dated October 11, 1988, my client and I put these three owners on notice that "your use of the drxveway appears to be unauthorized and without legal basis." The title company which insured access over the White/Rezabek driveway easement has undertaken to establish a legal right of access. I Mike oafiron November 16^ page Two provides for adequate and xega b“S «P* a« enclosed for your use. Sincerely, Thomas L* Owens TLO/eh Robert P. White To:Planning CoiranissJon Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froa:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:January 10, 1990 Subject: #1479 Doug Williams/Lecy Construction, Inc., 1020 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - The applicant has revised his proposal so that all portions of the proposed house and deck meet the average lakeshore setback. The lot width variance is still required for construction of this new residence. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Revised Survey with New Proposed House Location Exhibit B - House Elevation Views Exhibit C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 11/22/89 Exhibit D - Memo & Selected Exhibits of 11/13/89 Pertinent Facts - 1. The lot is 100' in width. Adjacent and nearby lots in the neighborhoo<^also 100' in width. A lot width variance was granted in 1976 to allow the current house to be constructed. The existing house replaced a previous cabin on the same property. 2. 3.The proposed residence meets all required setbacks. Proposed hardcover in the 75-250* zone will be approximately 18.5%, and in the 250-500' zone will be 19.3%, meeting all hardcover requirements. 4.Applicants will be requested as part of the building permit review process to provide a more detailed grading plan along the south side of the proposed house, to protect the neighboring Gasch house, which is only 2' from the lot line. Discussion - Except for lot width, which the applicant has no ability to rectify, the proposed residence meets all other pertinent zoning code requirements. Staff Recossicndation - Staff recommends approval of the lot width variance, based on the findings that no additional land is available, that a house has existed on this lot previously, that most other lots in the Immediate neighborhood are similar in width, and that all other zoning requirements are being met. (Note: this application is scheduled for review by the Council at their January 22nd meeting.) 4 Z0NIH6 PILE HO. 1479 CITY OF OROHO NOTICE OF PLAHHIHG COMMISSION ACTION P.O. BOX 66 473.7357 Date of Notice: 11/22/89Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 31M Eden Pr.lri., MN 55344 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Jurgen Stielow 1020 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Mra'oriffiiiraG! 11/20/89'“ vote. 4 For 0 Against Planning Coasslssion reco««ends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AMD SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled in order for applicant to further Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning CoBmlsslon, Tuesday, January 16, 1990? meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. vsi:.vs ‘" approval by the Planning Conunission. To: Proa: Date: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator November 13, 1989 Subject: #1479 Doug Williams/Lecy Construction, Inc., 1020 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-lB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for average setback variance to construct a new residence on the property. Also, technically a lot width variance is required. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Exhibit K - Exhibit L - Exhibit M - Exhibit N - Exhibit 0 - Exhibit P - Application & Revised Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey, Proposed House Location Proposed House Plans Staff's Sketch Submitted Hardcover Calculations Staff Hardcover Review Air Photo Topography Location of Pre-1976 Cabin South Side Elevation Plan, Existing Residence Documentation, 1976 Variance & Related Se<-back Issues 1975 Average Setback Ordinance (34.201) Current Average Setback Ordina.ice (10.22, Subd 1) Survey Compilation, Average Setback Pertinent Facts ^ 1. Existing lot width is 100'. Lot width required in the LR-IB zone is 140'. A lot width setback variance was granted in 1976 under the current zoning code for construction of the house that currently exists on the property. 2. Applicants are requesting to remove the existing 13 year old residence and construct a new house approximately in the area that is now driveway apron (see Exhibit P). The new residence will encroach approximately 32' past the defined average lakeshore setback line, with a proposed deck encroaching approximately 42' past the average setback line. 3. The applicant's surveyor has shown the average setback line using the second house to the north. Staff has indicated the correctly defined average setback line based on the two adjacent residences in Exhibit F. Zoning File #1479 November 13^ 1989 Page 2 of 3 4. The proposed house location on paper would appear to increase the "fields of view" enjoyed by neighboring residences. Howeverr it is likely that the view from the Hoffman residence at 1000 Tonkawa Road might be effectively diminished due to the proposed height of the residence to be constructed. Currently, Hoffman enjoys a panoreunic view of the lake over the top of the applicant's existing house. The average setback line is the only protection Hoffman would have from further encroachment on his existing panoreunic lake view. Although a full set of house elevation views has not been provided, it appears from the grading plan and elevation submitted that the defined height of the proposed house will meet the 30' limit, with the highest peak about 30' above the existing driveway apron. 5. Applicant had submitted a preliminary proposal which had the proposed house located further back on the lot but still requiring an average setback encroachment. Applicant revised that proposal apparently to attempt to save 3 large maple trees which would have been removed. Staff would question whether the center 18" maple can be preserved given the proposed garage and driveway locations. 6. Prior to 1976, a cabin existed on this property in the location shown on Exhibit K. The easterly wall of that cabin was in approximately the saune location as that of the currently proposed house. No average setback variance was requested or reviewed in 1976. Documentation from Council discussions responding to complaints by then and current neighbor. Marge Gasch, at 1031 Tonkawa Road Indicated that the Council and staff felt that the Intent of the average setback ordinance had been met by the house constructed in 1976 (see Exhibit M, especially Resolution #780, Finding #13). Discussion - The applicants propose to replace the existing 2-level residence with a 3-level residence (walk-out level plus 2 stories). While they are reducing the degree of encroachment past the defined average setback line, they are also building upward which may have a significant effect on views enjoyed by the Hoffmans. The average setback ordinance does not address views of the lake over the top of another residence, but merely is concerned with relative setbacks from the shoreline. Because of that, the applicants could construct a house meeting the required average setback but extending as high as the defined 30' height as customarily measured, and the Hoffmans would have no recourse through City ordinances. Zonln'j File #1479 Noveniber 13, 1989 Page 3 of 3 Applicants have drawn their version of the average setback line between residences at 980 and 1030 Tonkawa Road, indicating they feel the Hoffman residence at 1000 Tonkawa Road is an anomaly in the neighborhood. In fact. Exhibit P, a compilation of neighborhood surveys. Indicates that the Hoffman residence is setback further from the lake than other houses in the neighbor hood. Staff Rern —emlstion - Staff would recommend approval of the required lot width variance of 40', finding that most other lots in the neighborhood are 100' in width, and further that a house has continued to exist on this property for many years, and noting that a variance to lot width for construction of the existing residence was granted in 1976. Staff does not offer a strong recommendation regarding the average setback variance. The view impact on both adjacent neighboring property owners as a result of the proposed house location, would appear to be beneficial when looking at a plan view on paper, but relative house elevations and separation distances further Impact the perception of what is an acceptable house location. Any recommendation for approval, partial approval, or denial, should state carefully the reasons for such recommendation. 1 ALL L ) I 01 w w CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) 111 i ii r V j v r,c i^zrinn Xm ^ t i UV W .* I Ultw* fc, ____ X WW iM*r f'cr^rc ♦Lt- Vf » iUU rrw va Ck.11 t:xc\.' • vv i.’V • '.'V/'urr t.1 xbii 1 r«vT««* iJAi/i' » iTk. t.)» 4: 1 » 1 m • •••u* ^ t*» / ^ T << *r * V" jL • ' 1- PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address \QZO TQKJKA.WA RP. U)k]6> MkJOsS^4 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Oft—-ll~T —0014 Please check one - Property _ _ abstract or V correns? ct-(oZ.(s3^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT PDOi» WlUUiC^MS A4«iP Name \ lUCL. Phone (home) Q«4*4 Phone (work) ^*4*4 ~ 9H99 Address: ViRiKi/;) City; BCEH. pPA4g.(& 2ip; ^S344_ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name .^(JLtgaglJ ST~1 t= > Phone (home) -A~n \ — 6fl O U _ _ Phone (work)4*^1 Address: lr>7r> RC>. City:L?q^ ZiP? SS‘3^^ MU. Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) ^fSo not^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. I 010 4^0 M0 (09 00 00 •• *** ** ** ** *** ** ** *** ** ** *** ** ** ** *** PRESENT OSE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property ^(K-l 6i l_£. 1LS^Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Z.*7^QQQ Describe request in '^***’^'* “* - | \ ^ OkJ Pt Pt::crr>crvn~' LlWdg -rU-AeKd gTP “^FT VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Lot Width Front _ _ Hardcover Side Rear) Other AjJgg^A^e. 5ei.T feAOe. \/A^A»V^OB HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; t4^ uyric'ii a DESCRIPTION OP OHDSOAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; I Li omgg- .^EE—LAsice REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the informati<y»-^suppl ie^ i^true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. 4 - Applicant's Signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date (0 ■ 27. Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is xinable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Tb: Date: Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth^ Building & Zoning Administrator January 11, 1990 Q Subject: #1467 Charles & Ann Hommeyer, 4125 Oak Street - Variances - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 - After-the-Fact Portion: A) The retaining walls and deck area located within 75' of the lake. 1. The retaining walls are located adjacent to a sand blanket at the shoreline. 2. The deck Is approximately 45* from the shoreline. Note the survey submitted with application does not designate the 929.4 elevation. 3. 13.5'x5.42' deck within lakeshore yard requires an average lakeshore setback approval. Current Request: B) The applicants seek a setback variance to the average lakeshore setback for a fence 6' in height that will extend approximately 30' in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Please review Exhibit B. The fence is located along the north side lot line adjacent to the newly constructed home. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - A) Hardcover variance required within 0-75' setback area (review Exhibits G 6 N). Allowed • 0% Proposed • 287.37 s.f. or 3.68% B) 75-250' setback area. Applicant notes 27.1%, review Exhibit 0. Note, staff cannot confirm accuracy of 75-250* hardcover inventory as survey has not been submitted showing updated Improvements. At 27.1%, the 75-250' setback area already has excessive hardcover. Li Zoning File #1467 January 11» 1990 Page 2 of 4 Note» stairs have been constructed per standards set forth by City for stairways within 0-75' where steepness of lake- shore banks requires additional structure. Hardcover for Stairs ■ 201.5 s.f. or 2.58% Deck & Retaining Wall ■ 85.87 s.f. or 1.10% Section 10«03» Subdivision 19 — A retaining wall was constructed in the lakeshore yard without the required conditional use permit and variance. App3.icants' submittals Inform us that the retaining wall was constructed some time in 1981 by the prior owner. Applicants note that it was Installed to prevent further erosion of the lower lakeshore banks. