The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-21-1990 Planning Packets 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MBBTING MONDAY, MAY 21, 1990 7:00 P.M. 1275 BROMN ROAD SOOTB - COONCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - J. Diann Goetten ATTENDANCE PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 p.m. #1521 Almond Kreb, 115 Old Crystal Bay Road No - Prexlmlnary Subdivision 2. 7:15 p.m. #1528 Constance M. Scott, 2300 Longview Circle - Preliminary Subdivision 3. 7:30 p.m. #1531 Carol Ke.lly, 3020 Casco Point Road - Preliminary Subdivision 4. 8:30 p.m. #1532 Fullerton Properties, Inc., 2225 Sixth Avenue North - Preliminary Subdivision 5. 9>00 p... 3765 Watertown Poad - *ch”uled”puS!ic®h«rln|l/'’'°* commence between 6. #1502 7. #1516 8. #1510 9. #1513 10. #1522 11. #1523 12. #1524 13. #1525 14. #1527 Michael Hilbelink, 2180 Prospect Avenue - Variance - Referred Back to Planning Commission by Council ^ Whitney McMillan, 156Q Pox Street - Subdivision — Continuation of Public Hearing Richard W. Brown, 2685 Shadywood Road - Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing Walter Krahl, 4775 North Shore Drive - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing James & JoAnn Nordlie, 2505 Dunwoody Avenue “• Variances - Public Hearing Rolla Martin, 2675 Shadywood Road - Variance - Public Hearing Trinity Pre-school, 2060 Sixth Avenue North - conditional Use Permit — Public Hearing William & Joan Wroblewski, 630 Park Lane - Variance - Public Hearing Lyndon S. Bill Stubbs, 2555 Pox Street — Variance - Public Hearing PLANNING COMMISSION MBBTING MONDAY, MAY 21, 1990 7:00 P.M. ACTION ITEMS CONTIN1 15. #1529 John B. Thiesse, 3845 Bayside Road - Variances - Public Hearing 16. #1534 Holland Amundson, 3135 Casco Circle - Variance - Public Hearing 17. #1334 Rebers Construction, Sugar Woods Plat Reconsideration of Allowed Hardcover within Front/Street Setback Area SKETCH PLAN RBVIEff 18. #1526 Landstar Inc., 3150 Shadywood Road - Sketch Plan of a 10-Lot Subdivision 19. #1533 Richard & Julie Marklund, 3415 High Lane Sketch Plan of a 2-Lot Subdivision ADDITIONAL ITEMS LVo^MietiSg"^^®®^®” Approval of Minutes of April 16 r 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: Subject: May 15, 1990 #1521 A1 Kreb, 115 Old Crystal Bay Rd. No. Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Application: Subdivision of 3-Lot Plat, Class 3, Division - Original proposal reviewed under Application #1289 - Robert and Ann Will. Access issues remain the key issue for this review. Total area ® 8.04 acres. Lot 1, Block i Lot 1, Block 2 Lot 2, Block 2 2.53 acres dry buildable 2.50 acres dry buildable 2.51 acres dry buildable List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List - Plat Map - City Attorney's Opinion - Ordinance 77, Second Series - Rolling Meadows Second Edition - Site Plan - Private Driveway Outlot/Septic Mapping, Lot 1, Block 2 Exhibit H - Map Proposed North/South, East/West Roads Exhibit I - Council Minutes 12/11/89 Exhibit J - Preliminary Plans Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit C D E F G Review of Current Application - The former applicant was unable to negotiate a sale of the property. The property has a new owner. Mr. Kreb is the formal representative of that new owner. As in the original plan, all three lots will achieve permanent access from the extension of Wear Lane North. Staff recommends that a 25' driveway outlot be provided along either the north or the south boundary. At the Council meeting of December 11th, both Council and original applicant reaffirmed that the driveway outlot along the north border of Lot 1, Block >. would provide the least impact on existing plantings. Staff has also been advised by the new owner that the applicant, Mr. Kreb, will reside in the existing residence until that lot is sold for new residential construction. ' ? • \ Zoning File #1521 May 15, 1990 Page 2 of 4 The owner has asked that the existing access to the current residence serve as temporary access during that period of time. A permanent access is to be provided by the 25' outlet along the northern border. The City will ask for additional septic testing to confirm suitable area to the south of existing septic test sites within Lot 1, Block 2. (Review Exhibit G - note encroachment of road upon septic test area.) Please review Exhibits H and J. Cook's report asks that the City consider taking a 25' driveway outlet along the southern border of Lot 1, Block 1 providing access to the Avery Stubbs property at the west boundary. This request has been made in order to minimize the impact upon the wetlands located at the midpoint of the Stubbs property. This issue was not addressed by the Planning Commission at the earlier review. Please review Exhibits D and E. Based on the City Attorney's opinion, the City has adopted Ordinance 77 providing further clarification regarding the City's right to allow adjacent land owners to achieve access via private roads where the City has underlying easments. At the Planning Commission's November meeting, we granted approval of the 3-lot preliminary plat, specifically, recommending that Wear Lane North and the extension of Wear Lane North be defined as a public road to be maintained by the City of Orono upon satisfactory completion of that roadway. In light of recent directives received from both the Planning Commission and Council at a joint meeting earlier this year concerning private vs. public roads, members agreed to delay on a policy change due to the potential financial burden placed upon the City if the City was suddenly required to accept all current private roadways for public maintenance. The City Attorney opines that the City could require existing private roads with underlying public easements to be used by adjacent property owners for access and that these roadways could remain private and maintained under private covenants. issues To Be Resolved For this Review 1. Access to Lot 2, Block 2 - Permanent access shall be proposed via a 25' outlet along the north corridor of Lot 1, Block 2. Applicant asked that a temporary access be allowed via the exxe^inq driveway serving the current residence. At the time lot la sold for residential development the new access would Le via the private driveway outlet. Is the temporary use of the i .> 1 Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom; Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: May 15, 1990 Subject: #1521 Al Kreb, 115 Old Crystal Bay Rd. No. - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Application: Subdivision of 3-Lot Plat, Class 3, Division Original proposal reviewed under Application #1289 - Robert and Ann Will. Access issues remain the key issue for thxs review. Total area 8.04 acres. Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 1, Block 2 Lot 2, Block 2 2.53 acres dry buildable 2.50 acres dry buildable 2.51 acres dry buildable List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - City Attorney's Opinion Exhibit E - Ordinance 77, Second Series Exhibit F - Rolling Meadows Second Edition Exhibit G - Site Plan - Private Driveway Outlot/Septic Mapping, Lot 1, Block 2 ^ ^ Exhibit H - Map Proposed North/South, East/West Roads Exhibit I - Council Minutes 12/11/89 Exhibit J - Preliminary Plans Review of Current Application - The former applicant was unable to negotiate a sale of the property. The property has a new owner. Mr. Kreb is the formal representative of that new owner. As in the original plan, all three lots will achieve permanent access from the extension of Wear Lane North. Staff recommends that a 25 driveway outlot be provided along either the north of south boundary. At the Council meeting of December 11th, both Council and original applicant reaffirmed that the driveway outlot along the north border of Lot 1, would provide the least impact on existing plantings. Starr has also been advised by the new owner that the Mr. Kreb, will reside in the existing residence until that lot is sold for new residential construction. Zoning File #1521 May 15, 1990 Page 3 of 4 existing driveway a concern? Prior to scheduling the application before the Council for preliminary action, applicant must provide the additional septic testing required for Lot 1, Block 1. In preliminary discussions with on-site evaluator late last year, Mr. Shirmers confirmed that he saw no problem with expanding the existing septic area to the south. 2. Driveway outlet along Lot 1, Block 1 to serve Avery Stubbs property to west. This was an issue raised very late in the earlier review. It would appear there will be no impact on existing septic test sites for Lot 1, Block 1. Applicant to ^ast developing 16-lot plat was not asked to provide a driveway outlet to the Stubbs property. Is it reasonable to seek the access corridor from this property? Should an access corridor be provided through the property to the north? B. Options: A. Acquire with this subdivision Acquire at time of future subdivision of property to immediate north Avery Stubbs property be served by an interior road accessing from Watertown Road C. 3. Public road/public maintenance versus private road/private maintenance. Has the Planning Commission changed from its original position regarding the designation of Wear Lane North and its extension? Options: A. Private road/privately maintained B. Publicly ovmed/publicly maintained Op'tions of Action for 3—Lot Subdivision 1.Denial - If current proposal is to be denied, please cite the necessary findings for denial. Refer to Chapter 11. 2.Approval - If approved the following findings may be considered: A. All standards of the RR-IB zoning district, subdivision regulations and on-site septic code have been satisfied. B. Access plan for the property satisfies the intent of the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Zoning File #1521 May 15, 1990 Page 4 of 4 Approval based on the following conditions: A. Dedication of 33' of right-or~way for Old Road. Crystal Bay B. Payment of a Park Fee of $400.00 ($200.00 for each newly created lot). Application was received prior to May 1st deadline, effective date of new Park Dedication fee schedule. C. Prior to scheduling application before the Council, applicants on-site septic evaluator to provide additional septic testing for Lot 1, Block 1. In addition, septic test sites on Lot 1, Block 1 to be fenced off and protected at time private driveway is to be installed along northern boundary. D. Applicant shall be responsible for the extension of the road known as Wear Lane North to applicants northern border providing a temporary^ cul-de-sac as shown on revised preliminary plan. Applicant shall also be responsible for the removal of existing cul-de-sac within Wear Lane North. E. Applicant shall execute a developer's agreement and post a letter of credit ot 150% of the value of the improvements. F. Provide direction and recommendation concerning use of existing access serving Lot 2, Block 2 while current residence is in use. G. Depending upon resolve of issue of public vs. private road, if roadway is to remain private, applicant shall execute deed granting underlying road and utility easements over Outlot A and execute private road and maintenance covenants to assure that the future extension of the roadway is maintained by the benefiting properties. H. Planning Commissions's final determination regarding access to the property to the immediate west. Is it to be via this property? If so, a driveway outlot must be designated along the southern boundary of Lot 1, Block 1. Isv y^\ ' n ^ C j i! ■ CITY OF ORONO - SOBDIVISION | S ' - "• r--"---:--;;;;:----------1350200000 01 SH 360.00 1350200000PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address IViO-t 0 ^cL ^^V^9Vrt( property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 33- \ \-?-3.--M Please check cne - Property abstract or - - torrens? Attach legal description to application. 01 CE? 4.5? TOT/li . 1064 h APPLICANT Neune W. Phone (home) *4T?>-^*1 7^L>____ Phone (work) 799.^'yitr McOk/* vv 03/22.-' Address:3^5~ Ovtsv^o OcCvit^A ■ City: O'TCtopCZip; Phone (home) Su«.>-v-~ac<_ONNER (if different than applicant) Name L.owkWwAlz.z.< _______ Phone (work)--------------- Address: \<^^3C Co>v-'vk:oCity:SW^;tfA- - -Zip: 5'S ‘b~*>\__ (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels \ Development Size __ n.h Present Use (check) 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) \y^ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: ■ . Proposed Use: (check) \ 1 Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per ^W-Acres oOO Sq Feet Dry Bulldable Land Residential j. Other (specify)_ n MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY 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). As an addendum to this application^ please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 2. 3. 4. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1. 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. 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 Review (Class I, II S III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 250.00 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 additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature 4’/Date J^ Date Applicant must have all submittals into City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday cf 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. r.'V J * B I.♦M& si lAJ iHssoi.N> Kl _ K) & K N Ul UJ I H H» CO CO K SIS S3ni^ W O <0 <0 _ ^ ^rg o ca O < < M Z«o N> o oM o K or lo ^ a &M M K O Oo SIS Q. Q. « (/) UJa* M X CO ife o: K S lA f-( X UJ UJ M ^r _ Ui Ui M X SSSo^ CO tj lU Uj \ PKi o X X u S* ^ CO 10 M Ul U CO •O M eg K flC inm 0 rH O O ^ CK to M U ?5 S3rg 1 to Hi in tol^ CO to o a Q. M M ii sso. a (0 (0 ui ui (0 (0 M M« cr a a cc B UJ UJ UI UJ B B < Ui rg ^ X I n “> M < to ’/) «ito in (9 ca CO to N. M M in pzCM B B O o (j u eg 1 »H O Oo egoo Xu < o t- $ too UI K<on M o 0 X1 a eg A A A Z 1 h- A A ^ X A < > > A A B A rg X A A A V “°gsA L» )» A -i A O A A A ^ ««• A A A Q«^ggsi A O O O A ^ U z M B A Z Z Ui Uihi o ^ o o aO < rg t-> -4 «i < rg CO I- to to u X X >- eg t* t- < t O Ml M X 2^S55 ^rg I to to s o o CO ^ ^ ^ <»88“g M B B «H > O O < O CO CO rg X o B V < eg A o O -Io < A to > B to U eg t o rg o UI t- M 5S M Ml ii in to in in -J M I to to inrg rg to o to o UI UIu o ►g Ml ii SSiS B A < ^5 B U UJ O < si B O o Z S S JM \ Ao 0 to rg B 1 < S3 rg I to to A Ao Oo B B A UJ > > Ui UI rg rg A A S (9 Ui •• ^ X Q. U rgr r Arg Z A A t- A S| C" Si * O'oo 0 ^ B A rg U A eg B 1 < S3rg I A A A Srg O 0. CL rg rg X X A A B B B B < < Q. 0. A A A A A A rg M B B a CL B B A A ^ Z A A B B < < SS33 g> A B A < A g A Ml >y A Ml X -J o!NO. u n. -i B A O to •> oo & 0 «0 ^ BA Ml M U M Aeg B z 1 < A S33 IH A I B A O « X A eg A O B M Ml Z B A A S3 A A B O -0 z iUi I- Msa g» rg A <o M >0rg O A <a A rg 6 B O O< g B B B A B O IP S d A O O O ^ «J 0 5 -I ►- M A A X ^ > B A A U eg B 1 o A -I «• *H O rg ^ I u A rg A O X 2 X A O A O X M X K rg A A < O A X B - 2g «e Q Z > B Ai vg A > rg B A < rg _ X A U Ms)k)v‘>' I B memorandum TO: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator City of Orono FROM: RE: Thomas J. Barrett, City Attorney City of Orono ~ propertyRegulation of the use oe DATE:July 21, 1989 ISSU.i May the City of "”|J^roirwUhourmaki°g“the toadpuhlio passage on a private roao public? conclusion cimpel such eo=e« SSf Si^esota Supreme Court in Borchertwas interpreted by the Minnesota P^ 3,^ V. Village Qf North Qaics^, li^62). ri7t;rn5b3ION AND ANALYSIS ^ nrivate owners to allow May the city of Jad without making the road public passage on a private public? A.mhe City of_°r°n°J M^\L-r^nra:s-^ie^^ rxqnua ww - ander the terms of «n“haranJSSrt“op^^%hi1tiJa?r° may be able to live on the private toad or to al j^pje^hf «S?rSr?nsonably expected to use the roads. ^ K« »-h,i Citv C , who couia DB - -- n-nno XM.. exercising of the •“•-H^It’rLS^g^Senf ^laf JSe12?ni?Uf^r^S^pS-ation Plan of the City. D ' i The CMP provides that the purpose of the easements is to "ensure legal*access of the public tc the properties served by the Drivate road." CMP 7-12. The Transportation Plan provides that. [t]he arrangement of streets shall provide for the continuation of streets between adjacent properties when such continuation is necessary for convenient movement of traffic, effective fire protection, for efficient provision of utilities and where such continuation is in accordance with the City Compre hensive Municipal Plan. City of Orono Municipal Code, S 11.32, subd. (H)(1). Pursuant to the CMP and the Municipal Code, the easements may be utilized by the City to ensure legal access of properties served by the private road. In making its decision to exercise its easement rights, the City may decide that the opening of private roads for use by homeowners in new subdivisions is necessary for the convenient movement of traffic. B.The City of Orono may compel private owners to allow public passage on a private road by "eX’.Tcising its oeneral* welfare powers. The Minnesota State Legislature has provided specific powers for city councils. Among its enumerated powers. The Council shall have power to provide for the government and good order of the city, the suDoression of vice and immorality, the prevention of*crime, the protection of public and private property, the benefit of residents, trade and commerce, and the promotion of health, safety and order,- convenience, and the general welfare by such ordinances noc inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of this state as it shall deem expedient. M.S.A. S 412.221, Subd. 32 (emphasis added). The welfare powers which are outlined in M.S.A. S 412.221 are to be interpreted broadly so as to sustain municipal activities reasonably related to the needs of the city. Sverkerson v. City of Minneapolis, 204 Minn. 388, 283 N.W. 555, 556 (1939). The Supreme Court of Minnesota has held that the general powers contained in M.S.A. S 412.221 are broad enough to allow a village to regulate traffic and to expend funds to enforce such regulations upon privately-owned roads. Borchert v. Village of -2- I Vs NHnn 22 117 N.W.2C 396 (1962). The courtNorth Oaks, 264 Minn. reasoned. This court has heretofore held corporation has the power under [M.S.A. ^ p!lS?ic pJopLty!... [wjhatever the extent of police ?o5er o?er ordinary private roads which not f?e^y used by the public, that power must be neld to Lch private roads «here_they^==™p-^ the ooUce'pouecrcovers a wide range of subjects, and ^while it is especially occupied with whatever affects the oeace, security, health, morals and aeneral welfare of the community, it is not limited ► wearofeo but cxteods to dealing with conditions eiis? s”« to bring out of then the greatest :oi've“ence o1 genrral Irisperity and to everything ^nSaMtanJ of Jhe cLocration.... That which may at inhabitants of cn . „itnin such power, may, «®ani?heft"l? by reason of changed conditions, be “cognised « rie^itimate subject for the exercise of the power.' Id. at 400.(citing 62 C.J.S. :iunicipal Corporations, S 128). The road system in the “fSrono! 'Ltr^wis analogous to ^te toad system^^ contained in the cities are are unique in that many in the respect'that theprivate. The Pities only differ in ^h^ bo„Po„„ers in North Oaks underlying easement . nroro The City of Orono maybut reverts back to the City in Orono.^^xne^c^ Ordinances so rely on the reasoning in ^ homeowners and their that all private roads roads to get to their and b^e^t.n^e^^s Itls^ISplwJrertfSI un^dL H.N.A. S Ul.lll, subd. 32. that a^cur«Sncil The Attorney ‘!“‘'®?th due ?2gard for the public f“««r?o b2 s«ved by'the city providing the service directly.," il- 3- D-1 • • •0-/ The City of Orono hasalready changed the definition of a private road contained in its municipal code. Section 6.01 of the Orono Municipal Code originally read, Subd. 2. "Private Road" means any street or roadway which has not been dedicated to public use or which is not maintained by public funds, but which is open to travel pursuant to an easement between persons or between persons and the City. Private roads are private property except as regulated in this Chapter. City of Orono Municipal Code, S 6.01, subd. 2. On July 25, 1988, the Orono City Council amended the definition of the term "private road". The new definition is similar to the old definition in all respec*;?. except that the underlined language in the above quoted pesjawe has been deleted. The Orono City Council could again amend S 6.01, subd. 2 to include an addendum sentence which reads, "All private roads must be open to all people who own homes on that road and their invitees*and to all people and their invitees who could reasonably be expected to use that road to get to their orivate residences." ZSRP718 i Ji’ OSDINANCS NO.77, 2nd Series ,« «T,nTWTMrv AMZOTING the municipal CODE OP ORONO by co«PBLLn.G poblic papsasz the city council op the city op ORONO ORDAINS: section 1. Section 6.01, subdivision 2 of the Municipal code of Orono is hereby amended by «:dding t.he addendum sentence described below; All private roads must be opened to all to their private residences and the-- -n - section 2. This ordinance shall be published in The Laker eKaiT he s^'ective upon publication, and The Pioneer and shall oe ^ Adopted by the city Council of the ‘Auwb/w ^ j. • ^ u-1,^ nn 8th dav OE oanuaty, i.-vu.regular meeting held on c.iS ocn uaj Attest 2TJB80 Mayor ~>7n. ailin,' City Clerk t' it H I? 2*’' If? iv I 2}l Ml8lf ijs•« •2IS pillhi 2 1,f ! w ^ c j 55 ? I I 5s I • I 5-I i !3SJJ:I •5 1f 11 I ** ll >» »* ■ w OV- = S =, 9 i fl sD t j j jD Q IH !i ® iu 8? I S O• s I s Q % • I IM Q 8, fx 8 z chutes of the oeoho codecil heetieg of oeceeeer u, 198, E.y,=0. Motion passea. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS park dedication policy ^-hsrdson indicated that thereCity Administrator B®rnhardson inai^ Berhardson said that no representative dedication policy for initial he was P'’«8®"''^"|jrt''®CoLils\ion Representative =°"'® ?hr«nu«n: 1«0 He\tin, for discussion of thus policy. CounciImes'bei' ijn'^fees,^ but*thought'^the proposed looking at the Park = "“'n was glad that the Park fels wire a drastic aban^i3\°o Vb* «a"<^ared if Coms,ission was P^^^^^^’ould review this. the Planning Co«sission CoM.lssion Mayor Grabek “1;t “ission for their review and tl^eTtVbrfoIl the%aiu*a"ry S^. 1,90 Council Meeting. ‘^“•™flan ““nTcoSni “Tr^^^ later. rtHrS-no^^ty cV^irc"oS«^*.^ “coi;t; Rrad^!SJ- tor e'’^ii‘I°f”s?a\'LeVn\*“reVard^'^^^^ ^ «?y “of*?oI^ "Ik^and the oTalTlted that .e of^Orono.d receive end tUe*r^e°fofe “h^.*ca*ro? dSicuss the oatter further. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: tif S ROAD EOEIE wa« present for this review.Mr. ana Mrs. *r . City Administrator Bernhardsoi cave a brief explana this application for su v s , < nt zoning Administrator Mabusth advised that the appllcan » t < » MINUTES OP THE ORONO CODNOIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE #12a9-WILL CONTINUED plans to provide an access corridor along the north side of Lot 1 to serve Lot 2 as originally indicated. At the Planning Conunission Meeting, the applicant revised his proposal to locate the access corridor along the south side. Mabusth said that additional septic testing will be necessary if the access corridor is to be located along the northern boundary. Mabusth said that the location of the cul-de-sac should be left to staff's determination so that elevations, plantings and the location of the septic site on the far eastern lot can be taken into consideration. She said that the road cannot encroach within 20' of the septic test site. Mabusth asked Mr. Will to indicate his preference of the location of the driveway outlot. Mr. Will said that the real preference is to locate it on the north side of the property. He said that if the cul-de-sac is moved further north, the outlot should he along the northern border. Mr. Will said that there are less trees in that area as opposed to the south side. Mayor Grabek asked how access to the north would be achieved if the cul-de-sac is located in a more southerly location? Mabusth asked City Engineer Cook to respond to that question. Cook said that a driveway could be constructed between the cul-de-sac and the northern outlot? He said that the cost to the property owner will increase the further the City extends the road. Cook said if the City does extend the road along the street right-of-way it should be constructed to City standards. Mabusth said that as part of this application, the Council is being asked to approve Wear Lane North as a public roadway. She said that the Planning Commission has recommended public maintenance of the road if it is to be dedicated to the public. Planning Commission Representative Brown commented that the Planning Commission recommended public maintenance because it was their feeling that the road would not otherwise be maintained. Mayor Grabek asked what made this different from other private roads. Mabusth replied that the cost factor set for each unit by the current owner of the subdivision on which Wear Lane North is presently located is $20,000.00 and that is prohibitive to Mr. Will. CounciImember Goetten expressed her concern for the need ‘to address the issue of private vs. public roads. She questioned whether a precedent would be set by making this a public road to be maintained publicly. RTNOTES OP TH7. ORONO COONCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE #1289-WILL CONTINUED Bernhardson said that the City does have the ability to dedicate the road for public use and require it to be privately maintained. He said that there are multiple property owners along this road, as opposed to one developer owning all of the property as in other subdivisions, which makes this unique. Councilmember Goetten asked whether the City should be addressing the issue of private/public roads as a whole, rather than addressing them individually. Bernhardson said that access, maintenance and development of the road are the issues. The developer will be responsible for the development of the road either way. The question in regard to maintenance is whether or ”ot the property owners of the three lots, short of the dedication of a public road, have the right to go over that portion of the privately maintained Wear Lane North. City Attorney Barrett advised that the Council need only draft an Ordinance amendment stating that in such circumstances access m.ust be allowed to any adjacent property via underlying public access easements taken over private road outlots. Mr. Bill Wear asked where the cul-de-sac would be located. Mabusth depicted the approximate location on the overhead sketch. Mr. Wear asked if the City was aware of the trees located in that area that would need to removed? Mabusth replied that the trees will be considered when determining the actual location of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Wear had no other comments. Mabusth asked for clarification from the City Attorney as to how much of the road will be dedicated as a public road? Barrett replied that at a minimum the northern portion will be dedicated because the easement that is available to the developer to the north is the one that the City owns. Mabusth asked if the portion of Wear Lane North now existing will remain a private road. Barrett suggested .that the Council pass an ordinance that says in these circumstances these private roads must be opened to homeowners and their Invitees who need to cross over the private road in order to get to their residences. Mr. Bob Lorenzen, 2050 Wear Circle, said that he currently has a l/6th interest over Outlet A, which includes both Wear Circle and Wear Lane North. He asked how this public/private issue will affect the maintenance costs he now p^ys* MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE il289-WILL CONTINUED (CounciImember Nettles arrived at tnis zxmei Mabusth replied that the 6 properties in the development will still be responsible for maintaining Wear Circle and Wear Lane North. Mabusth atked who would be responsible for maintaining the poj.'tfQn of the rocdwav constructed by Mr. Will that exists on Mr. Wear's property as a result of extendino the cul-de-sac. Barrett said that his understanding is that Planning Commission’s proposal was that, because of problems of enforcing maintenance, that Mr. Will would be responsible for maintaining that portion. Planning Commission Representative Brown said that was not his understanding. He said that the Planning Commission had pr0f0rred to have the entire road publicly maintained. Mr. Wear asked about compensation from Mr. Will for constructing the road. Barrett said that the issue might be whether or not Mr. has the right to compensation of that portion of the road by the homeowners and their invitees that would use it. Barrett said that in his opinion, he would not be entitled to such compensation because the would City regulate it. Mr. Wear asked whether or not the Council had approved the covenant filed with his property? access of the road. Mr. Wear asked whether the Wills had actually purchased this property they are applying to subdivide? Mr. Will said that he has not had the closing to purchase the land as of this date. Mayor Grabek asked whether the City has spent all time on this application and they have not been dealing with the property owner? Mabusth said that Mrs. White, the owner of the property, joined in the application with the Wills. Mr. Lorenzen asked whether the existing covenants were sufficient in handling what is being proposed. Mabusth said that what now exists is sufficient. ^ % minutes op the OROMO council meeting op DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE #1289-WILL CONTINUED CounciImember Callahan said that the road, regardless of where the cul-de-sac is located, ought to go to the northern boundary line of Lots 1, 2, and 3. It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance in accordance with the opinion of the City Attorney, which will require land owners in the position of the Wear Subdivision ownership to provide access to adjoining land owners and following such preparation and in conjunction with it, the preliminary subdivision be brought back for review, and is therefore tabled at this time. Motion, Ayes=4, Goetten, Nay, Motion passed. #1445 GREGORY C. PETERSON 1355 ARBOR STREET VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FURTHER CLARIPICATION OP COUNCIL’S KECOMMENDATION Mr. and Mrs. Peterson were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson summ.;ri2ed the events leading to this reconsideratxon of variance approvals. Bernhardson said that the Public Works Director has denied the applicant's request to keep Che fence in its present location in tho right-of-way. Zoning Administrator Mabusth said that this is a two part, application; the appeal of the administrative decision disallowing the fence to be located in the right-of-way and the height variance for the fence located within the 50' rear yard setback area. Mr. Petersen explained that he had indicated that he would be installing a 6' fence and that was part of the building permit apolication for the pool and the porch. He said that they indicated at the Planning Commission Meeting that they intended to replace the existing fence. Mr. Petersen said that they made the same representations when they met with the Council. He said that he is shocked to be back before the Council because he thought he had covered everything the City required. He said that he had all along asked the City staff if there was anything missing from their application. Mr. Peterson said th^at the Resolution only refers to the fence in one paragraph, but the fencing was part of the application from the very beginning. Mrs. Peterson said that she distinctly remembered talking of replacing the existing fence at the Planning Commission Meeting. Councilmember Goetten read a portion of the Planning Commission minutes from that meeting. Goetten also recollected the discussion tnat took place at the Council Meeting regarding this matter. Goetten said that she did not believe any discussion took place regarding a fence under 6' around the property. Mr. Peterson said that this was a terminology issue. He Bones troo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers S Architects Otto G Bon^unxx P£ RooefT W Roseot. P£. jone^ C. AnoertR. PC. IhcnjttI E Tbmer. P£. jamn C Oton. PC Gier^n f CooIl PC Thomji E Noyet PE. Rboert G Sc^un<ru. PE Maiws L SotvjU. PE. Ktf A. Ooioon. PC. Ibcrvud w Postef. P£. DorvUO C- Sun^JiOL PC. Jerry A Soiadon. P£. Mjrt A Hernon. PE. >0 ic Fc«i PC M^naet r Kaucnvina PE. RDOen P. PWfctie. PC 0#nd Q LosiBxak P C. Thomas W. Petenon. PC. Mchsd C Lyncn. PE. jsm R Maiand PE. Kenneth P Andenoa PE. Mart R M. P£ Rodetf C iSAse*. am Thomas £ Angui. PE. HoM<a«d A SanM PE Oan«< X Edgenon. PL Marti A Seid PE PhkQ i Osv^ PE MartiQ VX^Pl Thomas E Andenoa AJA Gary P Rytandet PE MiesE Jensen. PE L Phflp Grawet ■. PE Charles A Enckson Leo M PM«Hky Harlan M OHon Sms^ M. Ebedn. CCA. November 10, 1989 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Jeanne Mabusth Re: Robert Will Our File No. 139-1289 Dear Jeanne: tfe have reviewed the proposed subdivision for Robert Will. The Will Subdivision provides for extension of the cul-de-sac in the Vear Subdivision. The access to Lot 2, Block 2 is best served off the new cul-de-sac. The access onto Old Crystal Bay Road is not good because of sight distance problems. Consideration should also be given to providing driveway access to property west of this subdivision along the south side of Lot 1, Block 1. The security deposit required for the project is as follows: Clear & grub Common excavation S 4.00 Class 5 Aggregate Base i 8.00 Class 5 Aggregate for Shlds 9 10.00 2341 Bituminous Surfacing 9 24.00 Restoration 15* RCP e 20.00 15* RCP Aprons g 300.00 Total Construction 50Z Security Deposit Total Security Deposit If you have any questions please contact this office. Yonrs very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC, 1000 L.S. C.Y. 800 Ton 50 Ton 250 Ton 40 L.S. L.F. 2 Each Glenn R. Cook GRC:dh LB/25 $1,500.00 4.000. 00 6,400.00 500.00 6.000. 00 3,000.00 800.00 600.00 $22,800.00 11.400.00 $34,200.00 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 ‘1 To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 16, 1990 Subject: #1528 Constance M. Scott, 2300 Longview Circle - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-lB Application - Class III Subdivision - 2 Lot Plat Total Area = 4.0 acres dry lands List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit P Exhibit G Application Property Owners List Plat Map Septic Map Lot 1 Septic Map Lot 2 Plat of Longview Preliminary Plan Review of Application - This subdivision involves the division of Lot 5, Block 1, approved for a subdivision creating an additional lot. Lot 5 is the last lot of the subdivision with a potential area for division purposes. ivi Each lot meets the required 2 acre dry contiguous area and also satisfies the lot width requirement to the rear of the 50' front street setback at 200*. In fact the narrowest width of the lots proposed is 210'. The existing house on Lot 2 meets the required side setback of 30' from the proposed division line. ^Lot 1 has been tested and found to have adequate area for a s alxow trench septic system. Additional septic testing has been provided for Lot 2 confirming adequate area to the east for future septic expansion. Note that the 20' setback has been maintained from the existing drainfield lines within Lot 2. The City Engineer has reviewed the site to determine if there would be any concern with access and has found no sighting problems for the newly proposed lot. Access to Lot 1 must be reviewed by the Public Works Director. j Zoning File #1528 May 16, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Staff RecoBDBendation - To approve the 2 lot plat, Class III subdivision, finding all standards of the RR-IB zoning district, subdivision regulations and on-site septic cede have been satisfied. Approval of this subdivision is subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedicate drainage and utility easements along the newly defined shared lot line, 5' on either side. 2. As plat was filed prior to May 1st deadline for new Park Dedication Fees, applicant need only make payment of $200.00 fer proposed Lot 1. 3. Driveway access for Lot 1 must be approved by Public Works Director. #152 8CITI OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2300 Lonoview Circle Long Lake. Minn. 55356 _________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) n!^-T17-23 23 Q0Q4 Please check one - Property _ _ abstract or X torrens? Attach legal description to application. Lot 005 Block 001 ClJy OF Dl<&l0 01 f t j t tn I uU^^7z7l0 cool f<01 TlOiOl 04/L6/h APPLICANT Phone (home) 473 1 941 Name Constance M. Scott Phone (work) f^42 8828 (husband) Address: 2300 Longview Circle City:Lonq Lake. Minn. Zip:55356 OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address:City:_Zip: (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels one Development Size two four Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total» all parcels Present Use (check)X Residential; no. of units one Other (specify)__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) ‘/X Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: ono one= two two Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) one £7120 Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per tWe Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 o © NIMDM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 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. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date 3. Payment of fees (par)c 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 Review (Class I, II & III) Preliminary Review (Class I S II Subdivision) $150.00 ‘v 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 additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature 'Itf //jk ? ^ Date Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Conunission 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. ft 9 To: Proa: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 16, 1990 #1531 Carol J. Kelly, 3020 Casco Point Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-lc Total Area - 1.09 acres Lot 1 = .57 acres Lot 2 « .52 acres Dry buildable determined at elevations above 929.4' (ordinary high water mark). Application - Two lot plat. Class III Pertinent Ordinances - Chapter 11 - class III subdivision. Specific sections: Section 11.01, Definition - Lot Area; Definition 34 - Lot Area; Definition 40 Definition 43 - Lot width. Section 10.02, Lot Line Rear; Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover review for Lot 1: 75-250* setback area = 15,500 s.f. Allowed Hard jver = 3,875 s.f. or 25% Existing « 4,735 s.f. or 30.5%* Excess Hardcover Within Setback Area 860 s.f. or 5.5% House = 1,670 s.f. Garage = 520 s.f. Driveway * 1,820 s.f. Sidewalk Paving + Patio TOTAL - 4,735 s.f. 725 s.f. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Preliminary Plat for Previous Applications Exhibit E - Cook's Report Exhibit P - Cook's Sketch Exhibit G - Staff's Sketch Exhibit H - Preliminary Jian Zoning File #1531 May 16, 1990 Page 2 of 4 Review of Previous Subdivision Application Involving Creation of 2 Riparian Lots - In June of 1976, the Orono Council approved the 2 lot riparian subdivision. The applicant failed to pay required park and consultant review fees. The original approval expired within 6 months of the approval date. Applicant reapplied with the same proposal and was denied based on the need foi lot width variance as property did not meet the required 200* of width at the 75 setback line. The 2 lot riparian subdivision application was denied by the Orono Council in April of 1978. Review of Current Application - Please review Exhibits F, G and H. The current proposal proposes 1 riparian lot that meets the required lakeshore setback of 100' at the 75' setback line. Lot 1 also meets the required lot width to the rear of the front yard setback line of 30'. Lot 2 has a rear line that ends at a point. Although Definition 40 of the zoning code would suggest that the rear lot line be determined as shown on the staff's sketch (Exhibit G), a lakeshore setback of 75' is applicable. Lot 2 is obliged to meet the 75' setback from the 929.4' elevation although not defined as a lakeshore lot. In review of Cook's report (Exhibit E) and his sketch (Exhibit F), the area of the drainage ditch cannot be Included within the dry buildable 1/2 acre building envelope of proposed Lot 2. Applicant's surveyor has been asked to confirm the dry buildable envelope exclusive of the hatch area defined in the Engineer's sketch. Staff has asked the Engineer to stake the drainage ditch along the east lot line. Upon a site inspection, it will be difficult for members to determine actual lot corners. Note the encroachment upon the property of the gravel drive serving adjacent neighbor. Applicant's surveyor has already confirmed that there would be no problem meeting the 1/2 acre dry contiguous requirement to the west of the defined drainage ditch. Staff notes that Lot I's existing hardcover, the newly adjusted 75-250' setback area at 15,500 s.f., now shows excesses of hardcover totaling 360 s.f. Applicant must advise what portions of existing hardcover ate to be removed. Cook has also asked that all portions of the lakeshore property involved within the flood plain (areas below 931.5 ) be designated and the City take a Conservation & Flowage Easement over the flood plain area. This action would not be consistent with previous reviews in determining dry buildable areas for lakeshore lots. The 931.5' elevation has been used to designate wetlands adjacent to the lakeshore where wetlands and lake interact. Please review this property's lakeshore. There are no wetlands nor are there designated wetlands shown on the City ^ official mapping. Dry buildable area of each lakeshore lot has always been determined from the 929.4* elevation. Staff would recommend that the drainage and utility easements ^ defined as always within plats along the perimeters of properties and along the shared lot lines at a 5' width. Drainage easement along the south and east portion of the property is to be designated at 5 on either side of the center line of the drainageway. Zoning File #1531 May 16, 1990 Page 3 of 4 The final plat must show a dedication of C-sco Point Road up to the southerly lot lines of Lots 1 and 2. Municipal sewer and water lines are all located within the rights-of-way of Casco Point Road and Maple Avenue. As already noted. Lot 2 is not riparian to Lake Minnetonka. In a similar subdivision review, because the City failed to file a restrictive covenant against a non-riparian lot, the courts upheld the property owner's rights to achieve access via a walking easement through an adjacent property. The courts did not recognize the final resolution approving the plat that noted the lot had no riparian rights. Staff will ask the City Attorney to draft an appropriate restrictive covenant denying all riparian use to Lot 2 of Lake Minnetonka. Options of Action - Denjla^_^ If Planning Commission poses a denial recommendation, please refer to the necessary findings set forth in Chapter 11. Approval. If approved, the following findings may be considered: 1. The proposed division satisfies lot standards of the LR- IC zoning district. 2. The subdivision has been found to meet all pertinent standards of the subdivision regulations. 3. There is adequate sewer and water to serve the newly proposed lot. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon application for a building permit for new construction on Lot 2, the future owner shall pay the following sewer and water fees: Sewer unit charge * 1,513.86 Watt' unit charge = 1,691.78 It should also be noted that this rate is based on the 1990 fee schedule and will be adjusted based on the inflationary rate in 1991 fee schedule. 2. The City to file a restrictive covenant against the title of Lot 2, denying all riparian access and use of the lake via Lot 1 of this subdivision. Zoning File #1531 May 16r 1990 Page 4 of 4 3. Prior to scheduling the application before the Council, applicant's surveyor to provide an amended site plan of Lot 1 designating existing hardcover improvements to be removed so that hardcover is maintained at 25% within the 75-250' setback area. Hardcover to be removed prior to final plat approval. 4. Final plcit shall Include the following: a) designation and dedication of Casco Point Road adjacent to south lot lines of property; b) drainage and utility easements along perimeters of property and along shared lot lines, 5' in width; c) Drainage easement is to be shown 5' either side of drainage ditch, plat to dedicate drainage and drainage and utility easements to the City, 5. Marne plat. 6. Future owner of Lot 2 is hereby advised that hardcover within the 75-250' area is to be limited to 25%. tin •• \5i'' CITY OP ORONO - SOBDIVISION APM^ATON I o o 1PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3020 Casco Point Rd. 1350.# Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 20-117-23-34-02^— Please check one - Property w abstract or _ — torrens? 250.00 iH75S30 cool RolJi2:.504/27/90 Attach legal description to application APPLICANT Name Carol J. Kelly Phone (home) Phone (work)471-7528 Address: 3020 Casco Pt. Rd,Citv: Orono Zio: 55391 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name SAME Phone (home) Phone (work) Citv:Zio: (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels 1 lot and house Development size 47/640 sg. ft.Acres Dry Land 1.09 acres Acres Wet Land Acres Total/ all parcels Present Use (check)Residential; no. of units 1 lot & hous Other (specify)_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning DistrictResidential_ _ _ PROPOSAL 2 lots Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) t split 1 9 ]gj^lvision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: ^_ _ _ 1 Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per _ _ AcresProposed Gross Density: 1.83 u/a_ _ _ Minimum Lot Size:lot Pyet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check) _ _XX- - Residential Other (specify) ! . » MATERIAL N^SSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELTMIMARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form at^-x^cation 1: “ Certificate, of Survey. t ; V‘ Owners IiieSti of owners within , “ennepin County Department of Finance A^-eoS Sovt 4. 348-3271). ‘ " -- - - -- a-oux Govt Center «y*o"ther*p"er™ ne° yl“tisS'’ioS«S'ol’\MY apVli«tion?““* c™ple*te?‘^°" '’®Pe'^‘”en‘ that Preliminary Plat Application is Zoning Official's Signature Date 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.Easements, Covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zonlng^Official^s^Signlture*^^*"^ Final Plat Application is complete.Date PEES XXX Sketch Plan Review (Class I, li & iii) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I & ii Subdivision) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-resldentlal) Pinal Plat Review (Class III) •(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $150.00 250.00 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* Applicant•s Signature Owner's Signature Date Date submittals into the City offices 25 days before the third^Mon?iJJ’'^o®f Planning Commission Meetings are held on theniro Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all schedui«H unable of the Planning Commission and Council, if an applicant is aS?Sorl2ed Vaen"t attlnd®1 “^®‘' “®®V"^' arrang^ents^o ha^e in Sffi«"II^^!rcha^^^pr^Sr’^?rth^'meV^„^^^ the Bui lain, e zonln. 1 a v.^ & sH I 82 /? [I P-« I c- y r tl mS^I gg^^il^Ss! •^“■**sS K 2 ** O Z^ u ><>< W Z-r ya3<< to (0 JC 3C < to Kt ttl H ^ «CM a < < Z I o u u X _ c«- o <2 M < «• «• -J z •H Q I o( 0^ S ^ O 0 3 CM « CO «o z < SS»r.“- OOm{^CMP- W O 1 “> IH CO Ki o o 0 'O' N) Kt CM 1 K #H I O CM s Ms < ►— Ul V s» CL 111 ui O 2M M CJ Z o CO Ktm o §S9<5 < o »- 10 N»«>ss OS OS to z to -i Ul u. Mz o «o Kl o z1-4 M MM o to a. Ml O ^ M a Zt a< Sm iil. _ M M rw < ^ ^ O OL O' Kttoto o. u m4 U U O t- L- u CM CO OS OS _ ^ Ul UJ (0 0 ^ 'T 0 CM O O ^Kt O OS K CM < < <N>- % SO h- CM o: -Io < o ^ < s:g3-I»o o a7«5 K < U Io oCM to OS CO to O to O X aa: isO CL O' Kltoto z o 2 t- U H os to Z so pH O H X O Z a Ml siHlA OCM IK•H U «H CD I S to MssCO Kl ^ to o o i oOS t-CL r4O' Ml to x|! o < to a z Kl o os CM O O I lA t- < M ^ 7ir 2 oCM 1-4 (A 'O M O OS CO Kl o Ml O O o “SJ ^ to M tos « o 2 sss Q M SQ 'O >> O O < t- Kl Z 2 CMN S Ul <o so X ut- < CO ocUl SK-(A gju M A Ul (A Q H> C 0 P O I N T R O A D M N 5 5 5 9 11 1 7 - 2 5 5 1 0 0 6 5 C A S C O P O I N T R D T0T4 H O R A N H O R A NS C O P O I N T R O H N 5 5 5 9 15 6 2 0 - 1 1 7 - 2 5 5<* 0 0 0 10 5 0 5 5 C A S C O P O I N T R O T B E R T H I A U M C / C K A C H E N n T H O M A S B B E R T H I A U H E 5 0 5 5 C A S C O P O I N T R O A D N A Y 2 A T A f M 5 5 5 9 15 0 2 0 - 1 1 7 - 2 5 5 9 0 0 0 50 5 0 9 5 C A S C O P O I N T Rl C U R T I S J E N G L U N O E T A L C U R T I S J E N G L U N O 5 0 9 5 C A S C O P O I N T R O H A Y Z A T A M N 5 5 3 9 1- 1 1 7 - 2 5 5 9 0 0 1 2 C A S C O P O I N T R S T E N S A B C K A S 0 A / B A R B A R A C K A S C O P O I N T R O A M N 6 5 5 9 1 S o o 3 <^ O Kl CO CM ^ <Kl O CO Ul CM Z 7 (.».«<< o os « U a O' ul Ul ^ > 0 CM ^ t- ^ ^ Kl O (A (A CM z 1 -1 z ^ <o M u aCM to Z > ^ < >0 ^ X to N O' X OS >o > CO CM < O' < •A O X X CM Z o ^ < 5 o aCM tA < <^ X tn Kl O V) MI" u. 52 UJ I2O. Ul ru 5 0. IUls oO' N 12s so i Xu <or ►- « §s UJNu*Xs M X UJ Xu- Kl eg 0 22 ^ O X ro X UJ K\ O £ eg Irv u «0 «erH O “ * <M K W </)2CO eg _o -> -) u)oUJ rH> in < lA o < < ^ u u VI VJSIS I* < k“- eg ►- iH (A 0 1 >s UJ >•X X oo UJ UlIS «g♦ w eg I K•H iH I Oeg ii •HO' HI » UJo Ulo ^ CO HI m X Sit HI Ul O 1 UJ M ^ u. >- UJ Ul < "1 HI 2 v-> 7? ^7 • ^10 o s HI HI egI M •H I Oeg K K eg O HI HI o X H HI S it:ss ^ o «• X X o M M < HI o eg I gUJO “kUJ u« rs. Ul Ul eg ^ -J HI <H-a> S iH UJ mJ HIu in ^ ^ X in . X X M I < <o o o O H- eg lA X X < O ^ < Ul N ^ HI X X O > CO HI u U HI < HI O Ul Ul HI X I :s iT U i HI O eg I rs, f-4 O iH I Oeg K z O' eg 06 CO HI HI O O < 06Z UJ O' ^ liij 1^O U Ul O X lAsr u 2o «e O Z -I S H 2 O' > O HI egj X UJ I a 1 lAHI Ooo $o X 2 o K 'O g HI HI HI O eg u ri.a__ •H o < < »H A CD I S UJ O < < UJ ^ eg <o- X Ul HI V >. a O X X HI HI < < eg h- o (d CD ^ lA 2 5:A s O'3 3 HI 0 t 0 2 M HI 0 Ul a u. Sf?2 1 g0 u W 5« 0 Z UJ •J M H HI IL 0 Z (g CK 5 55591iH O* 0 HI X U| A 0 r-f X UJ 0 HI M «J HI ^ U H- H- 0 Ul _ (A U) X U| HI 0 < < M 0 Q ^X ^ UJ O' HI M -J HI 0 U A 0 lA _ p X Ul HI 0 0 X M o eg A HI_ o a zCO HI < HI O M M o z < S3 I Ho ^ ^ «J •H O < < «H XX toeg H. to < eg 2 HI < o Q a §5i/> eg u » i/l Ho < < < S “ao >- ^ orH I Oeg O' o HI to HI HI O i ^05 _ UJ y®sj22 ^ UJ « X O' N «• X o >0 < HI < -J -J HI Z o I?