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit P Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Exhibit N Exhibit 0 Application Variance for Fence After-the-Fact Variance/CUP Application Property Owners List Plat Map DNR Letter DNR Application Survey Submitted with Current Application Survey Submitted with Application #632 Survey Submitted with Application #731 Staff Letter to DNR Staff Letter to Hommeyer Resolution #1475 Site Plan Deck/Steps/Retaining Wall Hardcover Fact Sheet 0-75' Hardcover Fact Sheet 75-250' Review of After-the-Fact Phase of Application - As applicants' submittal information notes» the deck was constructed prior to the issuance of a building permit and completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence. It should be noted that at no time did a survey submitted for the previous land use applications nor for the building permit, did the deck area appear on the survey. The deck and gazebo were discovered at the time the variance application for the decJc at the property to the north was reviewed by staff. At approximately that time, the DNR had contacted staff to seek information regarding the sand blanket which was discovered by the DNR inspectors. The applicants have proceeded with the required after-the-fact application with the DNR. Staff has received no final information as to the resolve of the sand blanket. Applicants may be able to advise at our meeting. Zoning File #1467 January 11» 1990 Page 3 of 4 At a meeting with the applicant, applicant Sr!‘'Sommeyt/filtd thHpplocation soon after being advised of the need for the after-the-fact variance. The applicant ha. failed «given ‘?h; l^^or‘tr„lt^"^%^Vte^\%ar.i tSe nee^^^^ til'll a°'to ‘\‘h\‘'r.rerh|rp" e-,Vthlr "4 .^"l^ tid\*h 1^5 sSll^riandiJgrhrvrbe^n designed with less than 4'x4' safety landing stops. Options of Action - A) Retaining Wall - :S.roth« methlS'^1 “nt«l “ o"/7rc“eicn“ ,Tll°yo: approve in its place? B) stair Structure - Approval or denial. If denied, what other sEv bi.rcVn%?rcte^d^ stln®d^rd^s required for lakeshore access stairs. C) Lakeshore Detached Deck - approval or denial. If d|"i;a In l« SS?th°in *a recenrt«ianc. «vle«7 In that^appUcation,^ Vrea\“ w"1:hirl.cK° l.'lo=«‘ed_^ ^ h^ard'c'Jv'J? ?«lanc “ wfthin^Ve 7*-5|o” a^etback area would be required as follows: Existing ■ 4,480 s.f. or 27.1% Proposed » 4,550.2 ®__ ,a Additional Hardcover « 73.17 s.£. or .-i* L l Zoning File #1467 January 11, 1990 Page 4 of 4 relocated i„ the 75-250- survey to determine whal: \to2s of exiatln<,'’S''®a “Pdstod be reduced within the 75-^o* hardcover could addition of the deck struLnrf nfv. the wish to table the application if this^is"thJ^rtfollowed by the Plann^nn n. T j the direction to be survey. ^ mmission and ask for the updated ie%"irr„rdVti!" “Se ‘IcT- s Heview of Current implication - line /or a privacy\ence^ a\*ona Ih average setback applicants' application property line. As will help provide Dri//cv ^ni ^« privacy fence property on north side. A^licant adjoining tram or the deck area approved within f®v®^K^”^ either the of the average lakesho/e setback linl^ lakeshore yard in front this writing, staff has heard no^h^i^ clear. As of but the neighbor . ay be present at^thA°"* the adjacent neighbor, position. A privacy fence^ at that present his impact on the view of the lakl ^ .“®^ provide a visual elevations or photographs to detenilne the W^-al^lVsctt^ll'any! Options of Action - le Denial based on Insufficientships. insurricient hardship or unacceptable hard- 2. ^ceXabi; hardsWps".VyoSr m«tl?/® r‘f sddltlonalfor this review ^has failed r ^"^®™ation submittedhardship. failed to demonstrate sufficient 3. "SS.“ K-5Sline. beyond the average lakeshore setback structure o^'l'^t^\^*^ east "*®"'’^ets may note kennel would recSmmend th“°the apl!l«n^A ““®'^ right-of-way. staff combination to allow credit for “ special lotlot. credit for principal residence on homestead CITY OF ORONO -* VARIANCE APPLICATION #1 A tAjLum Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variano Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address OiO OC? Ali^ r^ecexpc- 67 I Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ____ Please checlc one - Property abstract or torrens?M15J850 cool HOI 102: 09/22/ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Neune (?^FhtZL(ps. <* R a ;<u f^6iHivi<^ycMg Address: *41 2 S ________ Phone (home) <i'7<n ot-W Phone (worJc) 2 2l> -2,^3.? City: rj/o<\u>______ Zip: R (if different than applicant) Ncune __________ Phone (home) Phone (worJc) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired ___________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT OSE OP PROPERTY (month/year) Present Zoning District i<>»•»<& r* ^ If ^ Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) Estimated Construction Cost $ /.lot*.DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: (f.wdyut'V ^ i-rou^ AJ Ix^ C :>u ro C V* 4t=> •> g ^ -- - - - - - VARIANCES RBQOIRBD Lot Area Setbaclc Variances ( Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) Other V jlvuj “*“®DeLribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations;-Ip rJUu Ap iOA QiJt^«x.<nvw^ ^v\ VVrv^MA I DESCRIPTION OP ONOSOAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS ^ a-u ZoningDescribe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; 2. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ISIS SS?L\y%:pa“rS^n” o1%\^n"an^^V^« "o“ft StimpldV‘legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained wi.^H DiropGirty own0jrs ^ Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.As^L”addendSi^ tif thi^^ please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this J^^^ovS remember that your variance application is not complete if the a information has not been included. _ _ Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date ?Se'*\^ILnt^^by agrees to provide all information -quired or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this plication, and certifies t the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her Jcnowledge. Applicant's Signature Date ^-77 - ackowledges and agrees to this application ^ant^ autho^^izas reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verificatic Owner's Signature this request. W\g5K Date ADoIicant'must'have all submittals into the City offices 25 jjj® Planning Commission Meeting. at*a\ 1 ^scheduled third Monday of each month. Applicants must review meetings of the Planning Conunission and have an unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrange Zoning authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Bull 9 Office of this change prior to the meeting. t i' t i! • ■ J r “^1 M• t’ -I •: ..•- CITY OP ORONO - G2SERAL LAND DSB y^LICAT^pH iL ’ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address tflXlS CJ>CO<\0--------------- CITY if ORtM) ^ TIHA^E OFFICEProperty Identification Number (P.I.D.) --- - - - - - - - - - - - f “iVrv'iAi'V'A • abstract or _______ torrens? qi rrii joO.dOPlease check one - Property ______ (for Conditional Use Applicacions only)n.:,vt fii'i j%j%j • V*'CHECK RECEIPT-THFHfi YOU Please attach legal description to application if not includ^j25;’5 CCOl !K>1 TUitC on required survey. APPLICANT Name /duk fy * «T_ ?r/^,v/5 Address J-U^ CPak. •^T Phone {home) *h'jS' _ _ _ _ t _Phone (work) A3Q-P33S _______ ZioS5’*3 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ Address City r^rot)o Phone (home)_ Phone _ _ _ _ City _ _ _ Zip Date Property Acquired __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ (month/year; I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After-the-Fact Fee $100.00 a) $150.00 b) $150.00 c) $250.00 d) $200.00 f) Residential accessory Use Institutional (church, school, etc.) Duplex Credit/Bldg Commercial/Industrial Use Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. of Grading, seawall, retaining walla within 75 of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS $150.00 ~ $250.00 " $150.00 “ $ 50.00 ' $250.00 _ _ _ _ $100.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation _ Easement Vacation With Subdivision Rezoning Appeals Other - see fee schedule I • PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District R >_ _ _ _ _ __ Present Use of Property i2 t_ _ _ _ _ __ Residential _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST . Describe request in detail: Cigr *f*< O- 7S “ b^rk 90Ta » < V^tocIe. \«ke<W.v* ^-»C* __ _ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. w.. • 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey. , ^ 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if -ana alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. Plat Map. ,8. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any ocher persons you wish notified of this application. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. __ _ _-_ Certification by Zoning Department that Land Use Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ ___ _ _™ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE . The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge . Applicant's signature - - - - Date- - - - - -■ OWNERS SIGNATURE . ,The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and father authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature ___________________________________ Date — AppIIcInt must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings , JJ® third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building fi Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. IHM DATE 0^/tt/t9 BATCH 002 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY (»MERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35A01 PAGE 3 PROP AOOR (MCR NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 30 00-117-23 01 0029 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MONTANA DEVELOPMENT INC MONTANA DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 300 MOUND MN 55300 38 06-117-23 01 0030 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED C M HOFMEYER t A H HOMHEYER CHARLES A ATM HOMHEYER 0125 OAK ST LONG LAKE m 55350 38 06-117-23 01 0031 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO C t A HOMHEYER CHARLES A ANN HOMHEYER 0125 OAK ST LONG LAKE tt< 55356 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 30 00-117-23 01 0032 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED K B ROLLAND A K S RODEN KEMCTH B HOLLAND A K ROOEN 0119 OAK ST LONS LAKE IM 55350 30 06-117-23 01 0033 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGtCO MONTANA DEVELOPMENT INC MONTANA DEVELOPMENT INC P 0 BOX 300 MOUND IM 55360 38 06-117-23 01 0030 00030 ADDRESS UIASSIGNCD MONTAIU DEVELOPMENT INC MONTAIIA DEVELOPMENT INC P 0 BOX 308 MOUW MN 55360 1 r C I ( . PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 30 00-117-23 01 0035 00125 OAK ST CHARLES N HOMMEYER ET AL CHARLES N HOMCYER 0125 a x ST LONO LAKE MN 55350 30 00-117-23 02 0000 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ALLAN • SHIRLEY REZAOEK ALLAN A SHIRLEY REZABEK 0105 BAYSIOE RO MAPLE PLAIN 55359 30 00-117-23 01 0030 00119 OAK ST K B ROLLAND t K S RODEN KETMETH ROLLAND/KAREN RODEN 0119 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 002 00010 30 06-117-23 01 0088 00025 TONKANA RO A BYRNE PETER A BYRNE PETER 025 TUNKAHA RD LONG LAKE MN 55350 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEItCPIN COUNTY OEPARpCNTyOF PROPERTY TAXATION, T59THE BEST OF MY KNONLEOGE AND BELIEF, DAT • * • o r> 104 m •. • • • __________________7JS. 35. .Si’SV*'!•.___......(# *. »v. • *1 so NO ?77 SO NO 278 8^ §-L5,»iS^ # gS g »,7^ " jfc a«M6 iilf; M V l^9.04 fc/i —• ^-1 S I1-*!A s6 so su / ,5. S 3 «..fN4 « 04 w4 *•<* *— »w O' yi^r.»4«o 1,7^ ■£ ^8-. w \.1 A 50 50 *x 50 SO •.50 ii 5 o»§«•N# pfl ^0 50 50 50 50 50 50 AV E « 5D SO 50 sc so SO SO c « L>o \: (06)Oi 2 ^ —mmik 'A ao i* 50 50 ✓.. SO 50 so 50 so 1 ■A 5*^ <4 «4 ^o»1“’•»2'^N>—^ •c 50 50 X X s ..- m TV so*:«'L STATE OF k DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FHOMENO. 296-7523 .MINNESOTA tm V metro REGIOK HATERS - 1200 VARRER ROAS, ST. PAUll,. MN'SSIOOi ' /■! 7FILENO. , September 6, 1989 /“ • — i989 a III •V// ' Mr. & Mrs. Charles Hommeyer 4125 Oak Street Long Lake, MM 55356 RE: UNAUTHORIZED SAND BLANKET, V90-6031, LAKE MINNETONKA (27-133) NORTH ARM #22 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hommeyer: As discussed August 21, 1989, the sand placed on your property exceeds the criteria for work that can be done without a Department of Natural Resources permit. Since we have no record of a DNR permit for this sand placement, this action constitutes a misdemeanor according to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105.42, and is punishable by fines up to $700 and/or 90 days in jail. In order to be in compliance with state rules, you have the following alternatives for action: 1) Retain a sand blanket that is no more than 50-feet wide along the shoreline (or one-half the lot width, whichever is less), 10-feet waterward of the Lake Minnetonka ordinary high water mark (OHW) of 929.4' (NGVD, 1929), and 6-lnches thick. Voluntarily remove all sand that exceeds the above-referenced dimensions. 