•M J > \ .-I * ''jV ' 1 • i THIS ITEM HAS m MICROFILMED Pint of Siurx'oy of Tract Hennepin County, KiJnef^*^."?; (PR£L! M it/ARy) • • • I 6 • /r 7^ y > t / £f *5 * I /# ^J - .l"/s .. / * ,Or tl fi f;;, 5)jp,Qy. I JioroJiy cortiry tfv, t t».ir la n truo and rorr-^ot rrpror.on‘.itlon of a aur^-ay r ,hc boiitulnrinn of Tr-,rt T Ho^'jat/,rn.l Und Survc/ fV. a.,, '' of Honnooin, nnd of tv>r» il 1. * ‘•■Llso of Rni'iotrur of TiMoo n «"<1 all "f e" "oo-e the prooocel location of. It "loo •^cnlo; Rite j o I 1« = 50' 3-5-73 Iron marker • • • Cordon I^d Su^e/or and PHnner * ^ i»ong Lake, tlinneeota if t Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & ^1 Associates Engineers & Architects One G Bonesfooi PE ItoOefT W Hdtene PE JOVph C Andfr^ik. PE PiChJ«d E TUner PE C Olicn PE Glern I? Coott. PE Thomjj E NiOyiri PE Room G Schuncht PE M^»n L Sorv^j. PE Krtn A Gomoa PE P<hjrtj w Foser. PE Donjuj C ButgM P£ A Bourdan P£ Mjfk A Hjnwi PE Ted K P<4(J PE Mch^ T R^ucmjfvx P£ R P^pfflpfie. PE Om O loUou. PE Thomai w PKersoa PE M<n»ei C Lyncft. PE -Umrt ff UHjndL PE K«orw» P AneJenon PE Mjrfc R AoTl PE ftooen C Ruurt. aia Thorrvis E Ar^gm PE A Sjnfbrd. PE Ojrvet J, Edgerton. PE A Semv«. PE Mjrt D VIWH PE Thomai R Andmon. AIA Cuy P Rytjndfr. PE Mi« B >meo. PE L P^•p Cfivft m PE ChjfiM A Enckson 1*0 M PjM«fsky Hjrtjn M Olson Suun M Ebertn. C PA May 14, 1990 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Re: File No. 139-1531 Kelly Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the proposed Kelly lot subdivision on Casco Point Road. The major concern is the drainage ditch along the southeast side of Lot 2. The easement along the drainage ditch should be 5 feet on each side. Conser vation and drainage easements should be shown to elevation 931.5. Drainage and utility easements should be shown along the lot lines. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:li End. 233S >»lest HIghtway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 \- \ ^ ^ ^ • “ • # ^ fc* '* • •*• ^ ^ ^ •*****«k. •• •• •• ^• *‘**^* •-•• r^/* f ‘ • ' V • . ••-....•*•'• •* * .. . . - ................. -■ ^ •• • ..-. • • - ••* . -. • .i . v-. . . •. • ,. . ■ v-: i--.••• .' . v.tv> • •••.••’''. ?r‘k-V;w.v;v^-^.. •.'■. c,V-V, -..vv''*’.= •-•vvf.-.- ; ;'r .- . .'. ,. • ;.•■■>- ■•••.'■ ■• • :'. '•'! . ..■•■■■_ . / • -••.:■.•■ •• • •■ ■• .r-'.'.:; .fir-.-v, . .. va;:vv/ •.•' iii ________________ !|t !’i SDfOfoncMo iiSfc *: ______\jbc>iA>or>'. L>--vc-j i^K'^ - * - _ - — Vi.v\xy.> 'W ( ^ f^lS.' Vit. ‘^0*' xOuCfi^: -P i (5 OrA\./-AA(A , V x>.\i'-y f PtX.VA,‘‘A '• - iVii t'Aau^iv .^IvAcV \\.A^^'•V.-'S . jap^y • ^ Z ^'cvAiiW-i o-iWas ^0 clo.-v^ s <^Ac( Suixl.v'iAx i^vLir' Vu^ > • .. -. __ 'ircx.'f^C ^ V*'^ \v ic‘t^ \oc.<^> Or^ p- ^ • . To: Prc» Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 18, 1990 #1532 Fullerton Properties, Inc., 2225 6th Avenue No Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-IB Total Area - 36.8 acres 5.8 acres wetlands 31.0 acres dry Proposed plat of 13 lots Density Ratio = 1 unit per 2.3 acres ory buildable 1 unit per 2.8 acres total area Pertinent Ordinance - Chapter 11 - Class III subdivision 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 - Cook's Report - Cook's Sketch - Grading - Drainage Plan - Engineering Plans for Road - Preliminary Plan Review of Preliminary Subdivision Application The applicant has submitted a revised plan showing nr^“«ur?cn°U°l'ilccri" located 15' fro„ the -wly ^“ned l«ent of the codris to have such structures meet the required setback for principal structures adjacent to roadways. Planning Commission consider granting a conditional us p for aclessory structures for each of the if such structures meet the 50' setback from rear of street lot lines? Zoning File #1532 May 18, 1990 Page 2 of 3 A future access corridor to the south has been shown and per Planning Commission's directives, the northern corridor requested by the City Engineer has not been designated. The l?*-:.inepin County Department of Transportation will review the plat to determine if additional right-of-way will be sought for County Road 6. The City will ask for 7' of additional right-of-way along Willow Drive to be consistent with previous acquisitions along Willow Drive with other subdivisions. The Planning Commission may remember that Mr. Cox, the owner of Lot 1, Block 1, contested the issue of granting an additional 7' of right-of- way. Staff has not received any additional written material to support his position. Clearly, the City staff must ask for the right-of-way if Mr. Cox wishes to appeal to the Council he may do so. Staff would only request that he state his position in writing. The City will ask for underlying road and utility easements over Outlets A and B and the execution of maintenance covenants to insure regular maintenance and upkeep of road. Dickey Lake shall be designated at the 985.5' elevation. Staff met with the applicant out at the site and staked the perimeters of the adjacent wetlands to Dickey Lake. This area is shown on your preliminary plan defined as edge of wetlands. The applicant is in the process of preparing for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District review. A copy of the preliminary grading and drainage plan is enclosed in your packets (Exhibit F). As these plans were just received (5/17/90), the City Engineer has not had adequate time to submit his review comments. The applicant has shown 2 road names for the 2 plat roads (Kings Run Drive and Cox Farm Road). Upon preliminary approval, applicant will be asked to provide additional road name choices for the formal road name review by the City. At this point in the review, staff is unable to provide a final recommendation concerning the septic report submitted for preliminary approval. Unfortunately, the rains have delayed diegramming of septic locations on each property. In addition, Gaffron reports in the sections of the septic diagrams submitted, huuse sites have beer shown at a minimal unrealistic size and septic drainfields have not been shown to their full size, nor will some meet the required setback from the lot line when fully shown. He has also noted that he may have to request a lot line change. Gaffron has recommended that we table action on the preliminary plan until he can make a final recommendation to the Planning Commission. He has advised that he will seek direction from the Commission concerning a need to realign the shared lot line between Lots 6 and 7 that would require approval of a lot width variance for Lot 6. ft-.. Lt^- .’ A.*',S * * '* • /*• - .!/•* ».. r . jC 4 v; . •- . * * • ■A . '- - *■ k/? Zoning File #1532 May 18, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Issues to be Resolved At This Point in the Preliminary Review: 1. Final resolve of outstanding septic issues between staff and on-site septic evaluator. 2. Mr. Cox, as joint applicant, is asked to submit a written statement setting forth his objection to dedicating 7' additional for right-of-way of Willow Drive. 3. What is the Planning Commission's position regarding granting a conditional use permit for accessory structures if setback of 50* for principal structure is met? 4. Report from City Engineer on grading and drainage plan and engineering plans for road. 5. Schedule for removal of existing structures on Lot 5. 6. Other issues raised by Plcnning Commission. Planning Commission Action - To table application #1532, providing both applicant and staff additional time to review final submittals and to schedule application for final action before Planning at their June 18th meeting. fi,-• . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- -- —. .. . . . . . . .. . . k ^ ^ ^ ^ ! > _ A . . ^ ^ ^ hrV' I CITY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATIQ f- I *>v ^ (sHifiue. CITY OF DW FimCE &TICE PROPERTY LOCATION . Site Address Ia^ < ll o>»/ *• CrV*v^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Please check one - Property V abstract or _ _ Attach legal description to application. torrens?RFcm-rmK^ you 04AMi mo cool Phone (home) H ^ ^ *4 4 A 0 Phone (work) ^ ^ ^ APPLICANT Name Rul < CTa rJ 1 ^ ^ I Addresst -afTD HOP City; 2-^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Name CoV 9>MA T^Agy^ Phone (work) 3> ~ ^H Address: |Q>o ^ »V!) illoMd City: La VI^Ziyt SS'^^C* (attach list if more than one/t EXISTING LAND USB Number of Tax Parcels Development Size *b^.0 :21k % Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check)Residential; no. of units Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District PROPOSAL 2b. Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites:C Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) Units per Acres 2). <^C4UT sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) I I • MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY 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 Jepartment of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list rf any other persons you wish notified of this application. 2. 3. 4. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1. 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. 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 Review (Class I, II & III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 250.00 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 additional fees establisheJ by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Date ^/■Z 7/JD Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plaining Commission Meetings are held on the third h >nday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Ccmmission 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 Vii)he)cr*Ij)•n) m o ^ *-is sH s 9 Z -i IM O•a ►- UJ CM I «SS M M tj o X sO •-C < O IH M O U i «►- ino z in •j -I oe M a __ <5^^ IM O «J ^ K M ^ O z -Iu. bu O O M %0 Z ^ iH O U *-4 ^ « o o S ui m □ •n Kl ^ CM K O K»mm Jii!* iH O -i -J IM IM I « < H iH 1 XXgd d d M D pH 1 K ooS^ >• CM O $ in in z _ SSoS 2 o o Ml O 2 2 in o") "> rv j ss IM IM ^ O O O ^ ^ CM CO Q Do&iss ^ OCO tA o cr O O in»o inm ?5 “*s;£ CO M t« «• < ^ IM M O (0 X ^ N. «4 ^ ^ M in IM UI .liiSiro o Q O eg ^ oo Z o IM eg > Kl < Ml eg I CO rH fH I fs. eg CO Kl X 5 M in IIu. u. Z %n in Ml in in in in d d IM IM X X H- ►-o o oc d fi CO g§u u |5 IM 55 in eg eg <g 5 in d M rv Q L- o H- O IM IM Odd w 3 -> Kl > <Ml 4M 7g- CO M *H O in M Kb- IM Q. IM U d M O in Mlm in I eg S in M ►-♦- IM Q. U IM < M d CO IM eg _ CD r4 ^ d o o rM O IM O m K1 > Ml IM CM d CO M r-l Q M I K CM O rv N. o o in d Mlo in md iMd o d O Hf « M d J d IM iUi Q> O d “ r M -j ••SSco O -I IM S5 CMs i <a si $o Xo ►- K CCl Ml iH O O iH V- Ml U Ml r eg Ui I ^ (0 < *-i in I eg in Ml •H CO *M Ml O ^ m -J Ml Q in d “> -• 2 IM IM dx55 8-"*SiIM IM d d CM CO iH o Z 0 -S!Ml < in Q. Ml X IH eg p -j • X -I CO M *H^ in X •H Q. 1 K d CM O 9 eg < Ml w> a. W9 in Ml inin in CL 3 i M X d o d eg -J Jg i|§d 2 in o z 0 d CM O CM ^ 1 -J CO M M X fH I M* CM O eg CO S Ml O < ►— IM m Ml in d m o O IM M IM <<*5 in inISii »H -I sO o o omO IM inMl®5Ml ^ d Mlinino in m Ml IM CO M M- ►- Z S*22S I K CM o*=>=2 o in m IM »H IH O CO o o o o Ml O -J -J O' IM > Ml UJ X X eg ^ u y CO M 2 2 iH o ^ -J IH X CO I K CM O « o < 3 3 d d s& Ml O -> “> K «i ■] «> rtt.W • #V *VV * 3 • ! 6 :-i ll ll f l‘ ■.'■\ % •_ ■'. !• - 1 *'•r~^yf ^i’ *9* •■‘ • ■* 1 i??' *1 '.'( Hi * *• *^ (4 in ^ 4^' <I» ^ JU4.«*««I t» fU *rsi-sow : 5^vr\ M ;, •1C is t* %&• ’ .< t . * ^5 ■•'• t fH>iSTirT EJ ■iTI '* ’ . /•* ’’i’'.' . ,» t . _ . , 9 ^ I Bonestroo Rosene ^=5 Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects OtTO G Bory*«rt>3 Pc Ptxxrrt W Rojere PF Josf*pn C Arxj^fi k. •'E E Tufn^f P£ Jarr^l C Ofion. PE Gi^n R Coo* PE Tnomai E .*vo>tri PH RtX>frt G Schun<,h{ PE Marvin L. SorvaU. ^E (Cfith A Gordon. PE. Rthirti W Foster PE DonjkJ C BurgartTt, PE Jerry A Bourdon PE M.ifk A Hinson PE Trd K PE M<nie< T Ritjninn PE Ruoert R PVfefe. PE Oivid O Losiioti. PE Thomas W Peterson. PE V<hjei C Lynch. PE James R Maiand. PE Kennefh P Anderson Pt Mark R Rotfv PE Pooerr C Rustec A i A Thomas E Angui PE Howard A Sanibrd. PE Darei J Edgerton PE Mark A Sep PE Ph*p j Cas>\^. PE Mark O Wa«dL PE Thomas R Andenon. AIA Gary F Ryiander. PE Maes B Jensen PE L Pr»«i) Gravel m PE Charles A Enckson Leo M Povveisky Hadon M dson Susan M Ebertm. C PA fi ^ April 11, 1990 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 'ipff I f Ja Attn: Mike Gaffron Re: Fullerton Properties Our File No. 139-1519 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the preliminary site plan for the Fu’a rton properties subdivision at Willow Drive and County Road 6. The street layout should give consideration to a connection onto County Road 6 and access to property south of this subdivision. Wc would recommend that outlets be provided for future connections as shown on the attached drawing. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENi, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:dh grc/42 233S West Highway 36 • St. Paul. Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 r /,fe?;:• -:'■>’':. r':^'uvis-i^'c- / F • f / 1 1/ r #/ rliLLt/CTOAs/ LEVERING, HAISLET ASSOCIATES 2285 Daniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 i612) 473-8864 (800) 421-0434 iiwr 2i 1®* To whom it may concern: May 1990 Attached please find a drawing of the proposed four parcels in question. The middle lot where the existing house sets and parcel A on each side and parcel B in back. In 1968 parcels were deeded but not platted. At this time we were considering lot A & B as outlots to the house parcel. However, an acceptable plan and one that has been discussed with your staff as a possible alternate,would be to combine all of the parcels into one realigning the lot lines and exclude the 7 foot easement. Ine property owner was advised by the Highway 116 committee that all of the widening of the roadway would be on the West side of the highway since it was undeveloped and they wouldn't have to disturb the large trees that border Wil* w on the East side. *• LEVERING, HAISLET ASSOCIATES 2285 Daniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 (612) 473-8864 (800) 421-0434 I n '■ ! 4* Each Office 1$ Independently Owned And Operated • « To:Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Conunission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator M?y 16, 1990 #1535 Gerda Kennedy/Ned Butterfield, 3765-3745 Watertown Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-lA; Single family rural residential, 5 acre, unsewered Application - Lot line rearrangement to place existing garage within property boundaries of 3765 Watertown Road. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exliibit G - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey of Proposed Lot Line Rearrangement Survey for 3765 Watertown Road (1986) Letter from Attorney Anderson 11/14/89 Letter from Attorney Fafinski 4/24/90 Pertinent Pacts - 1. The contract for deed owners of 3765 Watertown Road are Larry ana Linda Cook. The fee owner is Gerda Kennedy. The house and greenhouses at 3745 Watertown Road are owned by Ned Butterfield. 2. This lot line rearrangement is a result of recent survey work which showed that the garage serving 3765 Watertown Road is almost entirely outside the actual property boundaries. Although all parties involved had believed that the old fence line east of the garage was the property line, the surveys indicate otherwise. This proposed rearrangement is intended to place the garage inside the property boundaries of 3765 Watertown Road. 3. Kennedy and Butterfield have come to an agreement regarding the disputed lot line, and are proceeding with the lot line rearrangement. 4. By staff's calculation, 3765 Watertown Road will gain 6,500 square feet (excluding road) in the front cf the lot, in exchange for approximately 15,000 square feet to be deeded to Butterfield at the rear of the property. The net result according to the survey is that, including the road right- of-ways, each property will contain approximately 5.02 acres. Zoning File #1535 May 16f 1990 Page 2 of 2 5. The proposed lot line leaves a setback of 10.88' from the residence on the Butterfield property to the new lot line. The garage at 3765 Watertown Road will be 6.0 feet from the new lot line. Obviously, neither of these setbacks meet the current standards for the RR-lA zone, which would require a 50' side setback for a principal residence and a minimum 10' side setback for this size garage. However, since these buildings are existing, and because the proposed lot line in the area of those buildings follows the fence line historically thought to be the property line, this application should not be considered as granting a variance for setbacks, but merely as a lot line rearrangement to better accommodate existing buildings. Discussion - I am advised by Mr. Fafinski representing Gerda Kennedy and the Cooks, and by Ned Butterfield, that .11 parties involved have agreed to this lot line rerrrangement to settle their property dispute, and that all parties will agree to filing of the appropriate documents. Staff would note that the 2 triangular parcels have not been shown as separate tracts for purposes of our resolution/combination requirement, hence the surveyor will be advised to label these 2 tracts and describe tnem separately, per our standard metes and bounds lot line rearrangement procedure. Regarding how this division affects the principal residence structures on each property, the visually perceived lot line will not change. The new lot line will increase the east side setback of 3765 Watertown Road from 32' to just over the required 50'. The west side setback for 3745 Watertown Road will decrease from approximately 39' to about 10'. Regarding lot width, at the 100' setback line, each property previously contained approximately 213' in width, both short of the 300' standard. The new arrangement will decrease the defined width of 3745 Watertown Road to approximately 193', while increasing that of 3765 Watertown Road to approximately 233'. Staff Recommendation - This is merely a lot line rearrangement and is not creating any new lots, but is solving an existing problem and placing a lot line generally in a location where all parties Involved historically perceived that line to be located. Staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement, subject to combination of the triangular parcels with the appropriate larger tracts, as shown on the survey. 1^^ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site 3765 Watertown Road- - - Property Identification Humber (P.I.D.) ^SZS^ D Please check one ~ Property abstract or torrens? ri 77 OF OROiO FINAmi OFFICE Attach legal description to application APPLICANT Name Timothy W. Fafinski Phone (home) Phone (work)545-9000 Address:5881 Cedar Lake Road_ _ Minneapolis Zip:.55416 ONNER (if different than applicant) Gerda L. KennedyName Phone (heme) (218) 233-3372 Phone (work) _ _ _ _ Address: 3208 So. 9th St.p *205 cAiiVi Moorhead, MN (attach list if more than one) _ _ _ 56560 EXISTING LAND DSE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels » 2 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: Proposed Gross Densiliys Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) i Exist.!ng Units New Units Total Units Units per ,5_ Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ mNIIION MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY 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 2. 3. 4. 348-3271). , ^ ^ ,4 .. rAs 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 1. 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. 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 Review (Class I, II & III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 250.00 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 additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings ® third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is Office of this change prior to the meeting. IL ■ I.!/.'. / S' <^5 ' A. Tj, (0 .ji ::)i - 115-^3- r '" ••• a •w V M ti>»«ir tv# I7'<>§.li- M 9 iff 9 '•15? €(M) ite^fllflplfiprf. (Ill (•I ::i*i §Ui6 ED '/'7-5fe (15) . «•! (la) ElLbhN .ST ■ ^vn mrt ^4 (II)I ffj. •■■■• ••’>■# • 9 ’ • . r -' j.-,. .'-..-.'■"I -4-"«— ^ . .-.(a-V} 'y ■ ' V' 0 O K> iH ^ iH j, CL K SCL UJ OC S cn COs iio oc S 5 csj K UJ UJ W O r4 Q O OC O tA K> U> 4A _ > K O ocac ui Z C V " 2 S I- z O < UJ O OC M ^ X ^ U UJ < r-l h- -J I ^ ^ < a ^J z K) in < >> UJ>« a cs in -ICK oc >o a. <0 UJ < < m o (d ^ in r inss m o M (/) K CK Mm ac oc QC oUJ < a: cr 22 0^ I fw to CO to * < _ <*5 z X ^ z «• UJ = t*18o cn (/) m in tola 1 S2 UJ -Ja 2 O' o o -t O X «t ^io K ^ M a UJ <'J UJ M t K IL CO < oc »H z UJ^ IKi m o CO to to O tD a oe O' in »o inm a|5u, »- Z« OC M UJ UJ < I- -J m Kl O o o m o o Xuh~< CO o H t4 >o so tooo 22 S'" °S «li O in to in in o 0 _ I® »n X o u CM UJ _ _ 1 I- < < I- Z « 5 QC M c!i « S S ^ »n in < UJ in X X o ^ Ip K I* '4» a to to < <0/ is. ^ to O U U 90 X «o il hM ac a ac a UJ < X 5 ^ r^‘ I i» •r> r* o o f* in the SE % of the SW ft of Section 32-118-23 ' Hennepin County, Minnesota •V #1061 ij -"r f ■ i ** % ‘I : " 4' « : ' « .ft' • • *, .f'ft »r- (1, ... i>’ ii: ; - P*>• r * I iereby certify that this is a true correct representation of a sur- of the boundaries of the West 19q.50 feet of the Southeast Quarter iJ the Southwest Quarter of Section Township 118 North, Range 23 ^ , .f 5th PriiTcipal Meridian,lying South of the centerline of Watertown Road, and of the location of four existing buildings. It does not purport to show any other im provements or encroachments. •t= i :IM .! .'I- :ii; : * % i t rV 1 .‘ f *1^*■ ‘1’7»-.* IN & GRONBERG, INC .:*i y • ! J'. Marjc S. Gronberg MfT. I' Lie. No. 12755GorJon R. Coffin MN. Lie. No! 6064 ' neers, Land Surveyors, Planners « • Lon) Lake, Minnesota f.i M 1 Inch s 100 feet July 24, 1986 Iron marker ».. •. < . w ■1 < - »i 'i 4 '•4: 'r - -I h. * • . ImH* r i-,- j * * DAVID B. AlUtOLD CHABLCS ■. CARKICMAEL OABT D. MCDOWELL STBVBM A. AKDERSOK O. BABBT AKOEBSOK STEVEM S. ROOE LAUltA K. FBBTLAKD DAVID A. BRUEOOEKAKK JOSEPH M. PAIEMEKT JAMES UTLET JULIA A. CRRlSTtAMS RICHARD O. McOBE A rnold 8c Mc D o—______ A ttorkeys at 5681 C edar Lake Minneapolis , Minnesota /;55^16 (612) M5-90( MN Toll Free eoo-i C able MCLAW Mi>itEira/ is TELECOPIER (018) »A5-1790 II >r COUKSKL I ah W. CAMERON ^AUL D. DOVE TTH FOURTH STREET rOK, MINNESOTA »»37l f(018) OaS'SSIA foPIER (018) 309-0000 lOl PARE PlACB HUTCi:iNSON. MINNESOTA 00300 (018)007*7070 telecopier (018) 007-4096 November 14, 1989 Orono Planning & Zoning Dept 1335 South Brown Road Orono, MN 55359 R2; Kennedy v. Butte^ield" Section #: 32-^1-8^23 x-c UjAddress: Watertown Road Our File #: 3204-86-0001 Gentlemen: with a readjustment of their property line. I am assuming that as a matter of municipal law, need to be approved by your department. We are having a su^ y prepared with the new line in mind and I assume that survey will need to be submitted to your department. I would appreciate it if you would advise me at your earliest convenience the requirements of local or-Unance for approval of tranSfiJr of small parcels of real est^*te for the purpose of quieting title and cleaing up land descriptions. For a survey required of both parcels, or merely that portion of the parcel that is in dispute? I would also appreciate it if you would advise me of the evenings that these matters are considered so that we can when the appropriate requests, permits and applications are file . • t« Orono Planning & Zoning Dept. November 14/ 1989 Page 2 Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Very truly yours, ARNOLD & MCDOWELL 6. ^rsy Anderson GBA^lsj Richard J. Rodney Gerda Kennedy cc: X o Arnold 6c Mc D owell Q g DAVID B. ARNOLD CHARLB8 R. CARHICMAEL** OART D. MCDOWELL STEVEN A. ANDERSON O. BARRY ANDERSON* STEVEN 8. BOOE LAURA E. FRETLAND DAVID A. BRUEOOEMANN haul d . dove JOSEPH M. PAIEMENT James utley JULIA A. CUKXSTLANS RICHARD O. McOEB TIMOTHY W. FAFINSKI Attorneys at Law 5881 Cedar Lake Road Minneapolis . Minnesota 55410-140L» (012)545-0000 MN Toll Free 000-340-4545 Cable MCLAW Minneapolis TELECOPIER («l«) ftAS • I7t»n or COUNCIL WILLIAM W. CAMERON SOI SOUTH FOURTH STREET PRINCETON. MINNESOTA 8S371 (OISI) 3S9- TELECOPIER C018) 069-8506 lOl PARE PLACE HUTCHINSON. MINNESOTA 58050 (OIS) &67-7S7S TELECOPIER (019) 5S7*4096 April 24. 1990 Orono Planning & Zoning Commission Att: Michael Gaffron 1335 South Brown Orcno. MN 55391 ReI Gerda Kennedy - Lot Line Rearrangement Our File No. 3204-86-0001 Dear Mike: Initially, I would like to extend my deep appreciation for your assistance, not to mention your patience, with respect to this matter. Enclosed herewith is the Subdivision Application, together with the required attachments. If there are any deficiencies, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours. ARNOLD & MCDOWELL Timothy W. lafins! TWF/ls Enclosure •certified as a CIV.L TRIAL SPECIALIST BY THE MINNESOTA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ••certified as a BEAL PROPERTY LAW SPECIALIST BY THE MDTNISOTA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION -• *• r •. . • $.L TOS Dates Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusthr Building 6 Zoning Administrator May 16, 1990 Subjects #1502 Michael Hilbelink, 2180 Prospect Avenue - Side Setback Variance - Referral Back to Planning Commission for Reconsideration List of Additional Exhibits Exhibit Q - Site Plan Exhibit U - Front Elevation of House Exhibit V - Floor Plan Side Street Setback Variance - Required Setback » 50' Setback of Previous Residence *= 10' + Proposed ■» 22' Variance 28' or 56% The applicant has asked to be rescheduled before the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the original side setback variance sought by applicant in original proposal. If members will remember, applicant had planned to move a specific house onto property, but negotiations failed. Although applicant had stated that he had a specific house design in mind, the Planning Commission, being consistent with previous actions in the past, failed to act on a siue setback variance absent a definite building plan. The applicant submit: a single story ranch style house for reconsideration of side setback variance. tin '..1 dministrator b Avenue - or Reconsideration led before the B original side il proposal. If move a specific though applicant n in mind, the ious actions in riance absent a style house for CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared for*. 4|6/^0 Aid anUarfc MIKE IIILDELINK Reviicd 3/\k>/*)0 to shouJ sUrrn V///////J. \iA ..r•. ‘.'V WSMS •-------Ii4 —^ DenatfS c«nUvr-------1:1^^ Dtnaifs pr«p«M<* con^oar r las \ CffiTBoM -r< «=:ci208.00 sWm fearer <r-^-------------- <------------ Mol.e -------- / froposea eAVrr€aV ^ -‘j; k--.v«;;SA — 'n » 1 .•.• ■ *.■5' , \v;.. •••••; i> liM ■■■ ■>:•■. I»' ■108" * «*-4' TOT lo7.2 « ^fli Whi- z—All It \ ij•V'::; iV :rr ■i •- •• • LECAL DESCRIPTION: All that part oi the Northeast Quarter of the South west Quarter of Section 10, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of the Northeast Quarter of the Soulliwest Quarter of said Section 10 51 5.625 feet nortli of the southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of tlie Southwest Quarter; thence North 130.00 feet; thence East 208.00 feet; thence South 1 30.00 feet; tlience West 208.00 feet to the point of beginning. GENERAL NOTES o Denotes iron monument *'*’* Denotes cross chiseled in concrete X 939,7 Denotes existing spot elevation 19391 Denotes proposed spot elevation *-------- Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denotes proposed features Solid contour lines denotes existing features Proposed top of foundation elevation = |ofc.® Proposed bosement floor elevation - Proposed garage floor elevation -loc.e> BENCHMARK-. Iny oC sewer c«fcK t.ny u' ------- ' m Usio near NW <»r«er ot (xbovt properly. • loo.O ALL-METRO LAND SURVEYORS 2340 Daniels Street 1 htrtby ctrYify that this turvay, plan or rtport eat prspartd by me or under my direct tupervition and that I am o duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the Stale of Minnesota. J SCALE 1" - 30' CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepored for: 4|6/?0 A^() c»n)*ur» Re\liit<l S/lb/OO (o shou) sUrm an»l di^ai o«x<At.. ^ a y///////A \\A MIKE niLDELINK V* $ V. LE(3AL DESCRIPTION; All that part of the Northeast Quarter of tlie South west Quarter of Section 10, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of th^ Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10 515.625 feet north of the southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of tlie Southwest Quarter; thence North 130.00 feet; thence East 200.00 feet; thence South 1 30.00 feet; thence v/est 208.00 feet to the point of beqinninq. GENERAL NOTES Denotes iron monument Denotes cross chiseled in concrete Denotes existing spot elevation Denotes proposed spot elevation <-------- Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denotes proposed features Solid contour lines denotes existing features o *+• X 939.7 Proposed top ot foundation elevation * iou.ft Proposed basement floor elevation * Proposed garage floor elevation - tOC.6 BENCHMARK*.Inv storm sevrev C a UK l>»Sin near NW (oroer of obovt prop<r Jj. AssumM t loo.O] ALL-METRO LAND SURVEYORS 2340 Daniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Ph: 475-1433 1 htrtby certify that this tunrty, plan or rtport wot proporod by mt or under my direct supervition and that 1 am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the Stale of Minnesota. DATE t/ziho REG. NO.nozh FILE NO. Wife A ,>J ' ^ : V ■ ■ 7, \i ••?.4. . • ••1. 4.1^^ •• •* • 4 • • ■ 4 - * .* , ; 1 * '-.'•x- ..<• J «‘. . s'*'V.,'»* \ ».• 1 w** *, ;r***w V ’ .■^* ’<*' • ' • n \» .'•*■* .. • '* • •. • •.>••'I|vy‘“"; - ' ! i.5- ' vv^ A..* • -y i >•**; .' .*») . * •*-•/ • . • H** .•'•••*4^ • . 4 »• •’*1 •! ' • ^ %..4 is',. ' .. • V I •• 4. • • V* ■ ------------ • • • f. t..,; • *• * •* 4'* ’ '• 4- * ^ . ■ • .,.•• . -, .J .-• ;•• /.y.* 4';.:;,k 4 ^ ’ J •• . « . I V •*. I •* .- •■ 4 ‘ «;•.••I ; •;• • -V , ^. f:, y r i» ^ ;n*v ■ : v;^ [|fajni • ' - .r ♦v .fv * I LKV'-JIc. .... [■■V '.■•^ '1. •-. : .• i .l.‘ .. ^IT ' •, . ' * ! . -f .rrti.- * / • • ^ • • . • 1 .- -.I •«• X*' • .•>•.»• I ■ .. * T-j' -■» ■ a ■ ■ . rt—y -»■' • [ 1 >» 'll , • ‘'»4 * \» ^ J f, ■'. . ‘ ■ . *.• ,»*\ ;••**•. .* ^ ► :• • ••. . 11 ';■ .C ■'U^ ^V?;,•>,.'•■ 2t '•« ■ • ••'.-•.■■ .• . :•■■•• r v'- yv.' ,! •, ....... .............. J ‘ I—rHff ■•- *1' : n•■ - —'I .2 . - V •-■-g i le*^ -8 ■ ■ • «v .. *- .» 'X«. *4 • ■ . ■ • • «' *» . .i. ■V ^ • *4 • 4^.'3 "..'pT'.--^>•' •lf ‘\v. ;•' % 4, >• *4 I 4 »,4 ' > * • • ••4 . I -*4Vi—.' *• -»■ . V" ;• -t» 4 • ♦,:.% I 4 . ».' ’•‘x .:ji f ' .• • 44 f JtNk. - ; ■? 't* ■ '*• I•V •-* ’• 'f . -% '*V : V ' •' * , 4^ I ■ •/, 4* W:j 4#4 ^ %iL^»4>4 :?cr ♦ I i »5aTfe V* » »«4^>A«« 4>w 'a>^4 »>» *• I A • • 4 • r ! '•» CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY . ’ Prapored for: ♦)iH® Aid <*a W»-* iRlHlUfd 3/|b/*)0 ft) shou> sfnm 4<ujrr «n4 d)T4*A«^e... .. Cnifcd. ♦/nb« tW ^ffTW|^/y/ /// / MIKE HILBELINK .«k a-r •*:•’•? • • ------gj}-— Ot**»w« fr»f*M ffl•WM , »ftl4 08.00 It !•!. frofoied 15 a Wpi fC4Mr w33or. Vt 1 *i»»4 a i _ ^ • ^ .• ' LftS^wlaiiaf PROSPECT LE(^AL DESCRIPTION; o Denotes iron monument *^* Denotes cross chiseled in concrete X 939.7 Denotes existing spot elevation |9i9| Denotes proposed spot elcvotion 4--------- Denotes surfoce drolnagc Doehad contour lines denotes proposed feotures Solid contour lines denotes existing features '’/eUWoTel' I01.S' All that t>art of tho Northeast Quarter of the South west Quarter of Section 10, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of th« Northeast Quarter of the .Southwest Quarter of said Section 10 515.625 feet north of the southwest corner of said Northe.ist Quarter of tho Southwest Quarter; thon'-J North 1 30.00 feet; thence East 208.00 feet; thence South 130.00 feet; thence West 208.00 feet to the point of beginning. GENERAL NOTES Proposed top of foundation elevotion ^ Proposed basement floor elevotion * Proposed gorage floor elevation * |0i.S BENCHMARK; Inv,C a UH : ^nv. -------- ^ f ba<iin OMr NW t«r«»«r of Atsve pr’op^*' ^ j • Kssuit»rtl • l®0<0 ALL-METRO LAND 1 Nrtby e«ftify thol Hilt tyryty« pton or wot prtporod by mo or undor my diroct •Mpt^^Ofi ond tbot I om 0 duly Ropitltrod Lind Suruoyor undor tho lows of tho Stoto of Minnototo. J- '72i^(UfU SURVEYORS 2340 Ooniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55336 Ph: 475-1433 nxrr nre w) rite NO. sooife A TO:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson 7 From:Michael P. Gaffron» Asst Planning S Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: May 16, 1990 #1516 Mr. & Mrs. Whitney MacMillan, etal, 1560, 1580 and 1620 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Revised Proposal Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Revised Proposal (large plan) Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4/26/90 Exhibit C - Planning Commission Minutes 4/16/90 Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 4/13/90 Discussion - At the April meeting. Planning Commission made the following general comments about this application: 1. No requirement to build the cul”de—sac, but it should be platted. 2. No need to realign Outlot C (road) at the point it abuts the Norton property. 3. Road upgrade not required until Outlot B is developed. 4. Lot 1, Bloclc 1 if developed must use existing westerly driveway off of Fox Street. 5. Tennis court on Lot 1, Bloc)c 1 must be removed xf house on that lot is removed. 6. If house on Lot 1, Block 1 is bisected by the proposed lot line, it would have to be removed before a building permit could be issued for Lot 2, Block 1. hSve^platttd^rcul-dLsac near the north-west Property boundary as recommended, and have left Outlot B with enough frontage and lot width to be considered as a future building site without variances upon Council approval. Zoning File #1516 May 16,.. 1990 Page 2 of 3 The applicants have verified the location of the tennis court in Lot 1, Block 1 to be 19.6' from the lot line at the northeast corner and 21.5' at the northwest corner. Will Planning Commission accept the existing setback given that this is an existing tennis court rather than a new structure? Now that the lot will contain a principal structure, there is no specific requirement tha*- the tennis court be removed. (Mrs. MacMillan indicates they - *emove the rennic court rather than revise the lot line.) It appears that all Issues addressed at the last meeting have been resolved. Staff Reconmendation - Following is a list of recommended approval conditions based on Planning Commission's previous discussion and the current revisions: 1. Approval of lot lines and outlot configurations and locations as shown on the revised preliminary plat dated May 3, 1990. 2. No upgrading of the existing private roadways within Outlot C will be required nor will construction of the cul- de-sac be required, until such time that Outlot B is approved by the City Council for development. 3. Lot 1, Block 1 shall continue to use the existing westerly driveway access to Fox Street. 4. Standard format road and utility easement shall be granted to the City over Outlot C. 5. Applicants shall execute the standard covenant for maintenance of this private roadway. 6. Planning Commission strongly recommends that a homeowners' association of property owners using the roadway be formed. 7. Standard drainage and utility easements along all property lines shall be granted. 8. Outlets A and B are designated for future development, requiring that access, lot standards, and septic testing all be found acceptable bv this or a future City Council before any development may'occur on these 2 outlets (Flowage 6 Conservation easements will not be required over the ponds or wetlands in these outlets until future development occurs). li .] K tf Zoning File #1516 May 16, 1990 Page 3 of 3 9. Dedication on the plat of 33' of right-of-way for Fox Street. 10. Granting of Conservation & Flowage easement over the wetland in Lot 1, Block 1. 11. Granting of variance to allow garage in front yard of Lot 3, Block 1 to remain. 12 Accessory buildings including 2 garages a. d a12. Accessory Dui XU y removed within 6 months property within that time period. 13. (Optional - Planning CommisBicn to | ITnltl oTt'h\Tat".°‘o^fintniat approval been., it does not meet the required 50' rear setback. 1 i «W' * J r ZOHIMG PII.B NO. 1516 notice op planning COMMISi^TON ACTION CITY OP ORONO p.o. BOX 66 rcoo-j 473-7357 Notice: 4/26/90 TO: Mr. S Mrs. Whitney MacMillan COPIES TO: Herb street 1560 FOX Street Jordan, MN 55352 Wayzata, MN 55391 Larry Hanson, Schoell & Madson type op APPLICATION: Subdivision_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Tn{m vote: 6 For 0 Against Planning Co-alssion following: Table for reasons noted btiow NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled in order for “PPtVe ToV llne^^ ?jL'«:ov"a"l wo“u\VSrtnove^lot line to keep that house within Lot 1, Block 1. ) .. j *. 1 i-Ko followinq qeneral conunents but did not Planning Coinrnission /ecommendltion: yet incorporate them into a formal 1 NO requirement to build cul-de-sac, but it should be platted. g! NO need to realign Outlet C (road, at the point it abuts the Norton property. 3. Noad upgrade not required until Outlet B is developed. 4. Lot 1, Block 1. it developed, must use existing westerly drrveway off of Fox street. a. Trti- 1 Block 1 must be removed if house on that5. Tennis court on Lot 1, Bioex lot is removed. 6. If house on Lot 1, Block 1 is bisected ^ it would have to be removed before a buiiaing p for Lot 2, Block 1. Applicants' next scheduled meeting is confirmed , as .. -51 iqqo* meeting starts at 7:00 p.me Planning Commission Monday, May 2 , » minutVs,='°^her «e 'a"‘“ab?e”f rl^ t°he ‘Ji%f iicirLr'^fter’ r'^eTiiraSS approval by the Planning Commission. minutes of the APRIL 16, 1990 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING attendance 7:02 P.M. . nn the above date with theI«e Orono Planning Con»ission ^ following members Hanson, Cohen and Moos. The Commissioners Johnson, ®®j-^° . ' staff: Building and Zoning following ^«P^®®®"^®f_ Ass/stant Planning and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, As ^j^g^,Qj.der Scheffler. Council Administrator Gaffron and Y ^ gg was Councilmember Representative Peterson was also present, Callahan. #1516 MR. & MRS. WHITNEY MACMILLAN 1560, 1580 and 1620 FOX STREET preliminary SUBDIVISION „ ‘’"®“5he™£ila3iror?ibU=a;?on'^;ni Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. “• r • S:^-?i“>ra"ns“orors?h”o'elf°'. Sir? “Lands“pe !:rc^^te=\" and Hr. da=.< Taylor. Attorney. Gaffron explained tne Mao.Millan-s subdivision proposal. necessary to facilitate -h- ^.^-cMiHan' s wish to maintain as home. Mr. Baldv^in sai ' oossible. The intent is tomuch of the existing character as ooooiox preserve the land.**1.VW — -- - .....srVirrj alignment proposed by the f constructed as we are due to the steep grade. If J"® on the lake side of the proposing, a two-acre par land on the other side to beLtlot. It would allow extra land^^on^^^ ;?:«;ng %"f %"hf" “property »j.l\,';®^Pon«ini"’5o“a%eJ'’:hicr! a area." Gaffron noted that drain!ield°^ites. ^cVff!on alsoless_than,5 acres do have tes^^^^^ ,,, e,tyless than 5 acres have tested^^drainrieiu^^ P^.^P®^^^ noted that the existing through the center wi-1 be iiSJved! Gaffron ^Red If the“ MacMillan-s intended to remove e other structures (the caretaker homes). Larry Hanson replied that is correct. - 1 - I MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING , cour. a.d stated that" it is between 15' and 25' from the lot line. B-llows observed that once the house (1620 Fox Street) is removed there will te no principle structure as requrred if the tennis court is to remain. T« T-«»aard to the proposed alignment for Outlot C, Gaffron fsatd "The City Enoineer prefers not to have the Outlot dead en ?n the middle of 'someone's lot. However, the proposed outlot Snows logical progression ?Se iron, a topography tU idS^of endfn, the road against a City engineer ^^SeSSloSel lot. The point is well taken SSSr“Lth« “ievelopme'St of Shat _ lot could occur if it is combined with property to the north. Kelley asked Gaffron what the City Engineer is recommending to address the slopes if his alignment is used. Gaffron replied that the City Engineer has not commented about the feasibility of putting the road in that location. Mr Tavlor said, "The MacMillans and the property owners to the rSar "7tS“%Sn%er'ned about upgrading rhe ^road between the rnS«inS;%ny“«r''at ""all Tn that area.’ They would like the gravel road to remain as is. Kelley asked how many houses will exist oh the road when this proposal is completed. Gaffron counted 6 houses that will be served by this road. driveS:i^°“ior^P^ok “lfnSt“"t%‘ "t"h"e ^"en\";an"cV‘of "Ihf subdivision. raffron replied that the entire private road system is within private easements rather than on a platted outlot. « 11 "riven that the proposed subdivision does abuw I think that should be cxarified for the re-ord. Baldwin explained that the use of the being increased by the addition of °"® high degree of MacMillan's have a strong desi^^^ slopes and the limited :i-5ite*se"p'tic systems, we would make a mess of - 2 - • • ••• kbptt 16 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING minutes of APRIL 16, «e involved with the ownership of these properties nnfiot A will be achieved. Bellows asked how access to outlet A wixOeAXWWo —- - a“"/iirh!r loV^:t ‘this °t‘r Shflh” ir‘whr'it *een designated as an outlet-naceu e»o —- - ^ ,-hai- Lot 1, Block 1, appears to be a huildib?r!St fnrasktd What purpose it will serve. ^ • Larry Hanson replied, "?|‘°there‘*’“That‘parcel*was brought rrtrt^e* ;-u'’hdrvniSi;““hec‘rus‘''pitt‘Srt; was nee^ded to enlarge Lot 2." Bellows asked why it could not be combined with Lot 2. OeXAUWO - -a. Mr. Taylor explained that there are different involved..VevA. ^ I, .Khe ritv Engineer may have good Kelley stated C, it did not make sense,reasons for his alignment of Outlot c.IlO a.wa. -- - - - • ^ i for the Planning Commission s opi Gaffron asxed for tne regarding the cul-de-sac. hhat the cul-de-sac will run by the front of Kelley stated that the cu the Norton house.lOiUUU u a It it would be possible to locate the cul- de-sarii«her**.o*uth where the grade is more flat. u McsfvMillans have a large garden m Baldwin stated that the MacMillans tnat area.area. , ..^ 1 could not be located Mrs. MacMillan asked why the cul-d in Outlot B. Kelley stated that there are steep slopes in that area -- - - - - -— -‘r- -irt‘er4tri^?rdSt‘nf?;?rs!t‘eS!the south may interrere .e-safii'o^ :rMoi‘toi‘s :nf?hrorhrr^if‘L^^^^ iC xroni ------- ----- j Pnaineer*s reconunendation to Bellows interpreted the City Eg - 3 - < 1 MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING properties." Bellows asked how access to Outlet A will be achieved. Larry Hanson stated that Outlet A does not meet standards for a buildable lot at this time, which is why it has been designated as an outlet. Johnson observed that Lot 1, Block 1, appears to be a buildable lot and asked what purpose it will serve. Larry Hanson replied, "Though that lot is large enough, there is no intention to build there. That parcel was orought into the subdivision because part of it was needed to enlarge Lot 2." Bellows asked why it could not be combined with Lot 2. Mr. Taylor explained that there are different entities involved. Kelley stated that though the City Engineer may have good reasons for his alignment of Outlet C, it did not make sense. Gaffron asKed for the Planning Commission's opinion regarding the cul-de-sac. Kelley stated that the cul-de-sac will run by the front of the Norton house. Bellows asked if it would be possible to locate the cul- de-sac further south where the grade is more flat. Baldwin stated that the MacMillans have a large garden in that area. Mrs. MacMillan asked why the cul-de-sac could not be located in Outlet B. Kelley stated that there are steep slopes in that area Gaffron informed Bellows that placing the cul-de-sac more to the south may interfere with drainfield sites. Kelley asked if it would be sensible to take half cf the cul de-sac from the Nortons and the other half from the MacMillans. Bellows interpreted the City Engineer's recommendation to - 3 - MINOTES OP APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • * . . . . . . ZONING FILE #1516-MACMILLAN CONTINOED include only the dedication of the cul-de-sac at this time.' Gaffron's interpretation is that the cul-de-sac be constructed at this-time. Gaffron stated that clarification will be necessary. Larry Hanson said, "I have a strong suspicion that no matter where the cul-de-sac is located, once future development occurs, it will be in the wrong place." Kelley stated that it would not make sense to move the cul- de-sac down toward to Fox Street. Bellcv’^ stated that perhaps the cul-de-sac does not make sense. Gaffron stated that from a safety aspect and the requirer.-.ent3 of the Building Code, a cul-de-sac should be included. Gaffron asked Larry Hanson how wide the gravel portion of the road is. Larry Hanson replied that the gravel portion is 16' wide. Kelley quickly reviewed the issues involved with this application. The Planning Commission agreed t'nat the grade is too steep to realign the Outlot as proposed by the City Engineer. Kelley observed that the existing 16' paved portion of the driveway will serve more houses than the gravel portion of the road. The City is asking that the gravel portion be constructed to meet City standards which require a 24' or 26' paved v»idth. In regard to the tennis court, Kelley stated that it should be removed. Moos, Cohen, Kelley, Bellows and Johnson agreed that the cul- de-sac is not necessary. Kelley stated that Outlot C should be aligned along the existing driveway. As far as the upgrading of Outlot C, Kelley stated that the portion to be upgraded is beyond the driveway entrance of the new lot. Johnson suggested that Outlot C not be upgraded until Outlot B is developed. Bellows, Kelley, Hanson, and Moos agreed with Johnson. Cohen favored upgrading Outlot C to a 24 foot width. Johnson stated that Lot 1, Block 1, still presented a problem because of the fact that it is a buildable lot. - 4 - ... t . p I! t « «» MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1516-MACMILLAN CONTINUED .... Bellows said, "The access to that lot is achieved from the west, rather than being served by a road within this subdivision. If it is the intention not to use this lot as a buildable site, then why cannot the lot be designated as an outlot?" Mr, Taylor stated that there are other parties involved with Lot 1, Block 1. That party is amenable to what is being presented this evening, but any variation of that would require their approval. Kelley stated that Lot 1 is already served by a driveway from the west. He suggested that a condition of approval be that in the event Lot 1, Block 1, is developed that it continue to be served from the existing driveway to the west. Mabusth asked what purpose Outlot A serves. Taylor explained that by agreement between the two parties, the property line for Lot 2 run. along the lakeshore. The owners of Outlot A kept the lakeshore and the portion to the west of the lake. Gaffron reviewed the proposed conditions for Outlot A (page 4, A through D, of Gaffron's memo dated 4/13/90). With respect to Lot B, Gaffron asked whether it could be combined with the adjacent property to the west since there is common ownership. Larry Hanson said that there is really no need to do that. He stated that Outlot B is a residual piece created so MacMillans could take title to the property with the caretaker structure. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the tennis court be removed. Johnson suggested allowing a specific time period for the structure to be removed, a realignment of the lot line, or the construction of a principal structure. Larry Hanson stated that actual measurements were not taken to determine its location on the property. He suggested that he be given the opportunity to measure. Gaffron explained that the issue is not the location of the tennis court, but rather that it would be an acct * *.ory structure with no principal structure. Bellows suggested allowing one year for the accessory structure to conform or be removed. Kelley indicated that the other accessory structures and the principal structure should be removed prior to the issuance of a - 5 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1516-MACMILLAN CONTINUED building permit for MacMillans' new residence Baldwin asked if it would be possible to overlap that schedule to allow construction to begin while the estate of the applicant's mother is being settled. Tay]or stated that it he cannot be certain that the existing house will be torn down. He said that the lot line may have to be realigned to preserve the house and the tennis court. Cohen said that Mr. Taylor's statement put new light on the information presented this evening. Mr. MacMillan explained that there are other heirs involved and the decision to remove the house is not solely his to make. Bellows suggested tabling this application because the information presented at this point is incorrect. Bellows said that the Planning Commission would probably be amenable to recommending an extension of time to remove the principal structure. Johnson preferred to see the house removed prior to the issuance of a building permit. He indicated that such a requirement is a consistent policy of the City and there should be no exception. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1517 WHITNEY MACMILLAN 1560 FOX STREET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:07 P.M. TO 8:09 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron reviewed the information pertaining MacMillans' application to enlarge an existing pond. the There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for reconstruction of an existing artificial pond, subject to staff's conditions 1 through 6. - 6 - I I Planning Conunlssion Chairraan Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson a Prom: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator April 13, 1990 Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning^Di^s^trict - RR-lB, Single family rural residential, 2 acre Application - lot residential subdivision to replat property additional buiwibll lo?."'' 1 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - 1. 