2) Apply for an after-the-fact permit to retain the work you have completed. A set of permit application forms was left with you on August 21, 1989. The minimum fee for an after-the-fact permit application is $250 (doubled normal $75 minimum application fee plus minimum $100 for field inspection costs). You are further advised that compliance with DNR rules does not preclude compliance with other authorities. The Minnehaha Cre f* Watershed District (Ron Quanbeck @ 473-4224) and the City of Ort-.ia (Jeanne Mabusth @ 473-7357) should be contacted regarding pertl<.t”V regulations. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER I [i Mz. & Mrs. Hommeyer Page Two I understand Mr. Hommeyer Is In the process of preparing an after-the-fact permit application. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 296-7523. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc:Ron Qi.ianbeck, JMM Jeanne Mabusth» City of Orono J. Konrad9 C.O. J. Faxg St. Paul Waters Lake Minnetonka (27-133) #22 file C146:kap PHONE NO. STATE OF h. DEPARTMENT OP NATURAL RESOURCES METRO REGION WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106fil£NO / 296-7523 < DNR PROTECTED WATERS PERh!IT APPLICATION NUMBER ^ 0^ (pC . REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS DATE: ^ ^ - C G-\ I TO: USCO^ — O , 'S^ . Vi>^coJ30~‘ C2. u ^i^**^*” \-Vt:'w^ C D ~ L- • FROM:CEIL STRAUSS, AREA HYDROLOGIST WATERS AFFECTED:L* !(.<. K1. [<^ (^X%-13"^ k). PROJECT SPONSOR: NATURE OF WORK: /V P" \ ^ V P A^ITT (c^L <5^ <31 O P> ( ( OI w-vp 4 ^ s*t COMMENTS DUE BY: 30 cLa ^s 'fvTrv^ \TZ. JOOO AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ! * i I 1 1 I « { i^ .1 ! ti L . CITY of ORONO CITY Post Office Box 66*CrysUl Bey, MinnesoU 55323•Munidpel Offices OF ORONO On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka October 10» 1989 Ceil Strauss Department of Natural Resources Metro Region Waters 1200 V&rner Rd St. Paul, MN 55106 Re: Permit Application #90-6067 AnnlicationCharles W. Hommeyer - After-the-fact Application Dear Ms. Strauss: sand llLkit^inltalTed^within® ^“s'^are ion, an the standards of the d.'^VtaY^^ cSnditionaf'use pelml^and variance approval from the City of Orono . Mr. Hommeyer has been for *d'eck *areas iiit^l^^dlVthl‘n■'Vhl*1^ 7tf=ra{|/^^^ S!Voro"?o.rmusV'b"e"ex “^^ adjacent to the sand blanket. Please contact my ottice it y°““ed IddttVonal concerning the Issues discussed above or i y information from the City. Sincerely Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator cS^''"ii?. Charles Hommeyer, 4125 Oak St, long take 55156 BUILDING a ZONING - 473-7357 assessing administration a finance - 473--3S8 PUBLIC WORKS - 47 3-7359 I 1 I CITY OF ORONO -5 CITY of ORONO Post Oflice Box 66*Cryatal Bay, MinncsoU 55323• Municipal OfBcea On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka October 10» 1989 Charles W. Hommeyer W.A. Lang Company TCP Towers Suite 830 121 South 8th St Minneapolisf MN 55402 Re: 4125 Oak Street Dear Mr. Hommeyer: As requested, you have submitted a letter seeking postponement of the review of your after-the~fact variance the deck constructed within the 0-75' lakeshore setback area of your property. As the official date of the January Planning Commission meeting has not been established, please make sure that your application is filed by the deadline of December 22, 1989. A complete application consists of the following: 1. Survey locating deck and any other structure within your lakeshore yard to remain. 2. Update of hardcover on your property. This should also include the 75-250' setback area. 3. Adjustment of fee payments on current variance application filed with the City for average lakeshore set back of fence to include penalty fees for after-the-fact variances as follows: $200.00 for variance application for lakeshore setback and hardcover within the lakeshore protected area; $200.00 double fee for penalty $50.00 additional fee for average lakeshore setback variance for privacy fence within lakeshore yard. ($150.00) Payment already received $300.00 AMOUNT DUE BUILDING * ZONING - 473-73S7 ASSESSING administration a finance - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 474-7359 I Charles Hoinineyer October 10> 1989 Page 2 of 2 Please see that the submittals and information requested above are submitted no later than Fridayr December 22, 1989 to assure scheduling at the January Planning Commission meeting. You will be notified as soon as the January Planning Commission meeting date is finalized at the end of the year. Failure^ to file the land use application by the specified deadline date will necessitate the issuance of a citation to you by the City of Orono. The City has also been advised that you have filed an after-the-fact application for a sand blanket installed within your lakeshore yard. Please be advised that the timber retaining walls adjacent to the sand blanket also located within your lakeshore yard would require a conditional use permit^ and variance approval. If it is your intention to keep the retaining walls within the lakeshore, you should expand yoi r application to include the retaining walls also. Please contact my office if you have any questions concerning the matters discussed above. Sincerely, Jeiikme A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/tin cc: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Tom Barrett, City Attorney L : . Ji % . <o ($) A K '1 re^i'J)^ t.’imit'i* j"y t^,T €JS /. S3:i’ll w-V J^K-f 'W tK« rt+ain\tl«;^ too^Ui wevr^ . Ce>^^'TUc^<.4 bty l^weotom#vr '(o\\o(u Vk ^ d tnucP s.\v'Ai* \«o\t.duJ^ d\' O 'W'V'OkN. ?utpoS< ; ^tOi>o»i I • •H< VaW.? ggors^s tj>as c-K«v.V«P o-C’&i 6rs-t Ui^U^xfi OtA V COA^VtU^CV- ^0«-^oV C_ t^#VH<_ pi)c^c.sxt'du w ^'Sr*Ai wa\\ C^l “B <2-gc ^J ,// mrff HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEETJ^ | . . r Z 7E-n/' 25&C' 5GG-1QQO<lJ^’ iSETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) (^~7^ Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House LENGTH _ X 3. Garage c. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/ Deck I3.S - X F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY .. . PLASTIC SHEETING X X s To __________X X S.F, WIDTH S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.42 73. / y S.F. __________ S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. Top<*^ _ G. Other - x__ V. re44im‘»\ Total Hardcover in Zone ^O/.^ S.F. /2.7 s.p. Total PROPERr^ Area in Zone 7^00 SSj. Sy S.F. yfik?. S.F. £ B A?^/.37 4-U X 100 3-4.8 ___% ■ -rr-iriHiUM \ HARDCOVE?. CALCaLATION WORKSHEET ScT3Ac:< zone : (CIRCLS ONE) 0-75'250-500' 5C0-ICC0' E'<is7ing Hardcover in Zone A. House E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAINBY PLASTIC SHEETING L£NGTH 36 WIDTH X_ _\S S 3. Garage c. D riveway *fC , X X X X . D. Sidewalk ts . X . X . X 1J^> - X '35'r S.F. 72.^ O ( rrififing s. Other _o<i/U ^ x . •• Total Hardcover in Zone - Total Property A rea in Zone s» ?• S.F. S.F. _ S.F. ^ 7^ ft *tC iSo 7e^ , S.F. S.F. S. F. S.F. S.F. /2o / 4"o /Co S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. __ S.F. S.F, S.F. S.F. m /^53c? ------^[T]_LLS3o X 100 - S.F. m 32J±^% N-. •4 TO: Froa: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members / City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator January 12, 1990 11483 Harold & Merle Vogt# 1342 Rest Point Circle - Condition Use Permit - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.22# Subdivisions 1 s 2 - The lakeshore setback regulations and hardcover regulations of the City adopted on January 1# 1975. Existing lakeshore structure is located approximately 30-35' from the shoreline. Age unknown# it appears to be 40-50 years old. The original use was a boat house. Please note on the various site plans and surveys submitted for previous land use reviews and building permits# the structure has never been designated (review Exhibits H and L). The repair of such a structure would require City approval. Purpose of Review - During the review of a land use application in the latter part of 1989 in the vicinity of 1342 Rest Point Circle# certain Council members noted the location and condition of the subject structure. The Orono staff was asked to review the files to determine if required approvals and/or permits were Issued to the property owner as the structure appeared to be in excellent condition. Staff reviewad the address file and 2 previous land use application files. The current owners# Mr. & Mrs. Harold Vogt, were sent written notice of Council's concerns and asked to meet with staff concerning the status of the subject structure. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C ■ Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Ex.hibit I - Exhibit J - - Application - Applicants' Addendum - Plat Map - Property Owners List - Orono Inspector's Letter 6/12/72 Building Permit for Detached Garage 7/1/65 Council Minutes 8/25/75 Approving Lot Width & Area Variances for Construction of New Residence Site Plans Submitted with Variance Application Building Permit #3179 Issued 11/21/75 for New Residence to Hairvey Larson Planning Commission Minutes 11/1/76 - Variance for New Detached Garage Zoning File #1483 January 12, 1990 Page 2 of 5 List of Exhibits - Continued - Exhibit K - Exhibit L - Exhibit M - Exhibit N - Council Minutes 11/8/76 — Approval of Variance Survey of Property by Arleigh Smith 9/25/75 Building Permit #3671 Issued 11/3/77 to Harvey Larson for Detached Garage Renewal Building Permit #4901 Issued 11/30/82 to Harvey Larson for Completion Work on Detached Garage Staff's Review of Address & Land Use Piles - The City issued a building permit for a detached garage on earlier owner that was placed approximately 10 from the street lot line and 3' from a neighbor's lot line. Some time in early 1972 the former residence was destroyed by fire. On August 25, 1975, Paul Scherber applied for a lot width and area variance to construct a new residence on the property. the minutes of that meeting, the conditions of approval Included that no other variance would be allowed and that an existing accessory structure was to be removed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Neither the staff memos, the Planning Commission minutes nor the Council minutes the exact location of that accessory structure. Please ^®t® Exhibit H, the site plan submitted with that variance that also does not designate the lakeshore accessory garage that was built in 1965. Building permit #3179 (Exhibit I) issued 11/21/75 for a new residence was Issued to^Harvey Larson, the obvious new owner of the property. The building permit references variance approval in 1975 and sets forth no conditions to the building inspector. Mr. Larson filed for setback variances for a new detached garage in November of 1976. The Planning Comm‘'ssion minutes of (Exhibit J) discuss in great detail the conditions of that earlier review and discuss in great detail the condition of the garage built in 1965 and whether the condition of "no other variances would be granted" was to cover the garage. It was 1 year from the earlier variance review and obvious carry over of make up of the members of the Commission. There was never an indication that the subject garage was the accessory structure that should have been removed. The Council minutes of 11/8/76 grants approval of the setback variances for the new detached garage# with again no reference to a required accessory structure removal. Please rev. ^w Exhibit L, the survey by Arleigh Smith dated 9/25/75 that was submitted for the garage variance application. Once again note that the lakeshore structure was not shown on the survey. Exhibit M & N are the building permits issued to Harvey Larson for the construction of the attached garage• Zoning File #1483 January 12, 1990 Page 3 of 5 ^ meeting with the Vogts, it was clear that they had no knowledge of the previous variance reviews that required the removal of the structure. The previous owner had never acknowledged to the Vogts that there was anv question concerning the status of the subject structure. The structure is not used house, contains no plumbing, no heating, is not permanent habitation. The claim that they use it as a 3-season porch and storage level. The applicants also note that when they purchased the property, there was nothing in the chain of title that would reflect any problems with the structure. 4.1 doubt in staff's review of the files that it is ”®'' *’®si<3ence in 1975. The applicants claim should not be penalized for the negligence on the part of the Orono zoning and inspection staff, it is also interestino t^® in their memos in 1976, nor both and Planning Commission members obviously visited the site ^evieS ic structure had been removed in the 1976review as there was no mention in the records. notices were sent to the adjacent neighbors of the public hearing, staff received visits and calls from the neighbors. Many of the neighbors had lived there prior Mr. Larson's residency. The neighbors confirm that 4. structure had existed on the property prior to the construction of the new residence. Mr. Larson never iS^'unmalnf-A^nni^^®/^^®^®-structure remained in an unmaintained deteriorating state until the purchase of the in June of 1989 by the Vogts. Neighbors advised that at ^ll® certain improvements to the existing hrt*l^®iT®® that they also made certain repairs to the boat hous® structure. The City has no record of a building issued for either the repair of the principal nor of I'®'!,®® structure. If the required building rfSTiE ^4T®®i" Obtained, the City staff would have been able to ^hl 7?. ^\® ^® ‘^®t®rmine the status of the structure within sA?hA^v ff®u■ repair to a structure within the 75*setback area would have required approval by the City. contaitf//appreciate Planning Commission members f^® ">®®ting if additional information is required for your review and determinations. Zoning File #1483 January 12, 1990 Page 4 of 5 Options of Action - 1. Denial. If denied, you may base your recommendation on one or more of the following findings: A) If applicants had followed the appropriate procedure and obtained the required building permit, the applicants would have been advised of the status of the structure. Even if the structure was not scheduled for required removal back in 1975, certainly the repair of the structure would have required a land use review. B) The City finds the subject structure and similar structures to be in complete conflict with the zoning regulations for lakeshore residential development, the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and the regulations of the State Department of Natural Resources. C) All residents who have properties that contain structures within the 0-75' setback must seek approval from the City before repairs can be made to said structure. The City would question any property owner when it appears obvious that such a structure had received major renovation and remodeling. D) The professional background of both applicants suggests a certain level of experience and/or knowledge that a building p®nnit would have been required for the improvements to both structures. A condition of the denial would be that the structure be removed by mid-spring of 1990. 2. Approval. If approved the Planning Commission may consider one or more of the fc^.lowing findings: A) The City staff failed to implement the Council's original directive to remove the subject structure. B) The chain of title failed to reveal the status of the structure and the directives of the Orono Council in 1975. C) The previous owner, Mr. Larson, may have never known of the exact status of the boat house structure. Mr. Larson appeared to make minimal use of the structure and certainly did minimal upkeep. Zoning File #1483 January 12, 1990 Page 5 of 5 3. Optional approval. The Planning Commission may find the unique background and conflicting findings of this review to be divided between the ordinance demands of the City and the property rights of the applicants, and may consider granting approval based on the condition that the accessory structure located within the lakeshore yard be removed within a specific period of time - years# , I I CITK OF OBOMO - ^ PROPERTY LOCATION / ' A /^ • Site Address ,_jM£^n' "t ^ Property identification Number (P.I.D.) - - - - - - - Please attach le,al description to application if not Included - - - - - - - -;^;;;"h;;;iSiSi— iPPLICAllT _Phone (work).//?S- - - -- ^W^’IIf different’than applicant) Stone (home) .» —- -- - -;i:z:z Address - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , ./ (month/year) rtLfXnotnisfJ-njra ------------- VK8S - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - rter-the!Fa’ct^^U"-"ou^le“current Application Fee p 50.00 For each variance request ^h CUP _ _ _ _ 5125,00 Residential accessory Use _ _ _ $150.00 institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration - - - - . filling - designated wetland or floodplain — iSdH/seawau\""r\tai^\'ng wlth?r75' of lakeshore _ PRD/PID - see fee schedule other conutercial site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) - - - - $250.00 Vacation - - - - $175.00 Easement Vacation subdivision — $ 50.00 Easement Va^ti schedule) - - - -$250.00 Reroning (Pud ret«i. $100.00 Appeals — other - see fee schedule [ PR2SENT OSB OF PROPERTY A i A Present Zoning District L tL - ! O Present Use of Property _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _^"'^^^^esidential Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^ M M M mm mm mmm ^ ^ mm mm ^ ^ mm im mm mm w mm ^ mm w ^ mm ms ^ ^ ^ ^ •• ^ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST / / /) / ^ ^-1—-:V^-::::z--.- - - - - - -!^-:r- - REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map. 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. Construction plan» if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you vish notified of this application. CITY YOU ARB REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS ' A WORKING COPY (ll* X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMin9D. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application.‘’'“'^^i’e«i^'rt-/. ^ remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/herknovtladge: Applicant's signature _ _ _ Date ) ^ OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby aclcnowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of ^his r^ Owner's signature \\\ YT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date ^ _ _ _ _ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please malce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I I #1483 i Addendum to General L'se Anpl ication ^ I34ii Rest Point Circle, Orono, Mn 55364 In see'.cin? continued let?al usage of an accessory structure on our lakeshore property this addendum should help describe the property in question. The structure is somewhere between 50-60 years old and pre-dates all other structures on this lot. Prior to purchasing this property we had a structural engineer inspect the subject building. He indicated to us that it was in very good shape having been built with 8x10 solid wood beams on a block and poured cement foundation. Approximate size is 12 x 20 . The lower level opens to the outside through several openings and doorways. This area is used for storage, dock sections, boat gear etc. This area is not secure. The upper level consists ot an open room secured by one door and several windows. This area is used as a detached 3 season porch. It should be noted that this structure is not suitable for Habitation as there is NO BATH, ^ BEDROO>Ll NO HEAJl^ NO TOILET^ AND NO INSULATION. We paid a premium for this property in June 89 largely because ot the existence of this structure. There was no indication any where in our title search or abstract of any problems with the existing buildings. Also, within a very short walk of our property easterly, in Orono, there are seven similar structures. Our question to the council is why have we been singled out to be required to get a special permit at some expense for continued use of our property? Looking forward to clearing up this misunderstanding in the near future. e I CRvff Orfit IContlnufA N f imi wm Ti I T nil i(WYOJ0W6ON4««€ ztm TODemwoumi im uuHiwmm KMYDJOmON JMCSQTHOirSflNrMiLicsett H H 11000 KM» 4I7J4 H 0 20000 1000 27OJ0 «UJ| HR 1SOOO 27n» 9MJI 4BS1SI ......... ... 7/iii im wJn^ UJ7 tifunai*| •SIM IBS f f Jill i iffCStlBISI 9S3M IMS Imt 0»C IMfKVUi nwlOfun II man 0011 fomanooio to 117831 «Ci m----TjRnmumiBir 1300 OJOOlDOIfm 1300 cuoNiimriL TWBTRTTSWITWntil ITT fi aorecfKOOLCBi nr ii CUIHANSCN NR 1! TSSSS" 2S400 37100 0010 4130 IW 00 00 127.10 kiM 00 1020 00 10S4 owT 710 w oar 00 0.17 TRDTTBirrmr uMunsioiua l0>UT1B)1O1l7a irnnnrwf 10117831000 10117831000 138 i8T 1337 130 130 1347 f3¥ *3SO I3S4 atiranai OdVlOtOATTOOCRJUROBg W R 2100ORftCAJURQPit__________________________________ ^ TAPMMXIKStMKCnVT TAIMHOUStASMCfwn H A SOOO JACKBIWMSSWR _ H ft. linO 330S0 7!IV I s; M msM ^^W7l 1000 24110 41S0 im WIPMOMAWAWtOW WIIMMAMStCCArfW M A »IOO TSIW j^g-------------------------------------------------------------B3B HSB rarairoD RRHARDLAffifiON ROMOCTT 04J00OJR 0tTfO0TU.................. lURUCHUnBCN 1^04o:: rviv^^rr^i: fOOOII) J 4 MARJOnE 4 won OAVDI4JBtraiBOC$JR H RL N n. N R N R 0750 S2O0 1*70 0700 100 SI30 3000 1014.10 000 00 00 00 00 00m 00 00 00 00 00 00 2047 00 247.11 00 00 00 U90 0471 20 0200 0441 30 W 1170 OV72 OSO0 OW 30 W 1W16 5117 W m40 0147 ois w 7900 om 012 W pcnrarroARKUKMnu REStf0A^iVO(U4lffn(A REST OQOfT PARR uanmA REST POOfT PARK URE MIRA 0$TPOOfT PARK IA8 MIRA 0ST PCOfT PARR LAIS MIRA IkitMoftpWUislynRA REnP0IT PARK LAIS MTKA REnPOOfT PARK LAIS MfM REST P001T PARK LAIS MIRA 8117§nswiit; 81178310017 8117831008 8117831008 07117831080mirSirwa 071178310024 81178310Q2S 811788081 nil <310 K3QWMR4IR1i«R«R <340 MEieounAL *30 ILI01fBi80 • ••0tlPO«TRi- ..................... SN4SJSCH0)T ISVWJQROH^AND AMMEieOU im 5T5T N R 2SO0 N Ri SOO0 N RL 0000 010 S2S0 7710 0014 14041 141442 TW 00 00 00 208 00 208 00 TUB u/ti van 7300 1SI4 30C 00 08 REStPOOfT^AlWlAISMIKA TOMUmOQAROOS UfUTTB)81t7a TQMUnCirOARDBS IMHBBCB 811788000 811788000 8117880004 140MIU RJWETT4MA18TT RWOnAmOHAL lAMMRBCE E 4IUNlANGHilB R001TTNARPn0 V;»» • ILARRY4SHAlUr RJ4MAMETT RALPH 4 CORA SKMCOO TimOGR' RBigTMWiRENgOtOOERT TT N N N TT RL R Ri SI20 SOO0 2400 10000 S80 4270 7030 218.14 0100 0108 3300 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 V 3000 0500 0143 now ISOS 2S4W KEANOeiSON • R0OOM4TAaOQM M04LRQBUMI M4VI9MIS0 tUIAIOSRAAJOTlI llArtVCttlAlETIi KWANKKON OECfRS R 4 T1«SA A 0OOM 0CHAai4LYMQmX3ei W0T8IP4VAUMIOI0AiS IWAIiSRgTJJ __________ 1OT7TWIH H R 2200 788 1388 08 08 TT H 2400 ihM 55521 oU oo6 N 1 9600 0178 32918 08 08 N 8 7118 0000 2688 08 00 H 8 1200 9600 4021.8 00 00 N 0 1200 500 1488 08 00 18220 OSI7 00 W TMC BIT WWTFJW Ug UWU6T SUM RE8 P08T PARK UOS MTRA4.8 tUOO REST POOfT PARK UOS MTRM.8 RE8P00fr SUOOl 0900 OSH 311 W 12100 1242 C 13400 0143 4H W 14600 8VI7 410 W IRE8 POOfT PARK LAIS MTKA4.8 HilKU^^lMki^AUST%UK\ RESTP0fT ' S0O RE8 P08T PM LAIS M1RA40 lUK) RE8 POMT PARK UlS MTKA4.8 PHTgBWi 811788081 811788084 811788008mm 811788081 811788087 811788008 f 4NMIUN KJO0MON4CIJMMI M^AMUjMIKSnAi mtfcfliiiaM THN0RN4MN0RN RO80ITQOREDESON PATRKXJWAiSN LTUKJOHMON 0VPAR4XIAI0 H RL N L N RL R ml H iC 1500 0750 7190 5990 LISTB1R4MVRTLI HORN H RL H RL N t 030 5990 1500 000 0 3710 3440 7130 34ldb 6110 11200 7100 1 36814 250534 oikB 1080 000 00 00 00 00TW' 00 00 00 00 00 00TW 00 00 TB56 58mW 7950 07/70 00 nJK)REnR08T PAW LAIS MTRM.0 811788081TOUBtirmS—iTwaaii “75155 5VU io6 Ur 11300 OS8 48 W T «•!. 1sTTBRTW tmO REH P08T PARK LAIS MTKA4.0 SLMO REST POOfT PARK LAIS MTKA4.8 SUK) RE8 POOfT PARK LAIS MTKA4.8 SUM) REST P08T PARK LAIS MTRA4.8 bjio UT KWTOMiUis mtiU-iot smo REH P08T PARK LAIS MTKA4.8 SUOO REST P08T PARK LAIS MTXU8 811788000 811788008 81178800M iym88 8H 811788008 0711788081 WWICJ4PATTOqAKROUTSON nWOCJROimON JSkAMLfTl^jBMlfV 38inT8l®n«NDL!Y 10 NUMMOLEVER8Q IT ^ nWi(34PATRKIAKR0UT5ON • ••RUAMIRO...................................... ?0 HIANORHSAfl _________$55 p nrnraoxm 10 MRWUIAMOLEVBM mAHCJROUTSON H R 400 22390 I4S48 00 00 H A 4000b 226^1 00 inriOT H R 400 17500 4MB 62 00 00 H R 10 0 00 00 00 H R 6500 11660 36348 00 00 198 29000 OS37 W 21500 0447 30 W ROIfflONAKH ROOrSONAOON ROUTSONAOON #4117§§s0117 0117880021 011788084 m >8 • SIMQHT4MAI(20Hr MTHCWJWHMNnni THrmBTrsn Q8URO4IIIRYAIMff0QHr TTT T53555 H3555 i3755W 00 00 H R 0000 34090 11300 00 00 47500 1243 Ui»UTTH)8l10a'Tfi^BirnovnvBnr WAITODTARMUROAOM 811088008'WniBBBft 811088000 V'l;:0 JP •••SALBiCf........................ Ill IROKEAMMQN 80 W4CTRAAfreR R4J0CACN joifiPoUcicLiiMMdyii ITT N R 4690 11610 381.8 00 00 H R 2290 4990 71607 8897 78 8 T0566 51355 FUJ 00 5W 3000 07/8 92005 07/I47BT AHTOriOUOO. 0.307 AUOrrQR4SU0.0.87 0117831 8117 AMiCrOWAHlm 8117%m <96 <8 JtRRVilUT^lyliRHAvtO ~ S A AlCeiSON 4 K E AND01SON REN0U4MJN0a R4PIKNAa SCOTCH PtSU> ............................ MlTfH H4CISL L4CNHALEN SOOnROKATIfTVNEAieeiSON H R KfM 4 CAROL TRANTER H R ROtg1TD4JAMECOEACM H R 400 4500 3500 1800 8110 10040 6480 I4874 4342 10 XRRY4K>T>flYNHAYES H R I58K 44658 SC0nR4KAT>0lYNEAIO9S0N N L 3000 • 14718 RE4MJN0U N R 4500 21510 71700 RCNARO04PA3SUI0lNAa H R 4500 8100 7788 00 00 00TW 00 00 00 00 00 00 30900 8/97 W 2050 0445 30 W 00 00 0.0 00 1H6 II 1240 8150 0647 varfiMUom OKSSYtAtSAOM POSY LAIS AOON‘wssTTSfror OOSYLAlSAaM POSY LAIS ACON PPSY LAIS AOON 811088008 81108310011 811083408 ihiosli oMI 811080008 81108310013 81108310012 H douql A5 4 6iA fl H lL HOOUQLAStOCimiRJ. UWRENCEJWHAIEN TTT 1000 0 H 8 7000 20060 H 8 14170 19120 >j645 50 Jim ^ 1931 8 73H37 204171 1977 21873 12/8 50 187 0 00 00 198 25000 02/71 TrarOTT PCONAOON PCPIAOM NI|7Z3 440055 0117844008 0117841000 A* ^ < o tm TW Milt Ijittt 10 —Diit in. i Un%~ fnm M • • • • • ^5 4423 4«S 441S 44« 46S 4«0 4«S 4470 CO w \ T"1 ytMMJSWWBOH nfoooKoicntwit RtMWUMMI OiMIlRaCW SMCAASWANSON H " “2 nf<)O0«»Mwrj»*n H Ji «2J0 fKMIVJMllMB H «• lOTmttHiMRMlIRIUlW H a »l«0 2JM0 tSft* » UMO «i/n «Ml1BtMe«0NNAiBifiRionvMietsaN WAITS) MOttON ...................WUIAA4T>€00(WSCMCC>#« WUiAM T SCHOOStt WILIAM CWMJ9 "iNTTTT lETAL CAaKOl$ON(TAL OAMaJOCKIYnAL QWUfCAAANCTAL flfWfmOAMVMTTW murclqs M FWAif)AHM«ONnAL JAlODBCIAMRlOfeCf JOIfllT>«8«JtAOf .gf«SOHOtWMi THOMA§/^Sn <jyTDWAW» _wCTW&nnnwoir CKOISON OATCLJOCICY ooroonwlundman (uvatsrntt roSCKWAMAHAACON jMSAAMAMRlORSCt MRJOWILnOSaiJR ’th : ’a;v ^ CilKTOMN MH aftlAMUMON Ml MIMOHTIM Jtm JllttStSai*MltS«S« "OT---------nXRBnfHMWKH CIS HJMaaHvnN. IU.T HJNOBMrna 4645 WKLOIMMCHTHN.mn tcwwiiMijiiwaxiT N RL DAOOO H Ri S0700 H R 14000 H RL 1144DO H M. 110000 H RL 1X200 H RL 100000 H RL 70300 N RL yMOO 1MW N RL 70300 7U00 N RL linn 107300 H RL 70300 71200 H RL S9900 31 W 47OU 4000 i«ooo tm joif4jGRATAN0CNWUsnomv'fivuN M n. w nioi (0Ml>llUnMA«MIO«M 5 U g;; *1^ H H 1144W irgg -------------------------------rn: TtSSt BHB msjRnaHOR HjmOBM HimOLALBRKKT TVLB)CCC?HL_ TViSAI ICOORMOJLMmilt tTB>reiCOJOAIiCAWARO MLRUSnflNOILRCDSBON JRRg^Jg^______ OOOtSAlMI qooiticjiommzmach »€RMAN CRAWFORD HAL juMURnoeoNfUL STIFHDICWARD JRICORr FmAN CRAWFORD JAJyiS THOMSON H RL 4W00 N R 22900 H RL 103000 N R 20100 IISTW ORraXCNRMlCVSnON wAnuanAL JDFRCYJ MARSHALL OTATtUOCDgT DONALD RlANOSnCTAL OAVDLWIfnETAL OAvoLwrmnAL DARRaLOUnAtTAL TTniWBSTJBSf JOMOARUTN OOVWBffSTSW RAJRrRmAMISefI QARRYOMARCDMON WALTBIAOOOrMALKRAHL OTYOFORONO oonaldrlanqert FRKWOaCCWWf FRCOCRCXCWMTI QARRBlQUnA H RL 01100 N RL 19300 H R 2S000 N RL 0 jAACOCOMAT a MITBARUIN grant RWETiCSTBfl RaARCRonooMCse^ "W-----iJrSSdSfuiJOfireH m RAKROLLOeiC RCNALDAMTnWROUOC* H HO RAULAALMAWARFIR " \m OARVONBAMC 1070 THOMAS OWPCR HAL 1100 BIUN ^ ^ 1120 JAliJERAJCUaR JAYAiGHI 1130 HOWARD MCCURDY CJAACAKATHfSIVQNBAIR 1MDMAAQWPC1 tADANURmai SAOAIU.RMO SAQAItlRMO AADAItil [WSCD $AQA»tLR045a SAaAWiFMa SAOA»«LRMOiaiasaiMunsmira HWUmNXMTOSMIWl ■eWUin NXM TO U« Ml KfOOUmMOITOSMAlU___nwuBHrauunr teaaumwmiDtMWMU MMMUm 80 MON 10 SMIMI levnumMONTOtMAMl HOaUNTI MON TO IMM Ml leijawn MON TO IMA Ml lemuNTS 80 MON TO SMU Mi NUHMTTMl___________ N R HWB H n. IIW MOM H m. 4IM0 MMH a irm mm N a 4MW « N ii fP® iTTRa KROOUITIMONnUailNl ie«ium4 r ^'<<tai atTNMTrNKUa*>.;»'SKsas— TOtKAWNINCea TTMTimCMI IRBTIMOMBsausaasa^ leaauNT 4 TNcaurn M« |0«MUn tIMatMC NW”°^Ttasss^a. v* I HTDOUIT 4 «HCatf0l ie«nsT4McatN»HN( KRoaun4NKauMKrtM KROaWDtMNt imiTTanmn u#uTiB>»ma SRiasw iMunaaiifa UMUTTBMIlTa UfUTTBVITTagawaF- doluomadon OOLlfOAiniimATTVonussaariSfr UWUTTB)07lt723 imATTB)07 11723 NORTH STRUM RO 1 “= : 51 w«MiCAfla»€CC4asoH h NORTHfRMAVf n* *■ ^ 1SSO00 07/17 NORTH $TR| AM NORTH iMUiT NORTH STRUM NORTH STRUM NORTH STRUM 120000 2S9400 ARIYS PA/K Uud UTVA THWNrr^ OF LANOOON RARR » I r tt*¥ i iiii<M|^TTyi I i I-i tiaaifTrfm<i-i^^i7 I . v?iu\<;5 OF 0RC*^0 rUM.oiNG PSIIMIT /=^ n I •;o putrc^p er mmr»No mmof»r ADDIIf^t rnoNf NO. 1621 / ^«rt#l Nn. *'‘^C!?lfT10M » Irt • ’ r-. rt. . •*/*n BUriOtNU lOCATTON DU. Prom Hood Olt. Sidot DU. IUkIi DrolnoO# ‘••r.T?ON Brick, Solid Brick Vofiwif Comonf Block ' vS * ••% lootf Oopdi Bolow Omdo * ‘NATION. Cootfrocfioo SIco **' ••*••<»•♦ OratnoRR floor Po»H Sit#Spoclng Slto Sfon NO. OP N«fPlACIS TyP* /3<-. ff Crr^T^r ^ irfON AND liONTVrNTILA r«rc^n»noo of floor Aroo Voot. r<.fc»nffig# of U9M to floor AfOO IINTTIS 5»f« I ^rollon SfMfl wru Tvrt C'^n«ffuctl0fl I r>rnf<«iO SfPTIC TANtCS OB MUNtOfAl HOOKUP □ TiifO nUtnnro from WoH CnnitfuctlOO OftfwtoFfMiUf Urm ^ • *-*««iryriori V« flpo Dlifwofo from Jolitt riuMBiN3 nxTUBn r»AfK«*T* DUfmtol Sinkt leiundry TBlIil Bofh Tub , V. . 1 c.1*:i0 comic XL MBRXNG HBLO AIIGUST 2S, 197S Pa«« 4 Th« d«t«il«d plailA ihoald d«aign«t« • bcttar landscaping proposal sad 12 parking spaeas (2 for saeh rssidsnes sad • for tbs eoasMreial oporatioa) • A report as to ths ooIom sad quality of ovorflow water froa the bait storage teaks was also requested. The Plaaalag gdiission iastruoted staff to dieek with the irity Attorney as to the possibilities of arisiag froai the multiplicity of use oa tbs one parcel. PAbZMICI 1440 Sboroliao Drive (Continued) Paurua aevedf Butler seeoaded« that the requeet of Charles Van leckhout for a lot area variaaoe at 2720 Bthel Avenue# he approved# subject to no other variances teiag aliened. The approval was rsnnamundsd as there is ao other available adjoining vacant land. The property has been assessed for sewer and water and the site is eoosistent with ether properties in the area. Hotion# Ayes (3) - Hays VABXMICB • ' 2720 Bthel Avenue # V-: » Butler moved# Searlea seconded, that the request of Paul Beherber for a lot area and width varii at 1342 Best Point Circle# be approved as ao ether adjoining vacant land is available and subject to the fellewiag conditions i VXaiABCB 1342 Best Point.:drele 1. Mo other variances be allowed. 2. Bsmoval of existing accessory structure before certificate of occupancy is issued for new residence.•It *. j’ . Motion# Ayes (3) - Hays (0). Henry Muhich# Building 4 toning Administrator# reported to the City Council that the variance and permit to fill and grade within the mar^» lands and 75* of the shoreline for Richard Kennedy# 2435 Scotch Pine Lane# be denied as reconmended by the Planning Conmission. Mr. Kennedy has also violated the soning code in June# 1975 by cutting down four trees exceeding 6* in diameter in the protected aree within 75* of the shoreline. An inspection was made at which time the inepeotor notified Mr. Kenne^ of the violation and procedures for obtaining approval. Photos of remaining tree stwps are on file. It was further reconmended that necessary action be taken to negotiate restitutio of the four treeo that had been removed. . •A.-SB# . - - - - - - - - - -A t i.V.i VMOMICI 1 2435 w* .*• 'V-l * V s» ▼ • C/£cL^ -* 3 I n I Jr- 4 ^ 4 7‘^ X /^O' I SS^ u ; s/ - ' 1 0*“^ o s^\ o . I V ■a /jl7'/.^ ^ IcCi •. #. ;l / /.* *5 /V) >4/A/f * t •I .If 7* ic> f 'B:-r f^r7,f,T CitZCt,^l^/<€ SA<K foe*^ yVi>»/C.>T J<f 1410^0 fioAO 5fT «j(e«; •)0' H/trM 7tT BA<*.t ;^i<-t-AO' • ♦X • *1 ^sW .'liCATICN IFOR BUIUma j-titMIT AND aRTtrian of occuhaucy VUIAUI OlONO. MINNliOlA .'iA'C^ 5i.C.oO - t# I I itH^ 1 1 Mu*«| H4 r li t lU MU 1.^*_* * '*’* * ** «**»••>• — > wifi j* «4i| *B «4«*t ^ /\ ' fit- »Ati—to AMCtaRTICt TJiLlJLi^LinM. r I :?►! • v/k o» sftmCTUil _______.^6 9 10 0» »f0ili4» M CgM^ifOvC^AU —/ - _____u »wmTf on^—io^k I « i f*'i W*- wC^lnoCt.OM II rnuriii r« AMiA / »A;jal VAMU *0 »T It Ni AM TAMO 6^ 1-4 —A-'VA-et^. y 7 k----fe£i_0« : . ACTC;fOWL£DGc^vlE^4T AND SlGNAVUr<E: fr.Af v4.CRrr*,,'^,«a f.v;r«Of rir^^rciwfiU i0Ofl All ol U ht ;».i>a 1Ii«% oI »AiAi. lor J.w i«wr;r.k«r .».i1^r .ii.»j thv VILLAGE 0<= Ort0 ‘«0 l<i U aa ♦,rA..u i. wl«urr>vm‘« r.».. ... u. i Iruw ^•J if.al #»» rK«r«..r. ii.it.t.w.oictj will cm dorw u. j,... i- miIo U.« .1 *r.w village ONONO. l^• G;-l. wi f.*..iM.i.-.wU. ^*’1 T itj« «l If... 4i «i •,.i-j liriAfit. •t^«AAl JHi tr L . • ^ *••** * * v*T I iliiiillii • > r .• r - /.I "' n ■' ' * MDIflES OF A FLATMCC GCMaSSiaN .^fsETING tCLD NOVBCER 1, 2976 • IMS 4 Mr. Larson ms prasont. Ha is racpiastiiig approval to build Mnaa with tha proposad location to ba 6* fron tim side lot line and 6* non tha street line. A previous7------------------ - W% |TOWVAWU9 variance request was granted in 197S to build a house oi this property. Variances ware approved subject to several tfnditions, one being that no other variances be necessary. Inere was sob discussion over the waning of this stipule- tidi. Son sobers felt this was want to include the Brage, tdiile other waters fait this pertained to the house only. Mr. Larson who purchased the house froa Paul Scherber stated he could not use the present garage in the winter tin. The proposed location extends over a vertical drop. Mr. Lanon's plans are to build up a concrete on a footing froa the lower elevation up to the higher gnde at road level. Lower level would be used for storage <\fter soae discussiont Guthrie wved, Pesek seconded, to reconend approval because of the topography of the laid, it is consistent with the neighbors and location would presem large nple tree on property, fbtion - Ayes (5), Nays (2) • Van Nest and Hosfield. Peterson was present. The Zoning Auainistrator infomd the Oxanission that the applicant is requesting variances for an addition to the rear of the existing residence and a garage additior to the front. No other land is available and proposed additions would be a great inprovewnt to the existing house. Several pictures of the property were presented to the COwdssion. Ouinwewi “** concerned about the large tree on ^e property. Mr. Peterson assured her that there was approKintely lS-20* between the tree and the addition. Both would ^ existing line of the building. Pesek nved, ilosfield seconded, to recoaecnd approval of the nacesaaiy variances because house is consistent with neighborhood and would upgrade to houses already there, lot is narrow, and no other land is available. Kbtion - Ayes (7), N^* (0) Mr. Solie was present. Hank Mihich infomd tte emission that the applicant has done sow grading and fillifig «i his property without approval. Mr. Mihich further eraUind that this was first brought to the attention of Staff on August 8, 1976, when a conploint was received ccsKeiniag work in progress on this property. Investigation revealod a Major excavation done with earth filled near to the shore and siltation of the water evident. A stop work order ns posted and a tag ns issued. Mr. Solie was advised to a pemit application and to seek approval fron the other agencies. HAWBY LARSON 1342 nsr Pomr emeu VARIANCE - GARAGE SIOE YARD « SIREET SETBACK (•187) BWCE RTERSON 2447 CABWN SnST VARIANCE • LOT AREA, w;01! SeiBMX (»l«9) ROBERT SOLS lots NOUN ARM nUVE ODOmONAL USE FEBMIT aUDOC AW FULDC (•190) OROnO COUNCIl. MEETING HELD NOVEMDER 8» lS/76 Pag* Butler moved, Paurua a*eend*d, to approve tte preliminary aubdlvielon for Ed Lehman, 3527 Snere* line Drive, per the Planning Conmisalon Minutes of November 1,1976. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). Ilenry lluhich. Building ft foning Administrator, stated that the Planning Costnisolon at their November 1, 1976 meeting recommended approval of street and side yard setback variances for a garage for Harvey Larson, 1342 Rest Point Circle. Butler moved, Paurus seconded, to approve the street and side yard setback variances for a garage for Harvey Larson, 1342 Rest Point Circle, per the Planning Commission tlinutes of November 1, 1976. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). Henry thihich. Building ft Zoning Administrator, stated that the Planning Coimnission at their November 1, 1976 meeting approved the lot area and width setback variance for Bruce Peterson, 2446 Carman Street. Approval was based on the fact that there is no additional land available and proposed addition would follow existing house extremities and not encroach the existing setbacks. The proposed addition would make a vast improvement to the property. Taurus moved, Butler seconded, to approve the lot area and width setback variance for Bruce Peterson, 2446 Carman Street, per the Planning Conmiss'on Minutes of November 1, 1976. Motion, Ayes <3) - Hays (0). flenry Ihahich, Building ft Zoning Administrator, stated that David J. Kruskopf, 1200 Wildhurst Trail, is requesting a lot area and width variance. This property is located in a LR-10 residential zone. Mr. Kruskopf is requesting a variance from lot area and width requirements of one acre (43,560 sq. ft.) and X40 ft. lot width. His lot consists of 0.7 of an acre and is 90 ft. wide; therefore, he is requesting variances of 13,968 sq. ft. and 50 ft. SUDOXVZSION 3527 Shoreline Drive (Continued) •* * ■* A VARIANCES 1342 Rest Point Circle #187 Harvey Li^on v/ft ft . * VARIANCE 2447 Carman Street •189 Bruce Peterson SUBDIVISION 1200 Nildhurst Trail #90 David Kruskopf The proposed location does meet all setback require- r»nts. However, we do have a problem in the existing location of the residence on the property to the \ { ! i i iiJ i 4 % < , N /V - -...iSi: -iVj'iHit.14/PCHMIT ^ M 3671 * «• • UKS) MIC I DAY£ ISSUED 7^ / exfires --♦ iliL /0»%t •• ■. ;.v.n.,N , ui, ^ y ■»VM. t:nv;iMt HAY. M.M fab:m »/ ,/»:./ ...........