2. 3. Exhibit P - Exhibit G - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Proposed Plat Drawing (1 large sheet) Staff Sketches: Existing Lot Lines Private roads/driveways Proposed Lot Lines Scale Drawing of Propovtt.;' :• isidence Orientation from Pile # Letter from City Engineer 4/12/90 with Recommended Cul~de~sac Location Pertinent Facts - drawing^: follows (per preliminary plat Total number of lots ~ 4 lots 3 outlots Areas: Block 1, Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 513,210^ s.f. or 11,78+ acres 523,444+ s.f, or 12.02+ acres 139,810^ s.f, or 3.21+^ acres Block 2, Lot 1 93,650+ s.f. or 2.15+ acres Outlet A Outlet B Outlet C Road 512,400+ s.f. or 11.76+ acres 326,815;[_ s.f. or 7.50+ acres 54,315+ s.f. or 1.25+ acres 24,585+ s.f. or 0,56+ acres Gross Net 2,188,229^ s.f. or 50.23^ acres 2,163,644^ s.f, or 49.67+ acres Zoning Pile #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 2 of 7 2 The property within the proposed subdivision consists of 6 ’ separ^ate tax parcels owned by 4 different persons or ^oups. In the current Hennepin County tax books these are listed as: 1. Longridge Associates 2. Cargill MacMillan 3. Edna C. MacMillan 4. Whitney MacMillan The applicants have provided copies of a number of signed consent forms for the various apparent course, the final plat drawings will need to be signed by all parties. 3. Three of the existing 6 tax parcels contain existing residence structures. The other 3 parcels are vacant. of the developed parcels and 2 of abut a public right-of-way or a platted private road outlot. Discussion - The intent of primary applicants Mr. & Maf'Millan is to create 1 new building site upon which to construct 1 new single family residence. that a plat is required. While it may appear that this could be accomplished by merely rearranging lot bounds rearrangement to accomplish the applicants y result in extremeli .onplex legal Surveyor's office lixely would reject. Also, only platting allows the dedication of private road outlots and easements, which the City will require in this application. A. Existing Roads/Driveways All of the existing houses are served by private oT- shared driveways (see staff sketch E-2). A separate shared driveway serves 1620 Fox Street and 1700 Fox Street, plus the tennis building and caretaker house adjacent to it. Further east, a private easement road serves 2 existing residences within the subdivision l”a\e®r^^outside the boundaries of the subdivision. This prlva«^ also connects through Orono Orchard Road to the Hamm property the east. The new building site is proposed to be ® line on Sketch E-2. Zoning File #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 3 of 7 in early discussions with the applicants' representative Horh Baldwin staff indicated that within the boundaries of the subdivision, the City would require that a 50* outlet be platted und the standard private road and utility easements be granted over the existing main private roadway. The applicants have shown this outlet within their proposed plat. reques^^t that'^i''cuY-d‘e-sfc‘^be^p\a\^ted^aL it was not standards, given the history of similar situations and the City s growing awareness of private road issues. in discussions with staff, the Engineer although somewhat reservedly, recommended that the . constructed and the entire road within the subdivision be vrtrraf^pd His reluctance again relates to the City's private road pilieies being currently under scrutiny. In with the Engineer, and per his letter received today, he has revised his recorjnendation to include the following. 1. Re-alignment of the road outlet for a future westerly continuation. 2. Upgrade of the currently gravelled portion private road out lot and the cul-de-sac to City private road standards, allowing the existing recently paved private road to remain as is. A developer's agreement and letter of credit would be required. B. Septic System Considerations criteria, have been tested and found to be suitable for sewage treatment needs of the proposed new house. On Lot 1, Block 1, the existin^g bisect removed, which is appropriate since the new lot line will it. This property has an existing functional mou^n^d ani has pos'Lib'^le alternate s.ites to the east court, just west of the Morrison residence. peptic test report for these sites have not been submitted, but tnese required since this lot exceeds 5 dry acres. has VhV heu'/e'^'” "" I Zoning File #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 4 of 7 Lot 1, Block 2 containing an existing caretakers house (which was reconstructed approximately 2 years ago) has a new septic system and a tested alternate site adjacent to it. In summary, each of the 4 lots contain the required primary and alternate drainfield sites. C. Proposed Outlets The subdivision proposes 2 outlets for future development, these being Outlet A west of the artificial lake, and Outlet B to the north. The Orono^ SubdivlRion Code requires that any outlets created within a subdivision be documented as to specific purpose and future intended use and conditions must be defined under which those outlets can be developed. Outlet A will not abut any public or private roadway, and contains a significant portion of the artificial lake area. Absent any specific restrictions intended by the applicant except that this outlet would be for "future development", staff would suggest the following restrictions on Outlet A: A. Future development or construction of any sort within Outlet A requires City Council approval. B. Subject to future septic testing to verify drainfield sites. C. Subject to future provision of suitable road access per City requirements. D. At the time of future development. City will require Flowage and Conservation Easement over the artificial lake. Outlet B to the north under the current scheme would abut the road outlet but not have the required lot width at the 50' setback line to be considered bulldable without a width variance. This area is also intended for no current development and staff would recommend similar conditions as for Outlet A. land.Each of these outlets has about 5 acres of dry bulldable D. Wetlands, Ponds, Etc. The proposed building site within Lot 2 is centrally located within that lot, and the proposed site plan (Exhibit G) indicates that a 75' setback from the artificial lake area will be maintained. This lake is approximately 8 acres in area, and is not "meandered", hence property ownership continues through the bed of the pond. Zoning File #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 5 of 7 Staff has advised the applicants that easements would not be requested for the wetlands or pond area within the outlots, and that those easements would be requested when future development occurs. The City will require granting of a f lowage and conservation easement over the wetlands in Lot 1, Block 1 abutting Fox Street. Discussion of an easement for the smaller pond within Lot 2, Block 1 will be found in application #1517, the conditional use permit for work in that non-designated pond area. E. Disposition of Existing Structures A number of buildings and structures on the property apparently are intended to be removed as a result of this replat. -ri In proposed Lot 1, Block 1, the existing residence, which will have a new lot line bisectljig^it, is apparently intended for , removal totally. That lot wiH''itlMkl contain a tennis court that 22' is shown to be approximately 12' from the northerly lot line. This is one of the few lot linee^that has previously existed and is not changing, hence Planning Commission could justify not requiring that line to move due to its pre-existing status. Other options would be to require 30' setback for the tennis court, or alternatively Planning Commissicn could request a 50' setback if it is determined that the adjacent lot line is a "rear" lot line. fJt TO > In Lot 2, Block 1, there are two detached garages and a caretaker residence which staff presumes will be removed. Applicants should confirm that this is the case. }S-lO In Lot 3, Block 1, the existing Whitney MacMillan residence has a detached garage structure that will end up being nearer the defined roadway than the existing house. Technically, this garage could be considered as needing a variance, although it exists. Lot 1, Block 2 has no detached accessory structures. There are also no apparent structures on either of the two future development outlots. Applicants should be requested to provide a schedule for removal of the accessory buildings that are to be removed, and such a schedule should be incorporated into the preliminary and final plat approval resolutions. Zoning File #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 6 of 7 P. Lot Standards Each of the 4 building lots has the required 200' of lot width as measured 50' back from the roadway. Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 2 all require variances because they do not abut a public road. The outlets are not required to meet lot standards since they are intended for future development. Sunaiary of Issues 1. Realignment of proposed Outlet C, the road outlet, Provision of a cul-de-sac dedication in that outlet.2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Extent of required upgrading/development of existing road and recommended cul-de-sac. Designation of future development outlets, conditions of approval. % Lot line near tennis court on Lot 1, Block 1. i’ypcy Disposition of existing house ending up on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. 7. Disposition of 2 garages and caretaker house on Lot 2, Block 1. 8. Variance for existing garage on Lot 3, Block 1. Staff Recoanaendation - Planning Commission should review the above items with the applicant and make a recommendation on each issue as part of your recommendation to Council. Staff would recommend the following laundry list of approval conditions: 1. Revise private road Outlot C to conform to City Engineer's proposed sketch. 2. Recommend that the road in Outlot C between the end of the newer pavement and the cul-de-sac be constructed to City private road standards. 3. Grant standard road and utility easements over Outlot C. 4. Require execution of standard covenant for maintenance of this private roadway. 5. Developer's agreement to be executed between the City and the developers for upgrading of the road. Zoning File #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 7 of 7 6. Strongly reconunend that a homeowners' association of all property owners using the roadway be formed. 7. Granting of the standard drainage and utility easements along all property lines. 8. Define Outlets A and B as designated for future develop ment, requiring that access, lot standards, and septic testing all be found acceptable by this or a fuvure City Council before any development may occur on these 2 outlets (Flowage and Conservation Easements not required until future development occurs). 9. Existing house bisected by the proposed lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, shall be removed prior to Issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, Block 1. 10. Lot line north of tennis courts to be moved northward to meet the required 30' minimum setback for such a structure (Does Planning Commission wish to confirm this as a rear yard, and require a 50' setback?). 11. Dedication on the plat of 33' of right-of-way for Fox Street. 12. Granting of Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetland in Lot 1, Block 1. 13. Grant variance to allow garage in front yard of Lot 3, Block 1 to remain. 2. 3. 4. MINIMDM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form py-£»i iminarv Plat information on Certificate of Survey.ss‘;is srs;.srs.s;; s. "™v. S'K"..:?.' .r. 2:;;: Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. na+-e Zoning Official's Signature_ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ IT Iiriplrt'fws, fHirg fee, ’ • 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3! Title opinion. 4. Easements» Covenantsr etc. 5, Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit, certification by Zoning Department that Pinal Plat Zoning Official’s Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _;r__ _ _rrzrrrrzzZZTCrr FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement 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^ $150.00 250.00 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* requested by the Zoning ' to orocess this application and W,l>Htenate 1)/^^ I ^ U , ( r y. Applicant's Signature f --—-- - - - - -,- - - - - -— ' , / i/Vic 10 owner's Signature J \VK-^ViO-Vb.,, ■ I ' ' - - - - - - -S- - - - Applicant must have all submittals a^r? he\1"n the Planning Commission Meeting. Planni 9 must be oresent at all scheduled third Monday of each month. Applicants must ^«^P ”“"‘i?”^,pplicant is review meetings of the Planning ®nd PPp hsve an "S?ho7se°d \“ent a\tend ‘ln'yturp'lacl' a^d to advise the Building l Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. CITY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICA PROPERTY LOCATION Site 1560 Fox Street 1 ■’iI Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) As listed to right. Please check one — Property ^ abstract or _ _ torrens? 117 23 23 0001 03 117 23 14 0003 03 117 23 41 0002 03 117 23 41 0001 02 117 23 32 0005 02 117 23 32 0004] Attach legal description to application APPLICANT Schoell & Madson, Inc. Name c/o Larry L. Hanson Phone (home) 937-1462 Phone (work) 546-7601 Address; 10550 Wayzata Boulevard ______ City; Minnetonka Zip; 55343 OWNER S(if different than applicant) Mr. & Mrs. Whitney MacMnlan Name Estate of Pauline W. MacMillan Long Ridge Associates Address; Phone (home) Phone (work) City;Zip: (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 2.49 47.74 50.23 Acres Dry Land Acre? Wet Land Acres Total, all CITY OF ORSiQ office 13502000^ parcels^,hlJU ’-Z Present Use (check)Residential; no. Other (specify)_ of units Present Zoning District RR-IB_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PROPOSAL _ _ _ _ _ _ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New BViilding Sites Number of Building Sites; 4 Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use; (check) •. — Existing Units New Units Total Units (Home on parcel 2600 to be razed) Units per 12.6 Acres 93,6^ - _ Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) W| c j ; —• 'n rr I ^Tlteg-*T^ , 6'Z i eXf iP/2'VAre . ? ; . /eoAjypeiveKiAY isto fox iNiiic<^Tes ADtxiess ; ^P<*<P#0tM#VTe te^CA^TTOAJ OF ^fsnfJG HO»^C* I' '■ j. ■ •. •, ! • ! *.»S'f SlVA^0 - /»jblCATCS • .* .• :. i1.:'^ r h'l J \ C^JOKJO Got-F Co\AliSt VAC- 3SO VAc, <—ABviT^ / e*^L,ti\ti(,C /AlCOC . \ \ H30 |9^0 fox O.L. A ', C(2A i&BA«I(C A-^oC.1700 fox tcajms Cl.^. At^OC. -P-o i.H. Al*c /1B7 TAUSr at. c t.H.Hi«rA»A ^c. ISZOl -£|2ZJ ^rw«3€) •tSTieee^T^ B^}4, / peopos€t> flKtfict, UOT bomm ti Ait,i es /7 -r/i;< pAf^i-l-s) ISftO fox l/oCklCATES ADWICSS APPteWiWATC. LC>cAT10t-i Of CX/STJAJC* ' /MCtlCATCS C-0^.»«ws.O|;0 V / ! i * Pj^ I I £ ■ r j* * ^ i Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & 1^1 Associates Engineers & Architects c;^n / Os . Oao 0 aohnuna W tOivnr f f irnttA C AAoe«itt. fs *<n#<i» fWnrt Ht Jwt C Onr*. Cfitn N COO^. M rhonvi% ^ N6)TV. « «DPfTt 0 SCfVnmf. PC Mar^i I Jorv^ Krr*' A OwSBA tcnMf tv ro«ff Pi oofutn t t\^im Pt JPfy A l^doA A ^tniOfl PM Wien f XiwuhmiFI ttoerf » MtfUm, Pt CMvidO Letiou. Hmwn. Pt MKftsetC Lyrun f| jsmeit Mjuna pp KtrAm p AAoen^ yt Mint Mgti H iBOfifC Avtiek Aia r AaquI Pi A UnM Pt 04AieU loaiftwi M A4f« A. M AC AAAO i CilttMf Af Mjrs li vU|ft% rf thume\« A/^noM A/A <ie*> f fyitntltv. Pf Mm S jrmm Pf I PiAi^i Id Pi t •v»«r» A »hrit)vr« 4IV»M PiAMHfty HjrUhM OhOA Vaji* M ivemCM April 12. 1990 r UlSSCIO^^IM CJTfOf DfiCMO City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 5SS23 Attn: Mike Gaffrar APR 13 1990 Set 139.1S16 Macmillan Addition Dear Mikei Wo have reviewed the plans submitted on the Macmillan Addition. The following modifications to the plat are recommended. The roadway alignment, should be adjusted to it can be extended westerly in the future. The dedication of a cul-de-sac near the end of the road Is recommended. The roadway from the end of the existing blacktop to the cul-se> ,ac should be constucted in accordance with city standards. Drawing easements should be provided along with lot lines. The street grading and drainage plan should be submitted and a bond provided prior to beginning work. . If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook ORCilp \y/or» s« • C. D-..I m. Tot Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator May 17, 1990 #1510 Richard W. Brown - 2685 Shadywc^d Road " variance/conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Notice of Planning Commission Action 4/20/90 Planning Commission Minutes 4/16/90 Memo and Exhibits of 4/4/90 Discussion This item was tabled at your April meeting for primarily from the attached garage. Snhea«l%ntry hail ” to decrease i‘%,%P-*nSoe'“SsrVoo*r ""?i‘’^ee; “Vla*b\e ”«ay ‘to"eUnln'atr«r.osrrbvious :xL'rio%“«c:ss%*harsSg,%s?s" a totally separated apartoent use. in reviewing hardcover the proposed configuration « 27.8. liistvtould* relief htrdcove?, "gur^ou w”««finry l'ea« access to the house lacking. AS of this writing, applicant ha. f^'^hav^^ c4-sff would hiohlv recommend that# it Y® I j f Zoning File #1510 May 17, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Staff Reconendatlonp Planning Conunission can iresolve the access and hardcover issues, a recommendation for approval could be forwarded subject to the following standard conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. Isv The second dwelling unit is allowed as a guest apartment only, to be used for relatives and non-paying guests of the property owners. The unit may not be rented out. The two-family dwelling or guest apartment use shall cease at such time that the current applicant/owners no longer own the property. Any subsequent property owner would have to re—apply for this type of use or remove the kitchen facilities. Utilities shall not be separated but shall be metered jointly with the principal residence. The guesti apartment shall not have a separate street address. ^ 1 1 ; ZONING PILE NO 1510 CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 4/20/90 TO:Rick Brown 6167 Sunny Road Minnetonka, MN 55343 COPIES TO: Richard W, Brown 2685 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance/Conditional Use Permit DATE OP MEETING: 4/16/90 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Conniission recooiBends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled for further consideration. Applicant to explore: 1. Possibilities for hardcover reductions toward the 25% 75-250' standard. 2. Revision of access doorways, so that main access to the guest apartment is clearly through the house and not primarily from the attached garage. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Plar.ning Commission Monday, May 21, 1990; meeting starts at 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 Commission. •V agent must be provided by June 15, 1990. Motion, Ayes-4, Hanson, Johnson, Nay. Hanson voted nay due to the time frame. Johnson voted nay due to the time frame and his preference to allow the structure to be.used for reasonable storage. #1510 RICHARD W. BROWN 2685 SHADYWOOD ROAD GUEST APARTMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.M. TO 8:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Richard E. Brown, son of the applicant and purchaser of this property, was present. Gaffron explained the applicant's proposal and the facts regarding the property. Kelley said there is not mucn that can be done to correct the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback area. Kelley objected to the removal of non-structural hardcover in exchange for structural hardcover. Mr. Brown stated that he did not understand the issue of hardcover. Cohen, Johnson, and Bellows concurred. Gaffron stated that more than likely the applicant will opt to remove hardcover from the driveway and/or sidewalks in order to maintain the 25% allowed. Bellows stated that there is no access to the apartment through the primary residence as required. Gaffron showed where the apartment accesses are located. Gaffron suggested giving the applicant an opportunity to provide an interior access. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1510-RICHARD BROWN CONTINUED Kelley asked Mr. Brown if he would prefer to table this. Mr. Brown stated that he would like the matter tabled. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1511 CITY OF ORONO 2210 WAYZATA BOULEVARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:30 P.M. TO 10:32 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. To:Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator April 4, 1990 Subject: #1510 Richard W. Brown, 2685 Shadywood Road - Guest Apartment Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, i acre Application “ Request for conditional use permit to construct a guest apartment addition to the existing residence. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application & Letter of Request Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey/Proposed Site Plan Exhibit E “ Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Submitted by Applicant Exhibit F - Staff Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G - Proposed Floor Plans/Elevation Views Exhibit H - Letter of Request from Applicant Exhibit I - Section ?n.20. Subdivision 3 (G) li Exhibit J - Air Phocc, ^’ay 1?‘»9 Pertinent Facts - u ^ii 1« The applicants are selling the house to their son^ who will be residing in the house full time. The applicants would be living In the guest apartment during the six months of the year in wh.^ch they will live in Minnesota. 2.Applicants had intended to meet the hardcover limitation of 25% in the 75-250' zone. The only hardcover in the 0-75 zone is a 290 s.f. portion of ar existing boat house, e^jval to just over 1% hardcover in the 0-75' zone. In the 75-250 zone, a staff calculation of hardcover indicates there is currently 28.1% existing hardcover. If no removals occur outside the areas of the new addition, this will increase to 32.8%. There are areas of 1andscaping, pa^io, a shed and excess driveway next to the new garage, that could be removed. This could result in a net 75-250' decrease from 28.1% down to 27.8%. Hardcover Summary: 0-75* 75-250' Existing 290 s.f. (171%) 6,861 s.f. (28.1%) Proposed Same 7,999 s.f. (32.8%) Possible If Remo^’als Occur SaiT.w* 6,782 s.f. (27.8%) I Zoning File #1510 April 4, 1990 Page 2 of 3 3. The guest house conditional use permit section of the code [Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G)] was revised in early 1987 to distinguish between grast houses which must meet all regular lot requirements t id guest apartments, which have specific requirements for access, utilities and usage. A copy of that section is attached. 4, Technically, an average lakeshore setback variance is required for this addition. This property has the characteristics of a peninsula because it abuts the lake on the west side and a lagoon to the north (see attached May 1989 air photo). Discussion - I would first refer Planning Commission to the attached copy of Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G) - il. "Non-rental guest apartments." The applicant's request aopears to meet most of the conditions prescribed for such an apartment, as follows: A) the intended use of the apartment is for the non-paying relatives (parents) of the future owner, and is not intended for rental use; B) an additional 2-stall garage is being provided, hence parking concerns are addressed; C) sewage treatment is not a concern because this is a sewered area, and the applicants intend to maintain the utilities as part of the main house, and not separately metered. Access to the proposed guest apartment can be gained via a number of doorways. There is a single doorway from the new garage with access directly to the apartment. A walkout glass door is proposed on the lakeside on the lower level. A glass sliding door will lead to the existing upper level deck. There will be an access door to the store room above the existing garage. The entrance to the main body of the house is via the proposed kitchen through an existing "entry hall" to the family room. Given the nature of the existing entry hall and the storage area above the garage, it is arguable whether the proposed access layout strictly meets the intent of the code in that "there shall be at least one access door to the apartment from within the principal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment" (emphasis added). One could argue that the new garage entrance will act strictly as the primary access, and that the entry hall access on the lower level acts merely as a foyer between two totally separate units. On the other hand, the obvious shared use of the upper lev<»’ deck helps to integrate the use of the apartment into the main residence use. fi Zoning File 11510 April 4, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff Recoamendation - Planning Conunisslon should address the following Issues in its recommendation to the Council: 1. Is the existing access layout acceptable? Does it meet the intent of the Code in providing primary access to the apartment from within the principal structure? 2. Should a hardcover variance be granted to allow a 75- 250* increase from 28.1% to 32.8%, or should excess hardcover be removed to result in an overall reduction? 3. Does Planning Commission have any concerns with the granting of an average setback variance? Will this addition have any significant impact on neighboring properties? If the above issues can be resolved, staff would recommend approval subject to the following additional standard guest apartment conditions: 1. The second dwelling unit is allowed as a guest apartment only, to be used for relatives and non-paying guests of the oroperty owners. The unit may not be rented out. 2. The two family dwelling or guest apartment use shall cease at such time the current applicants/owners no longer own the property. Any subsequent property owner would hav'' to reapply for this type of use or remove the kitchen facilities. 3. Utilities shall not be separated but shall be metered jointly with the principal residence. 4. The guest apartment shall not have a separate street address. • . / ,6‘'>ir' •// :oM Vi % CITY OP ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPEfCATIO PROPERTY LOCATION 2^^^^ 5*A (A KJ A cm OF D.W ”” Fm%E OFFICE ^nso20(i^ _# Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Z/1 I *“723 Z3Q0 SO 03/15/90 Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) V ^ " Phone (work)_ _ _ _ _ Wi‘ OWNER^if different than applicant) Name /_ _ _ _ _' <Y ' J ' Address4*/^^ / Address .r4<cJc/ ./?J City — Zip 2 Zi Phone (home) '// ~ / Phone A&/City ^ :{month/year)iuC^v'^Date'property Acquired _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ (J^ (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land PEES - CONDITIONAL OSE 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 (church# school# etc.) X $150^0o'^est House/Guest Apartments . $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain - - rrariina and filling ” 101 cu. yd. or more - - Grading# seawall# retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS „ .$200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fee $250.00 Vacation $175.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ZZZr $250.00 Reioning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _ _ _ _ $100.00 Appeals _ _ Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USB OF PROPERTY .. Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DBSOEIIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: 2. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 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). 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 planr 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.' 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11" X 17* OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. 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 beet of% his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's signature Date 0 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 ve^flcation of this request. Owner's signature X^^^T^^ Y Date ^ ^ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I H 1/7 !€C /I ^ Ct»AU y HI HS'S r .e3 4^^000S sf, / / .<• • •• prop^Qc/ t^iVldtrU^ JS / • • • V /kS., •« ^ / /\' 'S'. / i''Mh % V • • • • •<”:"-::::v; Plat, of Survey 8 vp ® for hi chan: H. hreustedt in Lot 2^, rhuacunt i^awn Hennopin County , Kinnooota / area sherthnt os of 5^77 ?r- / /' . •Vk"// ImtofSi/f ,30- ioi'Zi ' £%isit/ty 7 .O '•••./'/ Cortificjite of Survey; I hereby certify t-oat this is a ^^true and correct representation of t survey of the bcuacaries oi that part f of Lot 24,) Pheasant Lavn, lyinc l.orth — r westerly of a line drevn parailel with and 130 feet Korthuosterly frer. th^ Southeast- eriv line of said lot,, the location o* all existing builcinfs therecn, and the snereline as of March 9, 1977. Ko monuaents have been o3-aced to estac m ^ m —^ — Land Surve.-'or and Planner Lone *ake, Minnesota Scale: 1" ~ 60' Date ; 3-9-77 \JLf. tr _IK1 U»e» a.-! 1 HARDCOVER CALCUU\TIOOflfiKSHEET SETBACK zone : (CIRCLE one )(o-75j 75-250 Existing H ardcover in Zone em 6*^ a./V/T A. H ouse i c. Driveway -512.5 *• Vr?9 -j>vr? D,. Sidewalk E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS underlain BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other LENGTH 7rx/i?r .-vr . Sy- 7S-X/0 2. - ^ '^B. Garage __ X - X X X X X X WIDTH 250-500' 500-1000' • _ S.F. _ S.F. . S.F. . S.F. . S.F. S.F. « S.F. S.F. S.F. Total H ardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone 230J _ S.F. . S.F. • . S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F. U] ZiUrf^ .... ID ^c.,s^ B X 100 - /./? % 7 L, . ' - /./O V Ff F: L'-- HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'^75-250^ 250-500' 500-1000' 3^ Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House LENGTH _22 27.4 B. Garage c. Driveway D.. SlPEWALX _ X. u-->lk E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN UY , . PLASTIC SHEETING 70 WIDTH X ?r* 2l'f . X /o - X . X 21 10 _ X X X X X G. O ther _ X Total H ardcover in Zone ■/I/3 ?9) 1^0 7Vr I/O /DO .F, ... (!) S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, (j) S.F^ S.F.(^ S.F. S.F. S,F. S.F. S.F. S ...6) ___________ S.F. ^1. 3-0 S.F. Total Property Area in Zone C22A B 21. la, X100 - J2‘9i2 —% cr>. i j l.i ; f I I (5^. e-3 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET^. E.’at 10/ D eck F. Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 1 Existing Hardcover in Zone • • A. House J-V” ’ X 3-75' 775-251^ 250-500' 500-1000' pGA/y __iV______• ■^^'2- S.F. LENGTH WIDTH • X S.F. X .• • S.F. m • X S.F. _ X SB S.F. B> Garage •7 ^ X 2*1 = rzsr S.F. c. D riveway X S.F. X :3 S.F. D.. Sidewalk X .S.F. X ,S.F. X .S.F. . X . X ...m BY , X PLASTIC SHEETING X « _ S.P, « . S.F. - C22.0 s.F.<S-<^(^i) M «. D thpb X « S.F. V. • • Total Hardcover in Zone ^l^XH S.F. ^ Total Property Area in Zone Zl, IbX. . S.F. |TI s iT 27^-L V inn - 2^.^ '% •p' S.F. S.F. aSim' t>. ■; .T^V-:| • :• • ' *' • * A. V . • > 1 ‘^Vr- ' tf*'*. 1 * * »• • % ’*•• . . . •{ •v^.V'-i*• \r'I r ^ K X ri ^ 2 v: eII ■X I ill 1 « ^ ^:V 1 ^ • '• • i > ♦ 0c r- 1 O u? j.iIQ O' 5 ai e 1 4^ "a i I 1 ■ • -t ■ <rr ^ i & i ■:r j <4 A •IX 4 ri r* T* o 3. <1 U lA « & e^-F-l .*. ‘4r; • -f-'v* • . > .*•• * . • *v*! .1V « • f(fe ••■ •» ✓ - 4* , i-> • ;• 4 I 0 8 Z >iX V. tC f>4 1/' 0a %* 3 3 I Oa 5 wu. •0 > U H ,4 »V M “ - ‘‘ »• “ “ “ I* II s • i ? i I p 1 “3- t\ N 4 < ft I VIr- b I oM 01 Ji r M X X K <(d S o 0 V ^h V? a 4<r ^ r> 4 d5 A •r T- *>. vS>- CD Xr ^ -> vJz .fi ..V'.* ■ . • / -r* • •••^ % • I *• ♦ ■ 1, e><M, r-z. i rr 'ft f A V : ' >4 m :'r^W' r ‘I .» •i ! IS. '. ( • p • « . • ^ # • # f • i-viv K • ! ‘i> •f* • • • ^ * # n.« . k ^ ' , , ’A Y' .Si Iv. ■ ^ lo'2 V.--o /V. ® % • r • « *» X I *• .» ^ . * •» 1 • . .. " ■ 11 I ^ v-j7i.x •I I*• / ' V i »! T) K, A: 3 • ‘I'l1 S=- * ^ •I' r!,»'•»• I ti IK fO ^ Lit - J ^ 4 'o JH 11’'''^ lilHJ—-i* r—“■IM 0.1 ^\w 1 r u 1 •» •* ■w ft '1 H" '•< M 4"^ Al|:: 4 V, « -.^ •».. I ' 2-2.3.' d’? The Muni.ci.paX Code of ^he City of Otono is amended by addino Ordinance No. 29» Second Series; Section I Orono Municipal Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G) is hereby repealed and the following language substituted in its place: U G. i) Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, Including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met.by the guest house. ii) Non-rental Guest Apartments. An apartment within the princip ’il residence structure on a lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. There shall be at least one access door to the apartmc?nv "from within the principal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment. Application for such a guest apartment shall address the concerns of parking, sewage treatment, entryway and interior access method. Such apartments shall not have utilities metered separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a separate street address. tl »• To:Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:May 16, 1990 Subject: #1513 Walter Krahl - 4775 North Shore Drive Variance - Second Review List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Revised Proposal (18" x 24" Plan) Revised Site Plan Revised Structural Hardcover Proposal Staff Review of Revised Hardcover Proposal Notice of Planning Commission Action-4/23/90 Memo Exhibits of 4/12/90 Discussion Applicant has submitted a revised plan which shows a reduction in the scope of the proposed additions. In general, the kitchen and dining room expansions are decreased, the additional half bath is eliminated, and the decks are less extensive. The garage is reduced from 24' x 24' to 20' X 22'. The master bedroom addition on the west end has not changed. The net result is that existing house/breezeway/garage structure (1700 s.f.) increases to 2369 s.f. rather than the 2639 s.f. originally proposed. Similarily, the size of the proposed deck areas has decreased substantially. As discussed at the last meeting, the applicant is not proposing to remove the areas of rock and plastic since those areas function to protect his house from run-off while providing a relatively attractive ground cover where vegetation probably would not thrive. The revised hardcover percentages are as follows: Existing 1st Plan Revised Allowed Plan 75-250'578 s.f. (54.8%) 5384 s.f. (51.0%) 5255 S.f. (49.7%) 2641 s.f. (25.0%) The current plan result*; in a net hardcover decrease of 5% from the existing situation. I I Zoning File #1513 May 16» 1990 Page 2 of 2 The final item to note ‘^at. in^tomparlsoj.^^^^^^ original proposal, ”® . existing residence, although fe'ohric^al\Tn'r “%^.ruScrfr^-L^\\"’^ re,ulnea street setback is still required. Staff RecoBBwndation ^r'o*X"’ «Ta”t°;ine JK*'ft Is PU^nX Commission options are as follows: 1. Approve revised plan as propose!, 75-250* hardcover of 49.7%. 2. Approve revised plan with additional conditions. ^ Table for further reductions. In tnxs event, please give applicant specific direction. 4, Recommend denial. 5. Other lev ♦ If ✓ / / / v/ i , G h. |03 (1, /SO”^ " &. a'S' '■ li.. ' 2-0 " 1 10 " B. " .. . . GUy' 5> id f Z to'*/2-' sia-r' du(a' 30^ 3^3^ &Q zp>iA s?,fr. ■p. 'va f. X.^15 K. 60 L. /ao *70 0/x;// 5q.^. s^.srr. 7x;//J6- s<^.rr. ST4/^to<i\y" i i. i:'i !- f * i: j» i; \ I: It t “STUcT, (i)^/iO Co 06/2. I jE.'Z.^^A*/ f)'^Wl.S ^ C^Afif^e Ck^o '/O^ qy/U C-S2>r^2C^^ /iD^ <s 52<^o/2.» zr /f /O -XfZ-- /20 T //O H •2-0x22-- vyo * 37C> ^'^><is/z.- -72-6^ 2,5^^ , 1 7 /09i^ ! i { I) e c*ii/W A*^*^ ^ I>e F % Y- L ^//s> V^/f Vx// <y X/2- /Kb LfZO /U.^A2AG^^^^ ^/2-9 P4-A^T7C_(/Ji> - ?3 /U0T« ! -r>«S fftS-iAiS /l^vAts^ /W ___ fllWC4<J<«' ^(MAwW-. ^U. I)-'2- '1-i <3 » I V'S'av '3oVd-anc ci'7Jvv» aa"3n i-tipl' ,•<•,• ;r.!(•''; .. W ••I ! t. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONING FILE NO. 1513 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 4/23/90 TO:Walter Krahl 4775 North Shore Mound, MN 55364 Drive COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance DATE OF MEETING: 4/16/90 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Coanission reconnends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below 2\ND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: General apparent concensus was that the proposed addition was "too ambitious ” for the lot, due to the lot constraints of topography and lot area. The high percentage of hardcover was obviously a concern. Rather than recommend denial. Planning Commission tabled the application to allow you time to consider whether you wish to revise your proposal. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission Monday, May 21, 1990; meecing starts at 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 Commission. To: Prom: Date: P2_annin5 Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Adminlstra**or Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Aost Planning & Zoning Administrator April 12, 1990 Subject: #1513 Walter Krahl, 4775 North Shore Drive - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover and street setback variances to construct addition to existing residence. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Application Plat Map Property Owners List n Survey with Existing Site Development Including^ Topography Existing and Proposed Site Plans Plan and Elevation Views of Proposed Addition Applicant's Hardcover Submittal Staff's Hardcover Review Pertinent Pacts - 1.Applicant proposes to construct an addition to his reLdence, which is located on a terrace level above a steep slope down to the lake. 2. All of the proposed construction is in the 75-250' setback zone. 3 The adiacent property to the west is owned by the City of S^onffor laL^ccess lanes, and there is no intent to place a residence on chat property. The air residence to the west in Minnetrista, apears photos to be approximately 70' from the shoreline. From those air photos, staff has determined that the proposed additions will not encroach past the average lakeshore set back line. 4 The aoolicant's property originally extended further J«thtS?d, b" the No?th Shore Drive resulted in loss of some property. 5. The existing house is approximately 22' from the street 1^ line, and the proposed addition at its closest point will be Approximately 23' from the street lot line. This « 12' variance from the 35' required street setback in the LR IB district. 7. Zoning File #1513 April 12, 1990 Page 2 of 3 6. This property is served by a driveway adjacent residence at 4755 North Shore Drive. While t driveway fraction of the hardcover will significantly decrease within applicant's property as a result of the addition, there appears to be adequate backup area available within the neighboring property to handle traffic from this residence. As an aside, note that while driveway the applicant may tend to increase hardcover on the neighbors property above that which would normally be necessary, the overall result is a relatively safe access with adequate parking area and probably less total hardcover than if each residence had its own access to the County Road. Staff has reviewed the hardcover on the property and found substantially mere rock and plastic hardcover applicant's surveyor. By staff calculation, exist nq 75 250 hardcover is 54.6%, and the proposed layout results in a reduction to 51.0%. In the 0-75' and proposed hardcover amounts to approximately 325 3.6%, consisting of stairway sections and a retaining wall. There appears to be substantial rock and plastic hards,over accounted for in staff's calculations that could be further removed without starting to limit the extent of the additions. Discussion - The proposed additions appear to mostly existing grades on the property. The house sits on a relatively flat te^rrace below the County Road, but «^the no work is proposed, slopes average 65», and obviously the existing stairways are needed for this 1°^^^°/®^® J®®®°Xeit access to the lakeshore. The extensive retaining walls southwest of the house are mostly on the City property. Those slopes are also somewhat limiting in that the c-xi^'-ing house generally have to run to the ”®fa rather than lakewerd to keep back from the slope. relatively small overall for this zoning district, being 0.45 acre in the 1 acre zone. The proposed master bedroom addition at the west end bhe house will be approximately 11.5' from the west lot line, meeting the required 10* setback. Zoning File #1513 April 12, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff Reconendation - If Planning Commission finds that the proposed net overall hardcover reduction is appropriate, and finds that the portion of the proposed addition encroaching into the street setback is no more obtrusive than the existing residence encroachment and finds that this lot will not be "overbuilt" with the added structure, then a recommendation for approval of these variances could be considered. Sunary of Variance Request - 1. Street setback of 23' where 35' is required. 2.Hardcover in excess of 25% in 75-250' zone, reduction from 54 8% to 51.0% is proposed. What additional reduction, if any, should be required? /b|3 CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATiq^^^* Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) rr-% '1 PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^ 7 7-^ //-T f r/u S^c^r 7~?y/tyy ■*< CITY OF DTm F INMICE OFFICE ^^^^^ofcEN 175.00 ^WcEIPT^THm^^Oh^ tt172320 cool Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Ol-/l7~<^'^ OOJtS Attach legal description to application if not Included on required survey. APPLICANT Name /.L'i. rT:'%6 Address: ^/yrr' Sr'f.fe Pf/t'£ City: rO/^f YT) Phone (home) _ _ Phone (wor)c)N:^-^ 'CCC^ _ _ Zip; ■ A</- ^(oOl OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home); ^ Name .V;‘ .lFr>l (CA^r Phone (worJc) Address:City:Zips Date Property Acquired /^PR/L (month/year) I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District ^13 Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ //^f^ Describe request in detail: S^ee"/ 2. of 2. VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback Variances ( A_ Peont Hardcover Side _ __ Rear) Other # t BLARX)SHIP ^ 9 ' •kw*A'»Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting'^m strict enforcement of zoning regulations: /nr /f-jrJcpup.r exceed^ doatr. _ DESCRIPTION OP ONDSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: Pn-^por'i ’t/' l^c2~f/no fs ^a~fu)een mne'f.'ifit* ^ C^na/rfr' R4 on v(>t^ j-jiap o'•_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ 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 Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. SJcetches or plans of floor and elevation views. 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. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11" X 17'' OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if_the— <nfonBatlon has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by 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 consultant expenses Incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the informat on supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her Jcnowledge. Applicant's Signature v —/icd/f_____________ Date ------------ OWNERS SIGNATURE ^ The owner hereby aclcowledges 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 v ^aijk'6. _ _ AppIicant’musVhlve all submlttiLls 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 Buxlding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ! /' Tl A__L.—1 *§A 4" A* Aji A ^ I MAR 23 ' 90,08:25 CITI2EN-5ICLL CO. ^T7Al: fltiiKs' P. 1/2 J?/l ..</:rrXj^ -J.i-el_^/i/*frjrarA y4it4‘/ •Su/fi/Ayaal ^4/.St--------------------------- C(jyf!44/r .^/rr/f JryhiiD. z/'-r^-rdAfr /.od y/( % * < •••..SueA CAf/^fro a/ Acer's cr ^ o/ /^relcoutr ca/cofd-//dO ‘ ^ -^/OO =r /o^ ■ /^CPOS£D /^XD Cdl/y/? ^ of ^sriit'^couBr c.a fco/ai’/c'i • 3tJf% yeAfTlfO*/S oswr/oMs : i ,4 - / 'x //^ -IZT- o?j - /97.S' 3 - y' < -y jrwt flro/i JiAPUAJAY - /o g C - /ft /oy.^ (g' ^ X ^ TM ¥' Kf' ^ Jd. D- /9't //'^/^Af/0 <Ao')(cfy^-- y/c /9‘a 3i/^'-cA ?Y.y B oat Pav /o*x /^*if /66 3- /9'ky'->> .7(p UPl^yuJA Y 'a /(a '- o^-/^^ (J - (p* K r /a //cty. s'^f)’- //- (pU /7' ^/(> JL 99/ (f/)^ a /P'y Papocffay : ogtd. /pt*Koca\/A^ A.Y/d7 f?)*' ^AafaUP SrspcmA/^rj<r (f/)H 3, 9 9J. s' fT/j ^ » BXoPpSffB tPAPDCoYdtP r h r-,••• * - r *f\’* %'•• V • .•^.* i-•••. ••■* • ^ I .M.I£>e',9E S v'.v^.S- -.7 T 6£’92l /xorjdoi IS3M 3HX JO 3Nn 1SV3j / / • • . , ' II O'U I 099 — !ik 4|//i rr^/z ; I. If "A s A\'W' lilljly'. '''I'll/I I ’. r*. I •«r •*. / i<-.. Z/JL\ 'T- $ Kj / 1 I !h%\ / ///;; / ,//;< ii11'ml '-.ji I •*.'/ h I 'll! \ I III H I I II \ / I I I I I iKJ I I hSLi / / / \ ‘II'I / •% / J5 /''I'l'iK.i • I i \ o. r> . { ■*' ■ * . I r..Ei^cnsTnxiii-Ci i 'lii ('f. t\.'- ■ % Mm * k ?•t !)• ________I n.I r y \ ■ U 5- .-r,::T - V» t- «- fj ^lArcrg ••• : ;.! 3 • I 5^:k.?{»;; M/p:**;* -i- rn"-' trr* . :?• - ■ / . * i i$^:. ' '• i- I i. TTr • >*■. • • .* »- • • * •* • -■** ! - • . ' V - i i • . •» •• ; M ■ • j>>‘«l ^ * I • • f I .. i *:• 1 *;• . T .7l:?*f, w.* : ^' 1 ••:;f 1 '.i Si T‘v' . • *• •• »i * • ^ u •'•- ‘ r-' \ ■■ ^ ^ :vif ^ ^ K ■» i ru;ii ^ 0T r ^ , -2: .ii 11'* i »• , *4^ ■~‘ o'’inrPlInniM*ComisSon’'Mei«bers ?I?;°Mi!nls??ator Bernhardson «««t Planning s zoning Administrator Michael P. oafiron. Asst planning 16 X9 9 0Date. "«y i"' „,,alle - 2505 Dunwoody Avenue - *. 11522 James and JoAnn Nordlie subject. . publio Hearing ,.^„tial, . district - I.H-1C. Single iamily laKeshore residential. Zonin'^ District 1/2 acre, sewered „,^iance to construct room , R.ouest for hardcover variance *‘’*’^Vd*dition’to existing residence List of Exhibits iS i ■- SS--" Acknowledgement Forms SS i: iEB«etr= Pertinent Facts - ^ entryway 1- ->■^»■>^““r^ki^crn'txranrirnrrl ’ds Ve ovlV etrsfint uTlT To-TbI) increase in hardcover. Hardcover is as follows. ProposedExisting Allowed 0-75' T47~.20.74t)* 75-250’ 8328 ®, c *554%) No Change 250-500' 1U4 s.f.( • varies slightly from .Staff calculation of bardcover_tra. nardcover Increase appear applicants calculation. to be 147 B.f. o . pertinent setback 3. The proposed addition meets all P requirements. n Zoning File #1522 May 16, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Discussion Please review the applicants Letter of Request. They are rolueltinra hardcover variance to construct a minor to the residence. Hardcover is proposeo to increase slightly after removals of excess sidewalk area. With all setback and "lot coverage by requirements being met, the issue whether additio^^ hardcover removals should occur to result in no net ip£^^ s Set decrease in hardcover on the property. “ appeaFThat the—ost likely candidate ;?°"itkina area ?he fairly substantial blacktop driveway and are^ The major portions of driveway are within the 75 250 Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should consider whether J; hardcover removals are necessary in any recommendation for approval. Options are as follows; “tr^SaiUoial removals to yield no 3. SeLJISenrappro5al®*ba®sed on reduction of hardcover to 4. Recommend^denial, list specific reasons. 5. Other Isv i i I I I CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) 9m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mmt mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ^m mm mm mm mm mm PROPERTY LOCATION Sit:e Address i* ^ O /w /O CITY CF DRW OFFICE1 » mcror, »'pt)rts iTvw'v wv 7:24 04/12/90 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) zo-n'»-t.**> z.i-ooi'j Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Phone (home)APPLICANT Name UotMLn.____________ Phone (wor)c) S:n-Z*)S‘i Address:____2.54^5* AotuuL. City; /^tauo________ zip; £7335/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Neune ^S.«A«ie—. Phone (home) Phone (wor)c) Address;_ City;Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT DSE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property S mJOtXjr/'A/in,'/Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 1 z,OCO. Descrioe request in detail; VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area Setbac)c Variances ( Other Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) I I HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP ONOSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ . 2. 3. 4. REQOIRED 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). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existin'^ and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are propos»^d. SJcetches or plans of floor and elevation views. 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. 5. 6. 7. 8. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (ll" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above infonaation has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Appl i i complete Initialed by Clerical Staff:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator/ agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application/ and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date H 10 OWNBRS SIGNATORB 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 UL Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held cm the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled jfeview 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. hhk -wT*’' ^•SUOTC^':- I i i in4 M KEN ROELOFS CONSTRUCTION INC. 1650SHADYWOOD ROAD / WAYZATA.MN55391 / PHONE: 471*8390 PROJECT SUMMARY for Jim and JoAnn Nor 2S0S Dunwoody Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 O ci r-W /S^’4 The design problem In this project Is to eliminate confusion and Improve the sense of arrival for the Nordlle home. Two doors In the same elevation, with two large concrete stairways provide the public face for the home. The design solution Is an addition within the existing footprint of the building providing a single entry that will serve both family and guests. The addition provides for much-needed foyer space and entry closet storage. The primary entry area Is approximately 24 laches lower than the existing main floor to lessen the massive concrete stairway while maintaining the existing roof j_ine. Some sidewalk revision will be made to accommodate the new entry. Unnecessary pavers and concrete will be removed yielding as much green area as is possible. This request is for an increase In the hard cover allowance in the 75» _ 250' zone. Although the addition has about 320 sq. ft. of floor space and 100 sq. ft. of concr-te step, existing hard cover in the area of the addition and proposec' sidewalk revisions yield a net Increase of hard cover In the amount of approximately 105 sq. ft. Based upon survey data, this would Increase the hard cover in the zone from the existing 8328 sq. ft. (38.07*/.) to 8457 sq. ft. (38.55%). We would further request that this matter be considered at the earliest possible date by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Contracts and Specifications were drawn and work was proposed to begin on or about A,il 1, 1990 without the knowledge that this process needed to be workfcu through. Several specaal oj.der Items are in process and will need to be warehoused at some expense as this process unfolds. Timely consideration and action that would grant a start date one or two weeks earlier would be a great help. Mr. and Mrs. Nordlle and our firm are ready to do whatever we can to this end. Thank you for your consideration on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Nordlle. Sincerely, Gerald L. Roelofs KEN ROELOFS CONSTRUCTION, INC. GLR/mr I VI r* 9 9 J1 Adjacent Property Owners* Aticnowl^dgeBentr' I (we) (\TMg/ [print name'(s)r [print address] / have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at I.SQT' flUN U)OC>dV. also referred to as Land Use Application No. _____. I (we) understand that in executing this ac)cnowled9ement, I (we) am (are) not as)ced to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. Date7/ If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. I (we)m\es> -it /f jXL __/ / iuljacttst Property Owner** ^cluai^adgtMif't J 6tJ ht name (an have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at Application No. _ _ _. 