— _______________ mtlauoiuv . / ’■/ y / /y // z' UGALf;,r,auiM..„, ,...; ^ // ............ / IA*|f«i» - - . -r^i; -- ■'- '^L-a j... .. EHI'.J—., ..... irmiii VAH UATt -----------tl-tr ?0 CONO USCOATt fl-.i<i.i --------------------------------------------------- ------------------rAciui#Hi tVIOTH • ^ depth PHOWttDSCIMCKS aUllLER HEAR L.SIOEL*- /a * UddrMil OF WORK Aod.,.o«R*mo(M lake wetlands ACCESS NEW EXISTING acencyapfrov . oate FR. EASEMEuf REMARKS: Icons I rvp€ Ihcsiu . sriAi ULUL, Ji/i ■" _t -V 7 >v H. IIOMM,* /lm lit. C05iT^AtM!T3l^*^*"**| ------1 KRMir FEU !ri ■LOO.FSRENT 1Iowlln luNir., 1 A 4A R R -STATE FfC 1■ mAH lAri ■ Of T APH UpeII FLANRfVliW /a ---- 1 ■ i fsnalty “I In ON tiC^ u KHI pP'Ey^t lJ PARK FEE 1 l^c ■class SACCHARGE ~| I6TGHII.S C0u%E.i4 - AHH ,.a ||total due 4jrBS- 1 4 tUZt'cCriZjJ REQUIRED > W^»r»4»CA C«ICA« -------- WORK HEQUImi;jG SEPARATE P;ih.-,.i rs <.... W..M»,iACw«»,.» J FECm^F: 4iC ^^’.0 OH m ML CiU4 •.II i. J, , I fICT ro Ht'aALf / • rKjJM*,4/J/iU/ CAfc.L a IV A f4 •?•:,»* I 4 H M CAI^ I 4 r M I-..H /•l.xr Lm# I'i O .1.*.NG « MlLmmN CAl »Vl I L___ *»• *'! !•: _ ^#LM _ , id** It I OHH|j|f4r« A I II 4 tl,i. I Lit.lMIf^AL I*.......... acknowledgement Th € ONOIBSICNEO HFMtav RiOu«ITgPf RMI«|jON TO THt real IIMMOVEMCNT8 SPCCIFICO. ANO 0€C^«c UNDER penalty OP LAW ACKNOWLEOCEMENT AND ACCtr AHCE op all INPORMATWN. CONOWKINE ANO REO o.N c WkNTS REPRCUNTEO ON THU DOCUMENT. THE UNOih SIGNED P UHTHER AGREES TO DO ALL WORM Mt ITRICT CC/ r-.IANCE WITH ALL «TV OP ORONOORMERNCa ANO ETr .' OPWINNESO^OILOINCCOOE ^ •*••• » L P M,1 •pHI I fE » INp^f.t.l isfjLU Mil.’UHr . V >'*^*r** ‘c.IP' |5 4 —^ -X. i I i I .'•IS . IVnnit ptHMiT f^iV " 4901' m. . ... I • i u »l KIN I OH i;i Mil* iCATi; OP «>(.' • i.k.A (.(I CMYMAl HAY. MN bbJ73 4/1 / tiiri auuhil :.I . ONlN .i OIUMOCT I I. C • !ll> t IHL »MtiL WAM Oa TL ___MrJLr7G CCNU uSkUMlt tOT AHIA AIUT h OIPTH __ Wl' I t*HOPUSLOUI:rUAC»CS mONT IIUIOC d.'»o/d' • *J Ht AM L tilUL . _______ UAKt AttLANL'S ACCESS Ntw Exi:>riNU AOtNCVAKPHOV OATt cnv COUNTY STATt PH, EASEMLNT DATE ISSUED EXPIRES___________________ / A*’.'/ LLUALUi;.nilPllii'< i iUil' lU ... .j?Z.*//y~ it --------- lOT . C*> IIMII.C, SUHDIV.SIQM t,6^T ^>\K JWNLM I /. (AiMf«»*l IPbMit) AHCHITLcr/LN«.it^^< Muki Caiiily Mu IiiPmoiIv, Comcmiciri A IntfMirial CoAMruBtlon Pl«ii :ert .no _ . ------------ ■ iM. I(Piiml (AdtkaMl PmmI HUILOEH It ifMtl (PtiOfItl TYPC OF ('"V AiJiliiuin CliNjf 1 V>*1 .........................................----------------------------------L^r CONST VALUATION » x'Ja »•*— tliSlUlNtlAi f.l t. 1 .* 1 PEiiMIT FEES _ I HLDG. PERMIT ^ DWiCL UNifj ___ ♦*««l *• STATE PEE itfAW ‘.f A| . *. ■ ............PLAN MSWIiWg.Mf ' . • • • • PENALTY .. 1^1^pi |a I *^|ti i i • 1 • i PARK PEE lELiFE f ¥ » * • f SACCHARUE OCL CLAL^ iTOMit!.l.v. . •• . 1 TOTAL DUE HcMAn^S lii 1 iNSf-ECTlON REQUIRED ... 1 •**w !••*»/** I «n ita^) J ca% 1 luN WORK REQUIHING SEPARATE PEnrp*.ITS »*LOMtilN(a «... — ____ - .'iaaL i.*.Gp^»4U t^ilKi mlcmamcal . . ___ t llaial L^luia •«.«.-.MlalM * F^LLL UFTIC____ . nCMF tti frjUU OH AirHiiut «• Ml LLRLM__ OuMLj iu>icr»oi« /piiL UL «uii WAriH____ Akcr fo»*».».AL'T lfa>'l Lf IwM MOuHIa Al % I'i'sl C*HAUIN(j a P 'Ll «(•«• «. C<*i4. il 1^ P% M iMaK 1 4 >« M CALL 1 4 P*M llaSt* l«LAl U#« T LLLCTHICAI ••••4*1 * •alM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THC UNOCMSlCNiO Mifliev NfOUfttTS PifHilttlOlil TO MA ac TH£ REAL IMAROVEMENTt VtaFIfO. AMO OECLAHLa UMOER ^EMA lTV OE LAW ACICNOWLEDCiiliMT AMO ACCLt»T AMCE OF ALL INFORMATION. CONOlTlONt AMO REQuiHt MENTS REFRESENTEO ON THIS DOCUMENT. THE UNOEH- ;*IGNED FURTHER AUREEf TO DO ALL WORKS IN STRICT COM I'LIANCE WITH ALL CITY OF ORONO OROlNANCU ANO STATL OF MINNESOTA tUILOlNG CODE RECUIREMENTS. SipiGiMt t«Mli| P-IL*(«.*lli4 MNANLL I (JLU MiLllFr - . »»• V.. • A TIJQMf N A * , • G %«• Ur?0-9^ ly ot Qpowo mifc A II . 3i TOs Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson //. Date I Subject! Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building ft Zoning Administrator January 8» 1990 fl484 Roxanne Stasik, 4470 Forest Lake Landing - Variance - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 - Applicant seeks to replace existing foundation located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Section \0i22f Subdivision 2 - Approval of the foundation locatOvS w!s.t:hln the 75-250' setback area technically requires approval of a hardcover variance. Original approved in application #1432 Proposed 11482 ■ 31.7% 31.7% List Of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Application Property Owners List Plat Map Resolution #2694 Foundation Plan Site Plan Application #1432 ft #1484 Hardcover Fact Sheet #1484 Elevations Review of Cnrrent Application - In the process of constructing the rear addition to the existing structure, it was determined by the Orono Building staff that the existing foundation would have to be replaced. The previous applicant and owner had been advised by a structural engineer that the existing foundation was adequate. Unfortunately, the unplanned, excessive costs has forced Ms. Whitney to sell the property. \i The current applicant proposes no changes from the plans originally approved in Application #1432. The application involves merely the replacement of the existing foundation under the existing structure located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The previous elevations submitted for Application #1432 are applicable for this review (Exhibit H). i Zoning Pile #1484 January 8# 1980 Page 2 of 2 Staff Reoo—enJatica - Staff would strongly recommend the approval of the hardcover and average lakeahore setback variance to permit the replacement of the falling foundation under the existing structure. All conditions of resolution #2694 remain applicable for this review. cm OP OROHO - VRRIAIICB APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 par each additional variance Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Pact Pees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.O.) #1484 cijy CF cRm Fim'E (FFICE 1350200000 . 01 m 150.i)>) im 71 150 (<{! ^tCEIPT-Tim tw H164030 COOl r<0l Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT.r Name Phone (home) ^*7V£> __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (wofltS^ ^7 Z, *3 Address:n ^Ty^citvt _ _ _ zip:_ _ _ _ _ / ONNBR (if different than applicant) Phone (home) \^\nnlrx^\\ LOKi^-q^ Phone (work)Name \ ul Y > rx Address: ^ City: (jQojt^Zgcf^ Zip: Date Property Acquired ^Jp^P^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (month/year) I (do) Uonot)\ also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District /Of'/TTOD Present Use of Property _ _ _ _ _ _Residential other (specify) OESCRIPnOM OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in aetaii:(^l Q ^^rran rr\txc4~\cig_ VARIANCES R] Lot Area Setback Variances ( Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) Other Q\rA 4-W^A \qo r’.ffi^aLC pd (as pAT Oro-r.o G>PB'd'^S^ hardship Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcementj»f zoning regulationsn iL. !Ai - - -A )n OBSCRIPTZOH OF OHDSOAL PROPERTY COMDITZOHS REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form I-ist of owners within 150* (you must obtain 348^3271?/*^**" Hennepin County Dep:.rt»ent of Finance A-603 Govt Center A* ^^*^4*?** (obtained with property owners list). *• .i.v.tion., if „y ch„,„ f* Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views. 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of S °* ‘M. application,o. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. A COPIES OP LARGE OOCONEHTS OR _ _^ DOCOMEHTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application P*Vmi APPLICAHT'S sigratorb ppxieo IS true and cwract to the l^t of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature cheers sigratorb ^ \~ * ^ CjQK<J^va^D«t. /^- IP, Applicant must haVall eubmittals’YnVo'VhVcity’oliiceVirdlvrbiflr^^ thiJd^Mond*?!?^®/Commission Meetings are^ held on the ...tlLVof "“*i “• P*-*”-* « «H .Ch.“ul.Sunlhii the Planning Commission and Council, if an applicant is authorized eoen^ meeting, please make arrangements to have an o,fi?j‘i?'t;!rih “u priSr"?rtgi*;^^trn,.‘° KM MTI iT/ll/M MICN Mt NMK^IN COUNIV MONRTY INFOMUTIOH SVSTtM mOKRTY OMKRS LIST RCMRT NO. N4SM0& RMt tl •7>U7-0 M 0001 70RIST UKI IMDINO TMMVIR 0 I i«RIR 0 R N UMi oMv L OMUR nm RntCC* H UMi 444S rORUT LMU UNBINO hound m um so 07-117>tS M 0011 01000 NILONURST TR OIMC f OINSON OIMK I RiNSON 1060 MLDHURST TRAIL HOUND m SSSOl SO 07-117-tS to OOID 044A0 FORtST LAKi LANDINO 0 A N OViNDOi OLi a NfLiN OYtRDOi 44M FOREST LARS LANDIHn HOUND Ml SSS04 TANMVIR NANi/AOBR SO 07*117-tS M 0010 040S0 FORIST LARI LANDINO OLS OfVSNDOl ITAL 0 OVIRDOt 40SO FORIST LARI UMDINOS HOUND m DSSOO SO 07-I17-ES to 0017 00440 FORIST LARI LANDINO JOMI I LACRIV a MFI DANIIL C NALNSLIY 4440 FORIST LARI LANDINO HOUND Ml BBS04 SO 07-I17>tS 14 OOU 0447S FORtST LARI LANDINO RAY 0 NURLIV RAY DONALD NURLIY 447S FORIST LARI LAHDINB HOUND Ml SSS04 TAMDAVIR SO 07-1I7-BS to OOtO 0447S FORIST LARI LANDINO RAY 0 NURLIV RAY D NURLIV 447S FORUT LARI LANDIND HOUND Ml ISS04 30 *7-IS7-tS to 00S7 044BB FORIST LARI LANDIND S I fVATT a R N RYATT S I RYATT a R N RVATT OOU FORIST LARI LANDIND HOUND Ml SUaO SO 07-117-tS to OOU oooas FOREST LARI LANDIND R a R RITERS RAVHOM N RITIRS 444S FOREST LARI LANDIND HOUND Ml US44 4 n 07-II7-U to 04470 FORUT LARI LANDIND JULU RMALL NNSTNIV JUUA RMALL MOTIOnr 4470 FORUT LARI LANDM US44 M 07>II7-tS to 0041 04430 FORIST LARI LANDINO L L VOIT a J R VOIT LOUn L VOIT 4490 FOREST LARI LANDINO HOUND Ml USA4 07-I17-tS to 004t FORUT LARI LANDIND JUDSON C a FRAHCHII R R06ERS JUOSON C a FRINCNII R ROOfRS 4400 FOREST LARI LANDM HouK Ml suao TAMDAVra 1 M D7>117-n to 0IIS4 NILINURSr TR SAVIt N RAMI DAVID N RAMI 1134 NILONURST TR SS344 9 f TOTAL OATCN OOS OOOIS ) X . .'i V • # • • %(5^ ! 3 a > aJ 3 • •• 2 y*a •* 2 ___LilA______ y* ” C^**) \iii-is .. • k •••«.. .* .»• .. .1 • •• ••. , »• .« »*.* I • •• • .,-*<4 ;jr»,| {. J City of ORONO Cl r Y RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2694________ ORONO A RBSOLOTZOa GRJURXTC VARZAaCBS 10 MonczpAL soanc cods sscnom 10.22, subdivzsiobs 1 t 2 FILS #1432 aHBSBAS, Julia K. Hhitnay (hereinafter "the applicMt") is the o*mer of the property located at 4470 Forest Lake Landing within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1472, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property*); and WHBSBAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Suodivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction of an addition to the existing residence, requiring a variance to allow encroachment past the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is noraally allowed, and a variance to allow hardcover in excess of the 25» hardcover normally allowed in the 75"*250' lakeshore setback zone. BOW, TBBRBFORB, BB I* BBSOLVBD by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FXHDIB6S 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1432. 2. The property is located in the LR**1B Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Connaission reviewed this application on August 21, 1989, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) The entire existing house encroaches the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed addition is at the opposite end of the house from the lake, and will not extend the house closer to the lake than what currently exists. No significant lake views enjoyed by neighboring property owners will be encroached upon by the proposed addition to the residence. Page 1 of 5 1 City of ORONO CIT V RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2694 ORONO B) Existing hardcover in the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone is 0%. Existing hardcover in the 75-250* lakeshore setback zone is 33.8%. As a result of the proposed addition and driveway reconstruction# harde[cover in the 75-250* zone will decrease to 31.7%# a decrease of 309 square feet. The decrease in hardcover is considered a benefit to the property and to the neighborhood in general# as well as being beneficial to Lake Minnetonka. Due to the topography and configuration of the property and neighboring properties to the north# the driveways which comprise a substantial portion of the 31.7% hardcover to remain is necessary to maintain access to the property. 