7 I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. i %. os ♦ Ma. s| i z UJ V) s M V- (/) M UJna ui & S 5 Q. M St lit O Ns _ o > <3 ^ X X p Ifj «G lu UJ _ < Kl X 2: No z Z ^p o 9 ^ < Kl O ^ «J CM Z ? SqS3r o > 0• ^ ^ ^ Jjo o o cu t o s u < A ^ ^ lA Nslis^i lls rM UJ UJ <^ CM > ^ > lA < lA lA>fA _•M X A «I z <K S «• UJ i-l _ •-• « _ i 2*S2 ~!Q-'£«2 <r S*aS| lA O -) -> CM I CA (/I 3 < O Oh* CM lA (A (AO UJ UI to N flO (tj § ^ S < »A O n “> CM Z S.^IS A CM 9 j lA O CM z UJ «« z a o 3 X o O Z UJ < < > N Oooo Aoo Xi sh* 2-; X < Ml|lia O h- « l->.X < X UJ X ^ UJ X Hu a.ui a tL.M X o o t<Sfk fs f .. * 4 ‘ • . • *, ’ '■ . :‘-r* , •.r, 'i. ( ■ f I * 1. i-.: > * ,« * It. .|t. : •■ I • I vr t i' '' ;*!■!t • 1:. -t* • ■ i ft s •*■ .N \ X .;?•'/■ 'i- i Si„ !Vi V-■V • I ’■' wi’ Hi- .?».V' ‘V- r/M/s;*-■m ■:i'-y .I* ‘-•A •;v io / V ti.h V y A n*. ^ . -. r»‘ ri !'ft^" ■!!t/.M A .r ,M j ! -J*'! ■■ >%u^ cs:e®s u4-^ujx: 3 V)t— c7)c — H ooo > u-oa: ♦-» o ae c ai wo D iic-wc Co - u . »• I'liti. ' • •*! » ' •*. ?s^' ;’■; ,.. i-irCfeisiiw• I a2>;: ww 3 CO *ls <! i !i^ 4. 01 (D > %-J • , U C OJ 1^ - W— C O "?r‘r- > .' i r O ' p—•>cnw.5°: 5/j ass i >N OJ'gw o ^il ■m * *i}(\J in in , * • '!< kSllfiS ®°; *' i is tJli'iiS ^'1 'SS fes Sii owej M Tl {' . t i« 1': • I ' 1i ; I .1. !. ‘-V. li V‘IP». if:! ' t *|* V ‘‘I I t i!lu-.,il ‘ • »;>'• 1 I* ;♦ 11 ll ■ • ':|!,f g: A ; ••:•: ’ > i -if * */. r ' ■ t '.V i U ii' IMS!lli ■'I •I •l‘l‘v’ •. P*^ ; tni :m t'• !■ I ifii• f !-‘5i r * ’{ .^,- tv 'i:-iv u)f- irf ■'Mm • *::•' .*t. V v:^ I. ?•ik ■s*M ;•• IKK- »f i?-?! ilfeiwf*!*! , ^ *!; r3v|^« m f rJ>!^^;ilr|} /iiiiSli:; t. |. i* ^ ■ V® k ‘ ; I « :|i- Si .f*' v*.i-:ii.; M VJ.'- >■ dlLiliJt&iML • • I #1 t !»1*l lii;m - f ii 'm.. \ -•‘M 'T?i‘ •' r- f MrHVi ■i li!i ' :4v;'-* m i )!i: f >m _ 7S^iSO/oc ^ se/^*ct w riiiilfilfj ■ ffi I i:'f;!:5kiir A 4-1^ ffi • s • > ■ 'I • i -• ••*'P \^A\rr:t A. . ' I?, .;: >, r ■/c. m • ^ H.f W7r:r777777777 V ZJk.V ^ if' Viv ;,• ;S 'Wi' V ‘V' // • f V*./ vV.i i: !i‘<:. J. ;:■«•' /7i.». > ^TT. v.»'V-.-^.' v-iv»V ^’«-^- ? X:'-. li III r> UJ^ 'n i>' -*t, ••V j L/;*; 1 i» •jr •' *» * • •-VC- . .. . ..- . •. . -v "**■ • • •• ^ .“*’ IL.o .-•»*• I . . “• «/C.1 • ~*n • “• K - -* • .. . . • ’ ___________ i' •^aV vii^ -•• Oi r — *0 -.t • *. / ) .'tf‘lit’ ‘ - ••• ^ Ml v« ■•’ " ■'* •.'»•• • •• "*• ••••••• TV* tr'K’.'.i-'trtR'il'KRr • *«'' *■* ^ • ' Vm ^ k ♦ .{!.■ J^ r-,..^{ . . !.;h "t-.v)[r;|r IIzd;|iI i^x «*«-•»> 'PPnpfPiklMi fi,*mm •••••• • i I' i, } . HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK zone: (CIRCLE’ONE) 0-75' 75-250' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. ■ House B. Garage . c. Driveway E. Patio/ Deck ' F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY t PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other LENGTH WIDTH ' X _ _ _ _ 0.. Sidewalk • X X X t 4>b(> ------1 X X X X X X X X Total H ardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone ____•= 50-500') 500-1000' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. s!f. S.F. 1_ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ______________S.F. S.F.B B X 100 1 *». .• ••• ••mm mm • V mm m^mm mmm» • • HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE'ONE) 0-75' ^75-250^ 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. ' House LENGTH A /•7 '//.s B. Garage it-o.z i40 c. Driveway D.. Sidewalk • S-Z E. Patio/ Deck ^•3 .. ^ F.LAUDCGAfiE TC,Q,ri<t, AREA* 10 WDEBUVfN •B¥. , . SHSETItIG /.Z on f. G. Other X X X - X X X X X X X X 3Z.^ WIDTH /?. r"s_ /sta.s s.fTA^ I — I7o.o .. io.2. 2SZ.9 S.F. s.F. )>■ 2SZS I I S.F. 49^,4- 2 4-.Z /<?5 _ S.Fj, l£____ S.F_^ /^^«f X _s.F. _______ S.F. 32. S s.F. • s.F. 3.^M.7 s.F. ^4*/ ZI.U L.fi 7^9.4 LP. 93 . ... ^S4--3 N < /4.7> S.F.J ’^*^'^'^ 32.4_________ s.F. 3$.3> s.F. . s.F S.F. S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone 12 32 if s.F. S.F.B S32^ - m z\tl^X 100 3S.07 % /?DI>JT70 a /A<- /y/»«epa>i/rfa_ - }0^sf. ^3.384 ^ • • •••• » • V UT S, 7V/!uiK/‘/rf Uuatju CALCULATION HORKSHEET. ■ * SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE' ONE) T5-: Existing H ardcover in Zone /^O^COFf A. ’ H ouse LENGTH 1 X _ X B. Garage . c. Driveway D.. Sidewalk i E. Patio / .Deck • ^ ••• • *• TiTZf IC5 0 »ICCT»t» 12ipeap ^e*!* walls G. Other ___________X 7 . K •v^ X WIDTH - X _ - X _ - X _ _ X _ - X _ - X _ - X _ _ X _ « _ X _ F.Landscape x — AREAS UMP6BUW • ----------------------A |Z^ ■0.6 Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone 20 500-1000' « • S.F. S.F. • • S.F.jT :7- • S.F.1 .1 S.F, • ... % '-.j: S.F. ■•«- .'..S' 0 » ■y; \ . S.F. • m • S.F. • • • S.F,' •• 1 • S.F. * ^ • • • • « S.F. « • S.F. •• S.F. S.F. ft • • * • * • • S.F. • */ar c»u*^TfO ) S.F. AS ii-23 23(5 S.F. S.F. S.Fb (230 ^ — [j1 - X 100 « ■ ^ ^o. mm »m •••• t • V i p ? II ' I 2 Ji w 7. -4 f J yuJ 2 5; C A o O 1 Ej«H>s/^i*rnosA ____ 'ilM'O ,-■ I \^I T^ -r^tr IL // TO:Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Conunission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator May 16, 1990 Subject: #1523 Rolla Martin Variance - Public Hearing - 2675 Shadywood Road - Request to Table f^® selling his house, and requests tabling of h_s request until his future plans are confirmed. Isv L To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson )0- Prom: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 17, 1990 Subject: #1524 Trinity Lutheran Church, 2060 6th Avenue North- Conditional Use Permit -- Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.28, Subdivision 3 - Conditional use permit required for pre-school use within Trinity Lutheran Church. 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 Site Plan Floor Plan Applicant's Statement Regarding Use of Playground Area Background on Applicant Information on Trinity Preschool Operation Review of Application - The applicant. Trinity Preschool, represented by its director, Wesley Ann Hallquist, seeks a conditional use permit for a preschool program consisting of 30 pre-schoolers and 5 staff members, consisting of the director, teacher, assistant teacher, and 2 aides. The preschool will operate Monday through Friday mornings from 9:15 a.m. to 11:45 a.m., offering 2 p-*ograms of schedules (2 day and 3 day). The preschool will be located in approximately 1,057 s.T. of classroom area within the Trinity Lutheran Church comple If Members have not been out to the church site since all of the improvements have been installed, we recommend a visit to this site. The only area not completed as of this date is the former playground area to the rear of the church. This area will serve as the playground area for the preschool and should be ready by the September opening. Please review Exhibit F, staff has asked Mrs. Hallquist to provj de further information regarding use of the playground area. If you will remember during the early review of the church conditional use permit, staff called attention to the fact that the area was not fenced. The specific ordinances sections states only that a play area must bo fenced if it is within 15' of a street area (review Exhibit D). This sped lie playground area is located to the rear of the property. ms Mrs. Hallquist's comments note, there will be 2 adult supervisors out at one time to supervise 15 preschoolers. Zoning File #1524 May 17, 1990 Page 2 of 2 There is clearly adequate parking space, school room space and space in play area to support the current preschool. In fact, it is staff's recommendation that this conditional use permit be Issued based on a preschool program for either a hair day or full day schedule. If there is an expansion to day care or a latch key program connected with the Orono schools, staff would ask that a new conditional use permit be required. The applicant has submitted a conprehensive package on the preschool operation. Mrs. Hallquist welcomes any questions members may have concerning the operation. Staff Recoofliendation - To grant approval of a conditional use permit for Trinity Preschool to be located at the Trinity Lutheran Church located at 2060 Sixth Avenue North, finding all pertinents sections of the code have been satisfied by the applicant. Such approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This application is approved for a preschool use either for half day or full day schedules. Any expansion into day care or a latch key type program connected to the local school district would be subject to approval of a new conditional use permit. 2. As outdoor play area is not fenced, the City must ask that a 2-staff/15-student ratio be m«intained during outdoor play/recreation sessions. ■ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2060 6th Avenue N», Long Lake, MN ff CITY OP ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATIO^LU ^ rijy nrMm ir- - - - -Iw Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ?8 27-118-23 ?1 OOP^^jotBy^ ft A iVvi ^ 4 Cr * ■ VI)‘>/24/9u Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ikPPT.T Phone (home)AJrir X Name Trinity Preschool Phone (work) Address 20^0 6th Avenue N.Citv r.pnp- T«Ve Zio OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Trlnltv Luthern ChiiT^rh Phone (home) Phone Address 2060 6th Avenue N.Citv Lonpc Lake Zio Date Prooertv Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL DSE 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 X $150.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _ _ _ _ $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _ _ _ _ $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _ _ _ _ $25u.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _ _ _ _ $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain -------- Grading and filling - 101 c- yd. or more , ^ ^ ^ "" Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore _ _ _ PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS _ _ _ _ $200.0 $250.00 $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation $175.00 casement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $250.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule OSS OP .. ’’resent Mstrlct ’’resent Ose of ^^operty “SSC ript ;"----^-----------------_ other ^®scribe ^ -’etsii. ®?f ’'’entlal Applicant-e ,i„„ Signature ' _______ f^®nts, "°’"i«d9es and ------ ^nvestlo*Js®®"*is8ion" ®^try on*-o to thY<» ^«tlon and veri' an5® Property h.f application ®*'”®r ’s sv_ i®3tion of thf ®taff further ------------f5"”“rec:^/7 -. . requesi. """’“ers f or ' f”"®"’tent!f 9o e # 3 ’ I J 1 1 B \/ / I ^ ^ ^... T- • j I I 11 "■"'—T—:1 r i *I 1 1 i 1 I m II Sii •4JSj • ti I i M i£ ?S .;: w *-=^S'5 3SI ill s Hj-nu 3 «s ^•2■ t *0 i««2 « oC M ■ Ul t’SST# ^ .f___« #15^4 e There are no plans at this tine for a fornal outdoor play area to be established at Trirdty Preschool, The Tepartaent of Hunan 'Services licensing Hequirenents for Child Car« centers section 9503,0155 subp, 7 does not require programs operating for less than three hours to provide an outdoor activity area, "e are offering a hour program. The preschool will be open from nid-Oeptenber through nid-*'ay. This really gives us very little tine for good outdoor play v/eatl’.er for the preschool age child, '..'e will tal<e the children outj weather pemittingj to the area located Just behind the church (northwest area). Trinity Church sets back from the road and our outdoor area is privately secluded behind tlia church. There will be only fifteen children outdoors at any one tine. There will be two staff nenbers superviving at all tines, (The state requires a ratio of 2:20, ’.'e will aaintain a ratio ox' 2:15,' -he safety a.nd well being of t:'.e children is our ton priority. TRINITY M S' PRESCHOOL My objective at Trinity Preschool it to provide the preschool &fte child a variety of opportunities to explore, learn, and create in a warm and se%‘:ure atmosphere which will lay the foundation for c. life time of learnlnp;. My quallflcatl.ons meet the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Human Services Licensing Requirements for Child Care Centers sect. 9503»0031 and 9503*0032. My educational background is a B.S. degree in Home Economics with an area of concentration in Child Development and Family Living. I completed a minimum of 15 hours per year of workshops and/or seminars in the field of Early Childhood Education in 1987, 1988, and 1989. Briefly, my background experience Includea- -Worklng with young children in Georgetown, Ky., in the mountains of Appalachia, Ky., on the Seminole Indian Reservation, in Palatine, II., and in Barrington, II. -Preschool teacher -Conducted workshops in the field of Early Childhood Development -Preschool board member -Summer camp coordinator -A number of volunteer positions in both public and private schools I'hen Trinity Preschool has a full licensed capacity enrollment the at-.ff will Include the director, a teacher, an assistant teacher, and two aides. All Jtaff members will meet state requirements for their position as found in the Minnesota Department of Human Services Licensing Requirements for Child Care Centers sect. 95^3*0031. 9503*0032, 9503*0033* or 9503*0034. SJ Ticerely, Wesle^ Ann Kallquist Director i rtf ’ 1 r . f • '' INFORMATXON Trinity Preschool will serve 30 preschoolers per session. A preschooler is a child who is at least 33 months of age, but who ha?» not yet attended the first day of kindergarten. The child must be toilet trained to enter the program. We offer 2 - day and 3 - day programs, Monday through Friday morning from 9tl5 am to lli45 am. Trinity Preschool is a non-profit, non-denominational preschool. We provide a variety of opportunities to explore, grow, learn, and create. It is our intention to provide a warm, secure atmosphere for each child to participate in activities whi-’h will help him develop as an individual and to relate to other children within his peer group. Parents may review the Trinity Preschool Child Care Program Plan at any time. A request to do so should be directed to the director of the program. QRIENTATIOH - A special orientation day is planned for children and parents before the first day of school. Children, parents, and teachers will meet to get acquainted, become familiar with the classrooms and participate in a mini-day together. CONFETENCES - Parent conferences at regularly scheduled in the fall and i77rr“g to discuss a child's intellectual, physical, social, and emotional development. A conference may be arranged at any time during the school year. IWSUP.\NCE - The school is covered by a comprehensive general liability insurance through Atlantic Mutual. HEALTH RECORDS - A health care summary and an immunization record must be submitted to v.he school prior to the child starting in our program. SICK CHILDREN - To ensur.4 the health of all our children, we ask you to keep your child home if he or rhe exhibits any of the followlngi coughlng, running nose, vomiting, or any infectious conditions. A child who has been sick should be free of fever for 24 hours before returning to school. If a child becomes ill while at school, the child iRe other children. A parent, or parent cannot be reached, will be ''ok v41 ^ hechild. A staff member will remain with the sick child until he is picked up. All cases of communicable illness, lice, scabies, impetigo, ringworm, or chicken pox are to be reported to the school within 24 hours of the onset of the illness. Notices will be Issued to all parents regarding the communicable illness, date of exposure, signs of illness to watch for, and precautions. EMERGENCIES - Up to date emergency information will be required of all parents throughout the school year. This includes phone numbers of both parents, doctors, and emergency friends. For minor injuries, a staff person will provide first aid and the parent will be notified. For a more than minor incident, a staff person will provide first aid, 911 will be called and the child's parents will be contacted. Emergency numbers are posted above the preschool phone in the preschool office. liiiTrLnecessary. A first aid kit and manual are kept in the preschool office. MEDICATION - We do not administer any oral or surface medications. A minor wound will be cleaned with water and bandaged. a;.\“'s"Vr.7 to rhrir'chUd?“s"vr:;'’o°/Vpe;ac" Jiu llTu-Vn only under the direction of the Poison Control Center. ;a/cYn«Von"“/ field trip must be signed by the parent and ^ , before the child can be allowed to participate in the field r p. RESEARCH. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES, PUBLIC RELATIO^ ‘ arantiM provided for parents to sign and return to the school granting permission for research, experimental procedures, or public relation activity involving a child. SNACKS - The Children will be provided with a Snacks will be provided by the school or by a Snack Mom. Any snack or t^iJ from home must be commercially prepared. Birthday treats are 1111,,,. %. SJJcoura,. such a, candy, ,u., c.k.3, and cupcakaa. r t i fETS - He do not keep pets at echool. He nay have a pet visit (rom tine to tine. oaqpMTS VISITATION - Parents of enrolled children may yislt Trinity HMChool t^e dutin, the hours of operation. If there la a ar-rieular activity or event which you are interested in cbserving, you «U the scSool and oheok to see -hen you should visit. Please ch^::k in with the director when you arrive. nop<?.<?TNr. POR SCHOOL - Both creative art and large “Otor activities are ~Z—intearal cart o£ our daily sessions. Children should come dressed In wrshable play clothes that can be worn without fear of being stained Purina art experiences. The school provides smocks and teachers are watchful, but paint sometimes, somehow finds its way to clothing during enthusiastic creative art. Shoes with soles fj; good traction are recommended for school, because o- the dai y >- y involving climbing, jumping, and use of stairs. PPGISTRATION - Registration is done on a first come, first serve basis. ^eturl?ng-^ildren are given first opportunity for J 525.00 non-refundable registration fee must accompany the application form. TUITION - Tuition Is dlvld.d into eight (8) equal ^ “e tS; 15th of each .onth. He do not give refunds for Illness, vacations, or withdrawal. Tuition for 2 days/week is S Tuition for 3 days/week is S per month. jper month. -ITHDk.HkL -^T-o^ He^ejt !u!. s To: FroiLt Date: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator May 15, 1990 Subject: 11525 William and Joan Wroblewskl - 630 Park Lane Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover variance to construct concrete slab porch 1* above grade Iiist of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Pertinent Facts - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Letter of Request Construction Plans Photographs Hardship/Unusual Property Conditions Applicants Haidcover Calculation Staff Hardcover Calculation and Sketch 1. Hardcover is as follows: (All 75-250' Zone) Existing: 4897 s.f. (49%) Proposed: 4561 s.f. (45.6%) Allowed: 2500 s.f. (25%) 2. The proposed grade level concrete patio Is considered a non-encroachment in the front yard, and does not need to meet the normal 35* setback for the LR-IB Zone. The applicants indicate that there will be no structure above the concrete slab. No railing is proposed. 3. The proposed slab is above an area of existing rock and plastic hardcover and existing sidewalk, hence the porch slab will not increase hardcover on the property, although it is a change in nature oi haic.cover on the property. lote that the applicant proposes to remove 336 s.f. of hardcover west of the garage, resulting in a net decrease of hardcover on the property. Zoning File #1525 May 15, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Discussion Please review the applicants photographs and statement of hardship and unusual property conditions. This is an extremely small lot. The proposed porch slab in conjunction with removal of other hardcover on the property, would appear to yield a positive result and a decrease in hardcover on the property. It would seem possible that there are other areas of roch and plastic that could similarily be removed. Other than the rock and plastic areas, the only other areas of hardcover which could be removed fairly easily are the brick sidewalks. However, the sidewalks appear to be necessary and would not reduce hardcover significantly if they were narrowed from 4' to 3'. Staff Recomendation - If Planning Commission feels that the proposed hardcover reduction and the small size of the lot justify the hardcover variance to allow addition of a permanent concrete slab porch, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Isv CITY OP OROHO - VARIANCE APPLICAT;i Initial Application Fee $175 ($50.00 per each additional Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address (^30 PAi'^k' Lfiine. 1cmW ORi^ OFFICE idZV2VVViM Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0^*~ \ 4'^ OO/^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT = MlNam Phone (home) ‘^T3-3/9.Z OcAAi M» Phone (woric) ^2. U Address; LCity; Zip; OWNER (if different than applicant) Neune _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City;Zip: Date Property Acquired \-JudC. . _ _ _ _ _ I (do) C^o not^ also own the adjacent parcels of land PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY (month/year) VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other _ _ Lot Width Front X Hardcover Side Rear) HARDSHIPDescribe undue hardship or practical diffic^ty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations:__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _. — DBSCRIPTIOH OP DNUSOAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements r_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _— — REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1.^ Completed Application Form ^ ui. • 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.' Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). IT Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. 5^ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6., SJcetches or plans of floor and elevation views. 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. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR_ _ A WORKING COPY (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) POR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete—if—the— Information has not been included. __ Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by Clerical Staff_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE , The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additiona- fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the his/her Jcnowledge. Applicant's Signature - - - - - - - Date -— OWNERS SIGNATURE j The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this f, authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes o.. investiga tion and verification of this re^Mt. owner's Signature _ _ Date _ _ __ __ _mm mm mm mm •• mm mm ^m mm mm mm mm mm ^m mm ^m 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. V Lt. t (15) «** (90) :*1 (92) a "a'* • 5 a- '« -r.Q * f (97) a ’ '” t>^ si^ *” »71 OAK ST ^ K 10'. ife\1 .