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 effect of the proposed variances on the health# safety and welfare of the community. 5* The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions# light# air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant# but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. COnCLOSIOES# ORDER AHD COHDZTIOBS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above# the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22# Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction of an addition to the existing residence# granting a variance for encroachment past the average lakeshore setback line '^^•re no encroachment is normally allowed# and granting a to allow 31.7% hardcover in the 75-250* zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed# subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 11 4% k- ii City o£ ORONO CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2694________ ORCNO 1. Bardcover on the property ehall be allowed as followst 0-75* zone ■ no hardcover 75-250* zone: Bouse + Addition * Garage ■ j^og run > Decksr stairs, stoops, landscaping, sidewalks, etc. Driveway « Total (area in 75-250* zone - 14,801 1,059 s.f. 550 s.f. 230 s.f. > 622 s.f. 2.238 s.f. 4,699 s.f. or 31.7% .f.) 2. The property owner is advised that any future proposals to increase hardcover on the property will not be approved, however, any future proposal to increase hardcover on the property night be approved only in conjunction with concurrent renovals of existing hardcover, resulting in no net increase in hardcover percentage on the property. 3. Applicant shall adhere to the site plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building Permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 11, 1990). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation or the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 I City of OROIVO (.1 I Y resolution of the city council NO. 2694________ ORONO Kinn«ot. 1989. rothy Hall V i-* Vl«-«**^p^*^00 rty Owner(a) IProperty ^ATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) as. The foregoing inetnanent was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of September, 1989, by James R. Grabek 6 Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor £ City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. My Commission icsomn ’"iSww'coSST *»y '■Uilill'8? Page 4 of 5 & s 40 4 •» H I ‘ •j .i — -^Wm~ ' T* * ^i^ ni *vi tw f s^Kr^f^ orojoimms^ccNCfirnJAL^ &7 K.KCCXfOR Ir"! I • I I HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 6. O ther ^ rv-Mrj 0 TataiTotal Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone S 4|ij SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' Existing Hardcover in Zone 250-500' 500-1000' • • A. House _• X _ ■ *%LENGTH WIDTH • X S.P. X ■ • • •• X ■fi. p. X ■S.P. B. Garage X S.P. c. Drweway • X -S.P. X - •m • • S.P. • 0.. Sidewalk X «S.P. •X »S.P. X «S.P.o•UlX • .S.P. F.Landscape X S.P.AREAS underlainBY ,X «S.P.plastic SHEETING• • « X ■ • S.P. •X » • S.F. S.P. ^ 9 S,F. ITI S.F. & 100 - % • • » i rrfi«»sr NOCfH • :c ^ • V A* V ^ # ' ’.-■*» ■■■■V V ^ '‘l‘ ■ !^^i - .'f.,"4 •> l-T.3THE KIM WHnNETKESV »;=»?l» = rAT i-llOTOESr iAKEXAKIOMC :~ :OWOWO|MMS52<,l/mL>TO/£8B8a»l*THASE-: lom. COMCEmMLJn/M il$> .SDUW T aaiHiga-'.- • • • • •■/f COKIcmULlTLAW / ^CWC0l^,Xl£A , . - —— •— ■ * * *'• • . *. i Vos Mayor Grabek c Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bemhardson /O. Oatos Snbjoets Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building c Zoning Administrator January 8, 1990 PMT^iJMIlfc Ordliuuio# ~ Section 10.28» Subdivision 3 fA) - The Ar«- pA>t>e?t?^*h Schneider, the new owner of the applied for a conditional use permit for the Th! city aStrotid*"property fir school use. . a lot line rearrangement of the original properties on the 12th of June, 1989. ^ The acres. ^ consists of 25,440 square feet or ,583 Uat of Bshlbits Exhibit A ~ Application ® ■ Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Resolution #2639 « " Survey of Existing Use Exhibit P - Survey of Proposed Improvements when Single Family Residential Use Is Installed on Property of Current Application — citv*f«*l”f* Center have applied to the "®® P®*^"«it for the continued aS3Jf?«nf? ^^® facility and grounds. No reou»ii-°"*e4. ^"lP^®'^®®onts or changes are proposed with this «riic«ioi ?* JhV\nVMoS;x b. b...d on I 1 Zoning File #1487 January 8, 1990 Page 2 of 2 2. Status of current developer's agreement and security. A condition of the lot line rearrangement also Included the execution of a developer's agreement and supportive security to assure that the improvements required for single family residential use of the property were installed. If a conditional use permit is granted, approval must provide notice to both the Art Center and Mr. Schneider, the current owner, and any future owner that prior to the City issuing a building permit for single family use of the property, the Art Center must re-execute a developer's agreement and submit appropriate security to Insure the required site Improvements originally established in the review of application #1397 are installed. Options of Action - 1. Denial. If Planning Commission denies the conditional use permit, please refer to Section 10.09, Subdivision 6 (A). 2. Approval. If approved. Planning Commission may wish to consider one or more of the following findings: A) The structure has existed on the property without neqative impact on the surrounding adjacent residential neighborhood. B) No other changes are proposed on the site or within the structure as a result of this new request. C) The use is consistent with the Intent of the Zoning Code and Orono Comprehensive Plan. Approval should be subject to the following conditions: 1. The school structure must be connected to municipal sewer by March 15, 1990. 2. Prior to the City issuing a building permit for the renovation to single family residential use of the structure, the Art Center of Minnesota must submit a newly executed developer's agreement and post an acceptable security to the City to ensure the required site Improvements established in the review of Application #1397 are installed. At the time of the conversion, if the Art Center no longer holds any interest in the adjacent property, the current o%mer of 2180 North Shore Drive will be responsible for site improvements. Mr. Schneider may be best advised to work out a separate agreement with the Art Center to safe-guard his Interest in this matter. At any rate, it must be made clear to both parties that if single family use is to be installed, that either one or the other will be held responsible for the installation of the Improvements by the City of Orono. • • ^m'l «■ a ii .•* ^- / i '} (^ ^ "7 f I CITY OF ORONO ^ GENERAL LAND USB APPLICATION —I, Mii <^m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm < PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^I0Q M» SHogC. M<uc SCU do «> t : umw 01 a' Jv.‘ Property Identification Number (P«I»P»)3B ~0P6.S ;:?•••?, Please attach legal description to application if not Included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) IfcSl Name SCHKJLiDt*? lAer CT/L MhJ Phone (worJt)6r2.* ^7^’- - - - - - V Address )2.3^\j|uefTe<CltV UsjtH"2JfTA Zlo SS*2^{ ONNER (if different than applicant) Name ^AATH Phone (home) (6^1 \ Address (^^S*Citv Zlo SS^i Date Prooertv Acouired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. 1 FEBS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS > Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After*the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee $ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application $125.00 Residential accessory Use $150.00 Institutional (churchy school^ etc.) _ _ $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _ _ $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _ $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling ~ designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading^ seawall» retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule 0TB APPLICATIONS _ _ _ $200.00 $250.00 $175.00 _ _ _ $ 50.00 _ _ _ $250.00 _ _ _ $100.00 Commercial Site Plan Review {* consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation With Subdivision Rezonlng (PUD - refer to fee schedule) Appeals Other - see fee schedule 1' raSSEMT OSB OP PROPBRTy Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify)i DSSCRIPTZOH OP RBQ0B8T Describe request in details X* tNUSw *n:> rt-x ^rs.-n 7^e<v<tfr ‘ TV4^T~ "X^ C<^fcgXvrg,*< app’iir.'s Tbg. iiS.5:- Bw Tut- yvnooycimA _________ Pe/>Pf^^rC< Fi»<p 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. RBQUIRBD SDBNITTRLS 1. Completed Application Pom. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 346-3271). Plat Map. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. TOO ABB RBQUIRBD TO SUPPLY 30 COPIBS OP LAR6B OOCUNBHTS OR A IfORKXBG COPT (11* X 17* OR SNALLBR) POR ALL DOCUMBHTS SUBMITTED. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your appl'^'^ation is not complete if the above infomatlon has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is cmplete. Initials of Clerical Staff:._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICABT'S SIGRATURB The applicant hereby agrees to provide all i^^fermation required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this applies is true and correct to ih Applicant's signature certifies that the f )his/her )cnowled< infomatlon supplied Acr^e..c^f*u>i\ Date * ONHBRS SIOATURB The owner hereby acJcnowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission nm^nlferd^ and Council members for purposes of investigation and vqr^figi^iipq of this request. Owner's signature J j7 " V_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date < ^ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please ma)ce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building i Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Mi MTI U/U/B9 MTCN 001 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORIUnON SYSTEH PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. P143540I PAGE 2 OMCR NINE TAKPAYIR mm/HM TOTAL BATCH 001 oooia I'-;.. • I- '* r» . » ■>» X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS I •*r • • T ■- V i M s-i ji. i..«-»-1 ifr.• %S 0^ ■Q i \ > \ f % iUN DATE ima/if DATCH 001 NENNIPIN coukty property xnforhation system PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35A01 PAGE I 1 OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AODR OtCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR CMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR rtCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 56 10-117-25 21 0004 00010 ADORESS UNASSXGNED NEO INC ET AL NEO INC 1212 E NAYZATA BLVO NAYZATA HN B5591 18 10-117-21 11 0018 02170 PROSPECT AVE BOBBY 0 JOHNSON 8 NIFE BOBBY 0 JOHNSON BOX 121 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 38 10-117-23 31 0019 02180 PROSPECT AVE FREDERICK N CURTIS FREDERICK H CURTIS P O BOX 556 FEDHAVEN FL 31654 18 10-117-21 11 0051 01115 ARBOR ST BARBARA J GARCIA BARBARA J GARCIA 1115 ARBOR ST NAYZATA m 55191 38 10-117-23 31 0052 01355 ARBOR ST G C PETERSON A J H PETERSON GREGORY A JULXANNE PETERSON 1355 ARBOR ST NAYZATA HN 55191 38 10-117-23 11 0051 01360 BRIAR ST S B BELT ETAL MABEL H BELT BOX 162 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55321 18 10-117-21 11 0054 01165 ARBOR ST J E SUTHERLAND A J GUNXON J E SUTHERLAND 4845 MAIN ST E MAPLE PLAIN m 55359 38 10-117-21 11 0055 01185 ARBOR ST ENRIQUE A LIBATIQUE ETAL ENRIGUE LIBATIQUE 1385 ARBOR ST NAYZATA HN 55191 18 10-117-21 11 0056 02140 NORTH SHORE DR DORIS 1 EISENKRAHER DORIS X EXSEIKRAMER 2140 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA HN 55191 18 10-117-21 31 0057 01315 BRIAR ST HERBERT A SHEPHERD ETAL HERBERT A SHEPHERD 1115 BRIAR ST NAYZATA HN 55191 18 10-117-21 11 0058 02195 PROSPECT AVE BRIAN L GAfflON PAUL L1N0BER6 2195 PROSPECT AVE NAYZATA HN 55391 33 10-117-21 11 0059 01355 BRIAR ST HTKA CTR OF ARTS A EDUCATION HTKA CTR OF ARTS A EDUCATION P O BOX 158 CRYSTAL BAY m 55323 18 10-117-21 31 0060 00018 ADDRESS IMASSXGNEO NIKA CTR OF ARTS A EDUCATION NTKA CTR OP ARTS A EDUCATION P O BOX 158 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55121 18 10-117-21 11 0061 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HTKA CTR OF ARTS A EDUCATION HTKA CTR OF ARTS A EDUCATION P O BOX 158 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 18 10-117-21 11 0062 00018 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HTKA CTR OF ARTS A EDUCATION HTKA CTR OF ARTS A EDUCATION P 0 BOX 158 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 38 10-117-21 11 0061 02180 NORTH SHORE DR HTKA CTR OF ARTS A EDUCATION HTKA CTR OF ARTS A EDUCATION P 0 BOX 158 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55321 18 10-117-23 32 0001 02240 NORTH SHORE OR HTKA CTR OF ARTS A EDUCATION HTKA CTR OF ARTS A EDUCATION P 0 BOX 158 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 38 10-117-21 11 0002 02265 NORTH SHORE DR KINGSLEY H NURPHY JR KINGSLEY H MURPHY JR 2265 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA HN 55391 • r li-• > • « CITY OF ORONO City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2639 _A RBSOLOTIOII APPROVING A MBTBS AND BOORDS SOBDIVISZOa A Wt LIMB RBARRABGBMBHT PGR PROPBRTIBS LOCAIBD AT 2180/2240 NORTH 8B0RB DRIVB FILB NO. 1397 Orono is a municipal corporation and*”^ ^ ^ existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; ^**® Council of the City of Orono Council") has adopted subdivision regulations City; and*^^**^^^' economic and safe development of land within the ’•HARAASr the City Council has considered the • subdivision of a lot line rearrangement by the of Minnesota (hereinafter "the subdivider-) of properties legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and rsf WHraRAS^ the subdivider has completed all requirements or the City for a metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for division and combination purposes# of ch# ®*w” absolved , that the City Council dlvl^fftn hereby approves the metes and bounds ^ K ^^"® »^««*^J^«n9ement for the Art Center of ** shown on the Certificate of Survey by Paul A. 1989 “aSd°fttreh2^®; *®®®i Associates, Inc. revised May 23, conditional^ ^ resolution, subject to the following ll «PPf?val of this subdivision by the City Council, co^lnatlin^f «PPly to the City for the legal 4 for tax purposes of the following properties as *^^® referenced survey of the metes and ounds division of the lot line rearrangement: Parcel A to be combined with Parcel B Parcel c to be combined with Parcel D Page 1 of 3 K-P Properties, Inc, REAt ESTATE DEVELOPMENT • MANAGEMENT 3048 North Shore Drive • Wayzau. Minnesota S539I • 6I2-47I<0508 December 21, 1989 Dean Mavis Planning Director City Of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 J'f H "1 (K Dear Ms. Mavis; Enclosed is a copy of the sketch plan for a lot rearrangement of lots 1 S 2, Block 1, North Arm Estates Second Addition which is 340 and 350 North Arm Lane respectively. Also enclosed is an application for such lot line rearrangement and a check for the application fee. A site evaluation for septic systems on these lots is also enclosed with this application. This eval uation was prepared by S-P Testing Inc. We are requesting this lot line rearrangement of these two leg ally platted building lots because of problems involved with on site septic systems. Work has been performed by others on a portion of both sites which renders a large part of the lots marginal for septic systems. The remaining portions of the lots consists of slopes from 2X to over 15% grades and in order to obtain septic systems which meet required codes we need to rearrange lot lines to accomplish this. K-P Properties, Inc. has purchase agreements for both lots which enables us to ac complish this lot rearrangement. If this application is rejected by the city K-P Properties, will exerc’se its right to cancel the purchase agreement for lot 1, block 1, North Arm Estates Second Addition. We have contacted the property owners at 4590 North Arm Drive and 215 North Arm Lane and both are interested in subdividing their property at some future time. This will enable the city to acquire additional right of way beyond the present 33 feet which was taken from the east side of the street. We will continue to work with these adjacent property owners towards the subdivision of their land. We are submitting this application now because we have control of both sites at this time which can benefit lot 1. Please submit this application for review by the planning commission at their earliest meeting in 1990. Sincerely: Donald R. Peterson, president 1 f 4 f. 'I h. c. CITY OF ORONO 4 CITY of ORONO P«Mt Ofli€» Bra «6*CryM^ Bay, Mianawta S6323*Maakipal OOcra On the North Shore of Lahe Minnetonka ;; -¥./* •n it 4--.V« .A .y -i* December 14, 1989 TO WHOM IT KAY CONCERN: The City of Orono has used and kept in repair and worked that certain road commonly known as North Arm Lane, legally described as the East 33 feet of the West 313 feet of the South 854.5 feet of the Southeast One Quarter of the Northwest One Quarter of Section 6, Township 117, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, identified as Property I.D. No, 06-117-23-24-0003, continuously for more than the past six years as a.public highway to the extent that it has become dedicated as a public road pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Annotated Section 160.05. lit A. ^y-tTL ^ 'John R. Gerhardson Public Works Director ■tUMNC a ZONING - 4T3.735T A»ESSINC ADMINISnUTION « RNANCE • 4T3.79» rAX-47)45M PISUC «t)BKS • 473.739* i:s. I • ■ 'iHri TOS Rod Backerud Frais Michael P. 6a££ron» Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator Date:November 23, 1987 Subject: Proposed Gradln^^t 350 North Arm Lane Based on the Hennepin County Soil Survey Maps, the soils at the site o£ your proposed grading project are* generally only suitable £or mound-type drain£ields when undisturbed. There is an extremely high likelyhood o£ compaction and smearing o£ clay soils on the site with a project o£ this magnitude, as well as disruption or destruction o£ the natural root and worm channels and the natural internal fracture system in the topsoil. The resultant hydraulic capabilities in relation to suitability for septic systems will likely be much poorer, and less predictable. For these reasons, septic systems are generally not allowed on disturbed soils. This is common knowledge throughout the on-site sewage treatment industry and was not an issue in your current dredging/spoil disposal application until a potential buyer of the property requested subdivision Information., I Pm ♦ 4%'^-W- • •• • ?v..> • • 4#t.M • ■4^ (i40O) 200 .»• *1 ^Sv north arm ' ESTATES «| T9«? gg ISECOND .AOOITIOH •« ./^-- t29.6T M I iSSJO , (w) n • % • • •* NORTHesTAres ^ 38510 !• "* ..» ----- :j|[g 4PA -Of " § 4:5. ^5 ~©R : ,^<NORTH . ARM •» ESTATES*, i" W " « • • •«••••••2£SB.n J^9.: •• 4 • * ■• ....-•^ • • *“*;“*.r -J--■■• ••••• •* • V % « • .1. •. » • •• A •««* * • • « . I . • • • I ; ■ •.i - s ••i •••• •#;\%’ •* •. • * • *. rnin^s-.^. cicv OF aRaN.c» City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FILE NO. Mfil_________ RESOLUTION #2302 North Arm Es^te* Association Victoria Estates Association It A J-Xjy. f yX.. \ I CITY I OF KQRONa City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FILE NO. t I € 7_______ RESOLUTION #2302 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) bSforVme a Notary PubllS and for Taid tSrp*»on(.)^'^i^a in'Tnd who .x.cu-t.d th. for.golng iS.trament.'and acknowledged that he (they) executed the sane as his (their) free act and deed. day of 198^ ARY TUBLIC /- JT- MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) on this _ _ _ _ day o£198_, before me %TO f ^ It. _ _ _jvaaww*. •-w —— person(s) described 7n and who executed the Snd acknowledged that he (they) executed the a.»e a. hi. (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLICc4r^NOTARY PUB /-F-9/ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES H Tbs Street Pile “ 350 North Arm Lane Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning t Zoning Administrator Date:December 1# 1987 Subject: Phone conversation with Paul Larson on November 30» 1987 I had a phone conversation yesterday with Paul Larson the realtor for the above referenced property which was intended to be purchased by Alice Fowler» etal. Larson noted that he feels there are suitable septic sites on the property that will not be disturbed by the proposed grading work on the property. I told him that septic testing would obviously be needed to verify the location and the suitability of septic sites and I gave him the names of septic site evaluators. I also told him that while it might be feasible to still place houses in the area of grading once the final grading and 2 feet of fill is placed, it would still be impossible to use any disturbed areas for septic systems. I also suggested strongly to him that if testing does find suitable sites, they should be securely fenced off to Insure that no grading equipment or traffic disrupts them. In no way did I guarantee that the property was subdividable or that we would accept drainfield sites without testing or that had been disturbed. 3 Jr- ........... f.:^' V ' ' ■ - ■•.:■•/ Vi m: •-,.\ - e. W: !i _ -• «SSW;:>SjSC>.-.Vi- .pi. ..m :-wi:.-,- --•v»»« ^-. : S' J*>»te.:a. mm PLAT OF SURVEY FOR; LECY CONSTRUCTION TRACT B. R.L.S. NO. «17 .A, 1 1 Pm^^U.0 Cl.l¥*T*0*l« COMPflT W\,OC» Most JAWAOC rL(X» 9M9I tgrOF fOUNDAfign • cawnito^^A Kmfmrn% ^1479 Se^ _ y> I tasroby »rlify tiMt tt**s survey WM pr«|Mr«d by ■■ «r w(Hl»r My tw«wrviswn and Ibat I MR • «u»y raytsSarad land aar^yar axdar mwnasati ItMuta* »ac^ )!• II to »« t« ■ t Aaa^tratiaa >to. WT: ^'*4^ '■-■'jm : ■>.;'s: i r-.> ii 7 t mm •» lOTMrt U mm frm >«r>«M •a 'Mt mm tt» mrmmmrtf mr txal • t ■» ai« If lHar* it tmt ••t) m*Ml IMnM M rMtuiM U t tM* t«K^» JQ -?0 IrW • S'*" @ yo frz\ 4 X ' Sor (Q^,T>^z-i *iBr /jD » /if ^ »VC- *1 V *»> Wr IRM tM. if '•* It filM M. ^ z *i(m ’ IBft 0 >1»« • |10 Q> (J) nxx2.t»*fK> X a HJ roifC. V»-*>^ a )ffo «■ feo- 0qx’»ua.s/t.*a'5r (5) (\ y ^ ^ (i J**! ^ I * M9 >*n r*- //yVv * AnMt MiarkM " (»irt »rt ’ mrm ■ndarlai* by plattic ti'Mfm^. M y T /t ' <® *7x11/1. » r’-^o* fty»4flN0« SHOWN ARC A55UMC0 6*5 JOB NO BBICC liiifir £ *^SS2—LluJ 1 wmiL • '“■'n yz' \ '/1• /•->l: iijiSn i: ii iiiiii V^':|^CT# fc FOX BEND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 4-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA 143G .&-r- • • M k4<C ««• ruit »iPt L6t ft. miTM i it9. CMMAciftf It t%* t.affi«r «f i€t tl. in ftutfltnr't twfrtfiiitiun fliMnMti. tn*nc« y« \h4 li«« •.«)4 i^t l;. |»7 »n»l, W«tn t« « »«int in 'n« .awtn iin# d* «ai4 L^t 9?. ttt '••t •*»! •* th* >^iurn«nst <e»n«r of i ot I1 in t«:4 Am4i tn«^ » S»»4i.iunn ^}9. l^iKt l«tt •{•nf i«i4 tnvt*) iiM t« th# Snut^wnv- <*rN«r »f %«i4 lat 13. iham* 9ofin IM M«t linn <>r k«(4 i«t II tn tn« tornnr •* f«i•14 i - ... . II U tM c»fft«r «f »«id i«t )l, in«4c* Mrtn !•«! iiM •' t«i4 L«t II (• Mint •••innmt- II. tn«nc« l«%t IM 1 in« «f i«t4 i*t ft. i«t If. Pinn«ioT« ••«(. • •rt •nn«|iip C«<* p>»«4 «i CMMncinf «t « »iint m tnt tortn liM *f i«t If. 4«i4iMr s S«Mt*Jtie« fM ♦••nnttJN t»*nty. •iin#to».4. ?ff f#nl tn« 4«ftn*«it :«fn#r !n#r«s*. tn««ct MU nn said Mrih !in« • <list«n<« • I fl7 tn«nc« tn«tn a Mini in m« S•«t4 lin« said Lot if. «|0 f»«t vtst 9f tM SowtnMsl cnfiM' ftf lat II in tai4 •MfitM's IwMivisian twatar fl« CtMtf (■i»«*i4ta. tMncn fait n« laid Mvtn 11 n« 9* tai4 l«t If, f|7 fMt. tn#n<« ••P.t tn tM Mint af Mfinninf. NVriir«*«( kVl 9*. 1 »« •n tM M«l iiM »f tali lat t» IM MvlMnsi rn said Lot. tMN'« fast »• tn« V««tn iiM af i«ii • Mint in said *.n lin« «ti «a*t Mi* •* tM rna MPtMas*. •.nfm '' tMraof ; tMnca Mtt an tai4 Mrtn JiM t?i tM Mi’tn«ait cafn«r «f |«|« Lai If. tMnia ^natn r. #FMf L«i ta aat Ml* a^ tM SavtlMit C'lrMF 9f L9t D.in said Auiitar s t.«»4iiisia« MM«r fM. Mnnaam CaiMity. •mnasata. tMnca Metis tr> t*»a a«mt af aafinaiNf. ticaat tM Mat's fft f^t a' tM last IM *Mt tMraa^. tM taainwait cornaf a* i»t If Mt»f napaai Iji ;^ici4i lanMaPl. A«iitr>f- s VwMivisian MMar IM. MAMain •inn«aat4. a'CvfiiM ta tM fiat tM^a#* an Mia ar «f racoFi in tna a^tica af tM pa«iii«r •* >a»tl in a«4 far «ai4 Caantf. If 11 laftMaa and !••# >aaf«f#f tata af ffiMatata •f»la i aMaiiaa. lac. aMva tM la«a «ara &. mi. iu. m. iffM COFFM a 6R0NBERG. INC. EWGaCEnS. LAND SUnvEYORS AND PLANNERS LONC lake . mNI«:SOTA Scele 1 Inch •> SO feet 0«t«n-27-89 0 Iron Marker OatM Roan sea level - - >M- -talstii.g contourr»* •)Eilsting elevation Fropoitd contour COFFIN > liNOlIttHti. IRC. Engineer'., t rntf ‘-aree*'f> enJ f'l^nrt' s Long leL> inf. te 4 mmm av mtmt If TtM p,tL I • j. DiM aMtiMi fl4M »«•••« ftfMr* 0»99l9pm9mt Cmrp., Mvi««d Fr«liBiMry ••Mlvislan r«felie RMiriAf ^«a. Wt9po^m4 AMuJMaitt * - toetlM l€.ia, tuMliriviMi } • - IO.ei« 14 (C) •A«« hptmppp i, •14IT 4. I144* ». 414T4 4. 414T> 1. •14T» I. U4T» f. 41447 14. 41443 a. 41444 11. 41447 14. riAwilKf Cm Cm4itxmrnMi Um 4«nut • Zmm%xmrnmtxm mt r«4Ue ■—rtaf wmmmt NeD««*«l 1 r 4049. 4149 4 4139 B«y«14« mmmm - trslittiMry 4«bdivi«iwi - mf 4«4114 ■••riiif OM4 VMi Char Uf X99tmm 4»»rwl mi II. riaania^ tnii.asiM t« Mlaat • rmptmmmmxmtimm tm rnttmrnm tim PmmtmmMf U. iOM MMil