\' B .'II9.M / fc : '* (96)* '‘s** 125 n : 130.9e •14 S «ia, * \ r ■w. ■% "I / \ / / \ • y • m L I I Ui >0 ui U1 i^£ rH 2 O P Kl - i-t a X X uj V >>MJS vO UJ UI < -J o 1-4 -I (k O Z Z Q ^ <t < r4 ^ P O h- H O O to O P P 'O ^ <ooo r-l K» M K M •H O %M V} o»o o p o Kl O oc ac u' y i -i O£Si S5 X X < < X X M r4 45 p ‘s !s ►- Xo M ^ Xm Z;sg P •j ~J U) o < O X H O UJo < XXX eg §;s -J K»o in X p ?Siii£ K M UJ UJ K r-l X X X UJ UJ X XI -O o P P Z ia iii p o ^ ^ N1 O “7 “> 'O I! iniHoo SS£2 M U. U. Z P o ^ O Kc g> p oP o ps X z p p p 85 X < X •a p p X S X X u M X X p p p p p mJ p < -J si p -I ppo 0 r-l PVg K < iH X »H 1 Po P o P o h- X p Q °5 §g<^ u. O p I- > < I- ►- M P U s M< X p po p p p p nvi p I- p p \ p p X eg >-• \ p p iH Oo .J p M X I X f". < »H a iH Po o p p P o P o i p -i mS i!iiago p p p p -<5 £ P P n £ S S < < •J «a M X ^ O p -j o z M P O Z Z P -i Surve' ci>3o Lillie, /-0/U(S /»f j rof s Hinn«tonka Hlchlands Sstutea Honnepin County, Minnesota Curtiflratd of Survey: T hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: ^ That part of Cutlot 3| Minnetonka Highlands EstatesJ lying within the follovring-described tract: That party of Govermuant Lot 1, Section 6, Tounship 117 tiorth, Range 2? West of tl»o 5th Principal Meridian, describe' as follows: Cocraencing at a point in the Easterly lino of Park Avenue as platted in "Hinnetonita Sucndt Park" distant 63 feet Southeasterly, measiurod alon^ said Line, from the Southwest corner of Lot 12, Block 9, said Addition, which point is marked by a judicial landmark; thence East 59.2 feet on a line at right angles with the Sast line of said Lot 1 to a point marked by judicial land mark; thence South at right angles 142.9 feet to a point mrked by judicial landmark; thence South 72®32' V/est a distance of 4.38 feet to a point marked by judicial lundrrark; thence deflecting to the right 46°43' a distance of 98 feet to a point In the Easterly line of said street, which point is marknd by judicial landmark; thence de flecting to the right 78°3C along the Easterly line of said Park Avenue a distance of IGl feet to the point of beginning, which point is marked by judicial landmark; ^ That part of Outlet 3, Minnetonka Highlands Estates, lying within the following described tract: That part of Government Lot 1, ! Section 6, Township 117, Range 23, descril^ed as commencing at a point on the East line of said Govemiaent Lot 1, distant 1312 feet South from tne Northeast comer of said Covernnunt Lot 1; thence West, at right angles to said East line, 611 feet to the East erly line of Park Avenue, as said avenue is showT. on the plat of "Mlnnetonica Summit Park"; thence Southwesterly alcng the Easterly line of said Park Avenue a distance of 63 feet to the actual point of beg5jir.lntf, which ooint is narked by u Judicial Landautrk sec pursuant to Torrens Case No. 11977; thence East along a line perpendicular to the East line of said Government Lot 1 a distanco of 59.2 feet, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 11977; thence North at a fight angle 10 feet; thence West at a right angle to the Easterlv line of said Park Avenue; thence Southwesterlv along said Saaterly line to the point of beginning. And the location of all existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to show other improvements or encroachments. Scale: 1** = 40» Date : 8-1C--76 o : Iron marker O : Judicial landmark G^on R. Coffin 6064 Land Surveyor and Planner Lonj Lake, Minnesota #1 L‘ - N /\fnl Z^,/99o 0^.^, oj/x>lJejt/^^i^' • ' G3o <prtr< 1a) n.^ LaJ^e^ VW 0 PXt> CG-117-7,3oo di,^ ef Oro^o (/t€, CurreAT por<jA A I 3y2.Pt->tZ3ff- 60e a. »■* ft*-'' {jje%if dVi ^'{j«5i«X)/f "6? ^ i t IT O -/ Zvaojie CL—J Cnui».iii imf">f -fe c^e<So/-'po rc/i ^v-'knor TV* ~f,^ •^« ’• , „W ,n»i. ti ~aa +k. ^<-a p°'^ '“'■ ejoi /.'Xi-y ^ tu>««). r-A aXlU. r-^' r-Cb-loTe Iwvti co«^ OAfiA •< S3.6 a^ j' uje. ga^Ta^ "fr a. fUoJer-/of^ c^^f f ^A^iele. u)e_ <0Jtl )as >^ y ^Io^sa I eov/er- OreA [&^ fhA^ 4ooo ^ ff> ri :l A • •W LO'^O V\o' \iouSC^ F PovoIa ^ccl .1 rmiiifianifitffifnfiiimmmnffniinimnifnnrififniijiinfiiinifufa •r forch i m I A. i. L. i i,I I__i_ I r 1 i f_ I I L I K . i —J. V * • «• • - .. *r**i V. i, *.’ - • ■. ‘ 1 xrz: '•« ♦ - - *v . - ... - - # -i m - .. -- ..................... ••• «- f .. . . * ^ ,«vtJ 6(7. U^no^fejO«/‘ * ^ o«. •« «'•*«• <X-^ r^\eljU vd\h\ ■ *••-«■«<••• •» i • •• •^-,- 1 r ; ur, v/ ____P __o$, I f: 1 i ! 1 - (y C'- - CL'- ?cfoix C w-/ /-4 A t ^ :- % . *- / ''Vi ' ' 1 -a^’- ri v >44> r^'- •-•■•i •’ i' ••• ;/ 1^.ifeci^.cci^ ->'*'• (TM . 'fc »;r n ■ •! . l I I , . ..^ / .f '• A. y « • i ^ « •. I- ^,''-C' >r‘ >-*^T . ''' .-'•^.'A .‘. .-i .»-yrV;^ V-. 'J 0.«£-^ u.Vtf.A »Y C j U/ <irf <v ('-(.j,_.-K'' c J Jcd\j vCi« •^4^'=...r V^‘ • 4 '• w' ■ ■ V>A VVw4l4L ■ .'c"r "sC^SL , mvsa^ 41-t'^‘iSffe* • r-'-:- •‘:- ■ ^' " •. - h' ' • ., I (lMrrtH~t~ ii\C^A Ck.<^tr/^k^> rtf> U»<>vr/ fq-Jc*- ^ t>^ ^ ^ p I r. ■tr ' “^rj/Jl.i ,-^V ■• •. * 1 A t-' / r'^ I f.' - ^ fVrtlsiopX0/\u^<laL CO. 630 rpij) e>^ • H ^Is c^ Ou-r- Y-fi.<^o^scf "fvvC, ifX^ir(Lcca ^^j” \fOLf^eUA£e^ toe U)CO-U a^ffAeucSt dc^^^iUrai'j; <Vf Uf> a) /) s/tioo/ {o'!" ^ -foixl area. ^ af(roi.>r^^aULj h) TW. ey^'s^K.^ aAiowiuf CJ ^ tolyin fw. 1^03^ (JJ03. »w Jt/ice 1969 OUJL o^ U>€. Woc«-(ti €JcW^ 4i<2Sff ‘ *(“ co-l\ lc»e I 1^4- ^Lfoje. gra>/e ^ hori- Certr *fc (< i'\or'<l doN/®/" dXn£4.. cue u>'li r^ploa^ e>-,':sU'i^ i * I 1 J i) HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHE£I SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-71 Existing Hardcover in Zone '.i/. 63o LAfJc SHEtl-----^ 4vQa ?G i-At<e^ (7^2^ 250-500' 500-1000' H ouse B. Garage c. Driveway 0. Sidewalk 24 LENGTH |4 24 .2.3 43 X WIDTH X ^ 3-^ 739^ 2^30 // oG-117-23^^ oo 624 s.p. S.F. S.P. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. A i)3 01 E. Patio / Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , , PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other 14 X X X X S.F. _ X 24 30 Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone ____________ S.F. ____________ S.F. ___________ S.F. S.P. S.P. 4207 S.F. I AI iSS24_s.F. [II 4-707 J-Q] asq4 X 100 - 4^? -'% f 0 • e?^ -S V. ■ CO\Ji?{Z^ /2€5V/fc?vO —^30 iLAAJff' - L^'T~ /I /aJ " 4^7 “ /<ve<fA fer^ srr79^^ < ^y<fsr7^c» ' /^T^ur^ /7» 3 - fo/2~ (£) /sr-r^y = 7or -f) ^^S- ></i^.3 • 2S3 (D 6f >< z 12. i) 2 Cm 7 ‘ZH* 2-* © T>^€^ [j(^At*i Szy: sr'. //SS" (£> = / BO ® c! yzCm = /^>y 0 U ^ H " 4>(o {0 l^jixJ^*fusnc. /yx^v'- 'S34, 0 r ® (p ^so - 3e>e> ® ^2>‘^1/yo.oot - /4t>^CMi^ wsrv-^t. - 33C» s^. j^ac^-«-Pt/»cnc ” A^CT /2€SKUT^ • J-^57 ~ •« 32LU^ _^Sle>/ ^£. .* « » • - ,1 I , e^&77AiCk Cm /o •r •V mt6m ■* . • ' I TOS Mayor Grabek fi Orono Council Members rf .ers ^ City Administrator Bernhardson Ttcmx Dates Subjects Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building ( Zoning Administrator May 17, 1990 #1527 Lyndon S. Bill Stubbs, 2555 Fox Street - variance - B Hearing Zoning District - RR-IB Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) rural property - Lot area required for Required - 87,120 47,908 s.f. or 1.10 sores Vel S.“st‘Lo%’ Jine'of rorwood s Forwood Addn* - Varia“;':%5;l«L^:1r“!iracres applicant has commenced torrens action to claim undefined property to north and west.-- - - - - - - - section 10.85, Subdivision 18 (AHl)^ 'eiVasmiraV floSS Intersects dry buildable en designated wetlands plain, nor defined ‘?fon of cod* applicable. {,?alirgery"«ea"iill'be%rbt‘racted from total dry buildable area. List of Bschibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit B Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Application Addendum Property Owners List Plat Map Peterson's Letter Wetlands Map Septic/House - Site Plan Survey I Zoning File #1527 May 17, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Review of Application - As applicant's addendum notes, Mr. & Mrs. Stubbs have owned Lots 9 and 10, Auditors Subdivision #229 for over 20 years and applied for a lot area variance to allow the property to be offered for public sale. With this lot area variance application, there is no definite house plan to review. Applicant has submitted a tentative site plan with septic design information. Gaffron has worked with the on-site evaluator, Mr. Schirmers, and both confirm there is adequate emd suitable area for a standard trench system within the higher elevations of the western portions of the property. Note that the house location meets the required 50' street setback, and 26' setback from the designated wetland below the 932* elevation (setbacks based on land acquisitions). There are 2 drainageways that intersect the property from the north side of Fox Street. The most eastern culvert drains to the wetlands. The most western culvert intersects the building envelope. It would be staff's recommendation to allow alterations that would define the drainageway at a deeper depth. Upon inspection after 3 or 4 rainy days, the drainageway appears to fan out within the building envelope. The drainageway must be maintained but it should be redefined to allow proper use of the dry bulldable lands. Staff would recommend that upon development of this site for residential use, the future land owner provide land alteration plans to alter drainageway so as not to impact the limited area of the lower dry bulldable portion of property. Such alterations must be revised by the City Engineer with the building permit application. Area of this drainageway should be defined at a minimum of 15'; 7 1/2' from the center of the drainageway. As noted above in the factual findings, there is an unclaimed/unknown corridor of land to the west and north of Lots 9 and 10, Auditors Subdivision #229. Both affected property owners, Dave Peterson to the immediate west (refer to Exhibit H), and the City of Orono have no interest in the land corridor and would make no claim to it. Mr. Stubbs was advised to proceed with a torrens action to lay legal claim to the 1/3 acre of dry bulldable land. Options of Action Available - A) OR Denial. If denied, please refer to the necessary flndi.ngs in the variance section of the zoning code; Approval. To approve the lot area variance of Lyndon S. Bill Stubbs requiring approval of a 23,522 s.f. or .53 acre variance based on one or more of the findings noted below: h- Zoning File #1527 May 17, 1990 Page 3 of 3 OR C) 1. There is no additional dry buildable land adjacent to the property to increase building envelope. 2. Adequate and suitable area for on-site septic development has been found in the upper elevations of the property. 3. A house can be located on this site meeting all required setbacks from wetlands and street. The location of the house will provide minimal impact on existing residential development to the west. Approval would be subject to the following conditions* On—site septic areas to be protected during construction as this may be the only suitable area on this property for septic development. ^ 2. Upon application for a building permit, developer shall provide a grading plan altering drainageway. Such plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 3, Variance application shall not be scheduled for formal action by the Council until torrens action is finalized by courts. Table. Planning Commission requests the tabling of the I^Iication until the registration action is completed by the Courts. n 1 ; rrmiftai CITY OP OROHO - VARIANCE APPLICATION dn Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) 27 PROPERTY LOCATIOT^^^ Site Address ^frL cm OF Dim nmcF Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) Name q{1 /SlIP __Phone (vr>-.<) --------- Address; / S ^ City; _ Zip: ONNER (if different than applicant) Name >S Phone (home) Phone (wor)c) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land PRESENT OSE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Pfe - ! & Present Use of Property_ _ _ _ _ _i Residential Other (specify) _ DESCRIPTION OF RBQOEST Estimated Construction Cost $. Describe request in detail:- - - - - - -" VARIANCES REQUIRED \j^Lot Area Lot Width Setbac)c Variances (Front _ _ Hardcover Side _ _ __ Rear) Other . i • j I j — H Mirra Mil i % •v> :# irr A ^«*• ^ % •*.1 • ' '* <‘J! » «- . J r• • ..- ^» ••. • -*». *,V' .'.■•••■-■: .'■ ;■'j • iV*“ ‘A • *itV.-i.'itAi Vi;:. > •t ' .. •>.. i'; * • * V * I *. •• • • •/‘V'C-/- K'*' •■•'•* V • .• -■. • • • t-.** . . ■• •. •■I * • # • k .,,*».•♦ . . ‘t•. • . . • ^ hv'-v-'-j . •• . • . T ■*, - * i . * • *■ • i ^ *• ■'• *. , / . • • < :*v O- * *. • • - ^»• ••• \ ' .• • •♦ * *;»*•'* < ... ■ y-v .^v -r.v - ■ • • ••«*.;. . -. f • •■.'•» AM ------------ ^ M # * . • '*;■* ,A ’ *■'* V4K * / V»^ 1.*^ «?rr r»** 9o #1 i*; \ Si^‘1'^ ■ / 4 ^ /O ■ £.'1./ ✓ // ^ J 1, T^ C t;^c- V- V .V ■ r /'\/2' ^/C,L-r-<- r/: / /I • ' J :r>7 L ^ / V 7 . d-j- '1 > Vue. T, /, • f ’ J/ / 7 (✓ ^ I ^ zt'*nc.-' ____ 'tG^ t^rA • •. i rMt if if; f lV)v V ^ 'W:: AV ^i\ll' I i»' iC^i %* *ti , Vu^\ r.. -.•''I i T-ii •' •* h; \i •!. ' • I m 'f ■ .-••'il' M lif .. . ; rjKih:* ‘•I ' rv i. . i 'M ‘ ■ ■ : . 1: ii:l .'•‘■ts ; V-f 'K= JV{ ,, '*. .ivJ ,• ^ trMi ■* I '* I -‘i*t$W•fei;i: fj Klim r. .4il'al .4 1#* *^ Ti- f' .r f-- r.s ',', .- f. y- L-'r^iL'>V R^^^SSr**' ♦<~kiL^‘ A " H 'W’^Sm SSsBBSr' -•' iiiwimiilr ' Ak 1:! [31' - ! • S.J ‘Ji?iSfii ■ Hi'- ii'. ' !.,i ;1 ■■i« ill ■■liHJ rl Itr i :! .S ’*. . .*• - < g f 1 - ’*• '■I i-'A HH;n; r lA ^lli ■Atii *n<j»:m >o' i ; '■ \ ■:1’ • I I AvAJ.j ( •: l Uj j t «V , - • ' r] . ! ' i i’ .•■!'.'4 ■ 1 ;..' ■.' ■•l-.Vi j i ' ':' ;i ^l:i k 'V‘t:’.‘ ^ ^ *■ :-w;i ^ V ;(. ':ir * 'a .V • ««.■'! IK ’^1 '■ 'i kkillii'^t M I * f' 1 •* ^ I K*' »^'-* ; 4^SpjASE^A- feSfA* ' JA- '-f AiSi ,T ^ ■'*. fS; fni ■• HiAa’ii"', rti-'l « ^ 1 **^ * •’• ’!/*•#• . r (• k* • « • • :. |: ■>,••« I*. A »f,t *^« . t». , fi'iv > ■;.I r> , - §■ .)• jA,t.''i > -f m>M m i-r- r^'<.MM. k. •'•V- if I t M liHi . A ; V ■vf'^A'feiKA m mi I t :■; ifft I #1*'/ vVl -»——N-1 ^1^ .—;,/ ■ ■ WNh«P>*#«0 v», tfj /«# I N j y / »/»i %\4<^t V^?*/92r £ K'XW \ V ^'\'-'^o'^''' ' *!»'/ J \'V', \ ' « /ill '/' ' 'i J / / J / ' •' • //// ! ////' jy / /' W//y:^-- Qo V> ✓ Xo ■ -V- ■.•.;•%k' -y ^:^". I\\j ^rmaer^^ hf*t boS€J vpon Un4*^ Itaal a€9cr»pttoft - * - j0,/0»^/m4 * -••4^ ’»Mf 3 \ \ \ 'v s\ ^90t4t^i^ \ 400*^9 4S*4tm \ \ #• \ r>?\ N 1/ 0*»*I^ tO't X y 7 o'3?. ■#ist " '■» • * ^ Scale :1 Inch • 50 FAi»i Date 3-20-90, 0 :Iron marker found Datum tIGVO ^f94 — :EAlUlng contour i * * I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that ■ am a duly registered Civil Engineer and LandSurveyor under the laws of the Stale of Minnesota. COFFIN ft “ COFFIN ft liROMBERG. INC, * Enyin^erk, l«nd Surv^yorv 4nd PlftftitCTl Long LakN, Hinnftsola GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg MN. lie. No. '2755 • • '■ : T-. /5 1 Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrate.. Dates Subjects May 15, 1990 #1529 John Thiesse, 3845 Bayside Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District -* LR-IA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unsewered I I Application - Request for side setback, street setback, and hardcover variance for construction of an attached 2-car garage. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit C D E F G H I J Application Letter of Request Letter from Adjacent Property Owner Plat Map Property Owners List Survey & Existing Site Plan Proposed Site Plan 1989 Air Photo Hardcover Calculations Staff Review of Alternatives ♦ - Pertinent Facts - 1.This house was constructed in 1958, prior to the current zoning standards. The property has never contained a garage. The lot is about 8,000 s.f. in total area (0.18 acre). 2.A^ter consultation with staff, applicant has proposed an attached 20'x24* garage, located so as to take maximum advantage of the extremely limited lot area available. Setbacks are as follows: Proposed Setback South Side Lot Line West (Road) Lot Line Traveled Pavement North Site Lot Line 9.3' 6.7' 28'“36 24' Required 3IP 50' 3. Hardcover is as follows: 0-75' Zone 75-250' Zone Existing Cf? 1,951 s.f. (44%) Proposed Allowed—u%— 2,230 s.f. (50.4%) 1,107 s.f. (25%) Zoning File #1529 May 15, 1990 Page 2 of 3 4.The proposed garage leaves an average driveway depth from the paved portion of Bayside Road, of 34', ample depth to park 2 cars side-by-side without affecting traffic. Note that any functional backup apron would likely be mostly in the County right-of-way. The County Highway Department in the past has indicated they would prefer that extremely wide, undefined driveway entrances such as on applicant's property and the neighboring Peterson property, be reduced in width. The applicant's 20' width driveway will reduce by almost half the existing access width. Staff would recommend that the applicant check with Hennepin County as to whether they have other specific conditions. Certainly, the County would have to approve a backup apron within their right-of-way. On the "proposed" drawing, staff has skstched nn expanded parking area should Planning Commission wish to consider allowing for additional parking within the property boundaries. 5.The proposed garage maintains more than 20' neighboring residence structure to the south. to the 6.It appears t.hat 2 of the 3 large pine trees in the front yard probably will have to be removed in order to accommodate this garage. A decreased south side lot line setback might allow for a second pine tree to be saved. Discussion - This lot is extremely limited, although the existing house and deck are outside the 75' lakeshore protected area. The remainder of the property is so small that the hardcover allotment is eaten up merely by the house and deck, before side walks, driveway and garage are considered. The neighboring p’'operty I'wner to the south, who is most affected, has indicated approval of che proposal. Staff would note that this neighbor's detached garage is approximately as close to the traveled roadway as applicant's attached garage will be. Applicant's residence has entry doors on either side, and it would seem that the northerly door may have much less use than 1:h6 southerly door. Applicant should Indicate what sidewalks if any could be reduced or eliminated, and should ind..cate where doorways are intended for this garage. Will there be direct access to the house from inside the garage, and will there be 2 outside access doors? Zoning Pile #1529 May 15, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff has sketched some alternate configurations, including a side-loading attached garage with doors facing north. Such a plan would require removal of all the pine trees while making that garage much harder to enter and exit. Staff sees no benefit in such a plan. A similar layout but with southerly facing doors, would similarly wipe out all the trees, could not be as large, and would have poor accessibility. Staff feels that the only way a side-loading attached garage might be feasible on this lot is if it had north facing doors and was allowed to be within 5* of the south side lot line. Given the adequate sight distance at this location, and the lack of ability to create a backup apron with any of the potential alternate configurations, it would seem that applicant's proposal may be the best solution. Staff Reconnendation Planning Commission should review the proposal in the context of its impact on the neighborhood, and the impact of the increased hardcover and minimal side and street setbacks. The applicant has noted past problems with security of his vehicles, and construction of a garage should help to eliminate break-ins. Planning Commission's options would be as follows: 1. Recommend approval as proposed, granting variances for street setback, side setbacks, and hardcover. 2. Recommend conditional approval, subject to specified conditions. 3. Ask for a revised proposal, applicant to meet. indicate criteria for 4. Recommend denial. 5. Other. CITY OP ORONO - VARIAMCB APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 • • ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address #1 I c/ry OF Ohm hECElPT-TPMK YOU HI 75SOO LOOl /WJ Property Identification Number (P.I.P.)-3^ (0^'-//7‘23- ^3 Attach legal description to application if not Included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Phone (home) <i7v*T~ Phone (work) ~00/ Cd Address . City: . Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land _ __ mm mm mm ^m mm mm ^m mm mm mm mm mm ^m ^m <^m 9m « PRESENT DSE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other _ _ _ _ _ Lot Width ^ Hardcover / Front /_ Side - - - Rear) mUtDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: A/ot' -m OBSCRIPTIOH OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual pr^erty conditions preventing compliance with Zonlna Code Requirements:yr>o s>T7. ici~. 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). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to Include hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. AAi> <y//yv<i^cS ^ S)cetches or plans of floor and elevation views. As an addendum to this applicationr 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11” X 17* OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your yerianffe application is not coMplcte if the above infomation has not been includ^. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by 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 consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date 90 ONNBRS 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 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. May 10,1990 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: LAND USE APPUCATION NO. 1529 Dear City Planners: Because I believe it veiy necessary that my property have a garage, and because there are quite a number of extenuating circumstances, I am compelled to write you a brief history of my pursuit of this variance and why I believe it should be granted. My wite, Sherri, and I purchased 3845 Baysidc Road in June of 1988. It was only after much discussion that we placed lakeshore ownership above a garage on our list of priorities. After the first winter, the priority list quicldy changed. In June of 1989, 1 first approached the city staff about a variance application. The original proposal was for a garage in front of and aligned with the house. During the first discussions, it was suggested that I try to purchase some of Outlot A next door and put the garage on the side of the house. I talked to the developer, Paul Swanson, and sent letters to the owners of Outlot A that summer. I got no response from Evan Austin. Lee Harren seemed receptive, but had several conditions to the sale. One of those conditions was that the house on the Austin lot be staked. This lot is now up for resale which makes the conditions impossible to meet. In October, while our car and truck were parked in front of the house, vandals broke into both vehicles. We reported this to the Orono police on October 13, 1989. We have now lived through a second winter and we have determined that a garage is a necessity for us. It has also become evident that attaching the garage to the side of the house on Outlot A would encroach the 75 foot setback area. After a second discussion with the city staff, I have submitted a survey with the proposed garage located in front of the house, but offset to allow for additional parking on the property. I have reduced the size of the garage to minimize hardcover. For that same reason I have not requested a turn around in the driveway. I have discussed the garage with the most immediate neighbor, Mrs. Peggy Peterson, and she has written a letter of approval. I understand your concerns for maintaining the hardcover standard as set forth, but I believe that there is substantial hardship that can be demonstrated and that I am not asking for more than is typical on other properties. Thank you for considering this proposal. Sincerely, John B. Thiesse Enclosure April 24, 1990 John Tht*««« 3S49 Bays14* Rd. Lons Laks, NN S93S4 Daar John: Thank you for ravlsMlns th* proposed saraso plans and location Mith us. Wo havo no problMS Mlth tho propoBOd six# or location that mo talkod about. lost WiShOB, I \f I V 9 t Bossy Potorson 3B99 Baysido Rd. Lons LakOf MN 99396 .J UfJD Dot reel. 55 pe5 I oo\ I CSI O I 1 oo 00ooo m CM CO CM I ino 00 CO ooo iO CM CO CM I S 2 z § «c in COmm Imo o Mcn 5 CQ §§ M td PL4 ^ 00 CO inm 00 CO S 6o o CU Cd pL4 Cd Q Min 5 OQ mm 00 CO 2s vOooo # 1 529 COo Cd td o VJ w J in in ful f*l CAtu U M M < < \0 m CO uo <r CO o o CO 505 > g“ - M Cd OH in M d) S Cd g- (d 2 CM CO CM 2 2 5 9 in M « ma Q , I Iino a di ^ os 00 (O 05 td < <4 MO 5 CM C in 3 sigg li^iQ H SS §= CdI fcV *. rrt-grr- • .I-' —'.^••*... W.T^rr-.rH^** *-•» •• •• •.--! /. . . • .•• r*. j mm-i ■ ■ ■ • * • 'j ^ t \4 .' ? ■ • t . VM r rr. ^ ^.i-‘ •*. / . ’.vv^ , .*v * 4 ** . • •■ jj 4 I ^ ■■ !**• ' ’w’*' • - ’ » . V. •’*;. ^ . / > i:. ' i .i 'V. '..i^. ' ( - >• i 06 I" ;'Jr' # •'g ■It-im mmA Jsi 'Mm :'t vinl^^gm .i»1HriU(i&]'.lssNig:i.'’it''? JSs-a'-,-,1V / V*', ^.1 rT^^ V ■■'.■:• '.rs v' >•:• ; ^ l»V V \ 1*^ fr»^ •V . V ; -t. U f r. •••f-m m'-TMSe <■ fi>.'? ; ' V' .--Jf, #•' ■•:, 4'-?‘ ii^jy-" !.M. >■ <• .ft->i >.i : w,> •.A :f^ •..-•iV'^r- ..aL1^ r, ■■' rsx-^, l^23S»i I H I" . *. ■tf I f* I ^ 4 *. i ! ! I * I . I •• • • f * •1 { ) •I :) ■i ■•..1 4\ r •> ■ t .2 • •. •'• s ‘•■•i % *1 1. •IS ’•‘I ■ill ■'is ■m' . r i. ‘ ' ^ Vi • -‘Ml ! •M V . I •J ; I* . t 4 t r;-‘ . i 14^. >> O k i % I fi 10 4 in 4SiX <sQ I, > <0 o) I 4 i I 1 I CO >. (vj > l> « h )i ^ 0 Q 0^ 05 f- > ^ »3 0 CO C n ) ^ o > >n N oa oJ ^ ^ X X > O ^W 04 ^ vS X 3, N <r ^ \ ^ a (Vi > I <0 INi X flO 1 . <• iIi \ i X • I • I X o20o 5 > • I » f •I Mi IN I t O «o ^ /O :r CO k I H > \l S 5 $ S > •M X /?I V 1 2<S ' O O >£, oD i:?^ 5 X.j4:t- • I n ii 1 I I • “3- r- cv) u* 0 2c: 5 4ft •i< cr Oft I I £u. 4^; f *. I • * I » I •j * ♦ ; i 1 \ t t \ ■ I r% .* h I i I V • •; «. Ii. ;l I M < J ’ A. t , ;i r. t: ■1I • • E: !•» ^fr* t « » *ir r • Mv * J. Vi i: ' r‘- i: ^ • t ii - :*» ( '•: ( i r ;• • 11 m. Si;i'U) K»- I ^ f‘f. j .• ^ Ir^ ; .. !l:i .-I J! ■ii: HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0~75* C^-2^ 250-500' 500-1000 Existing H ardcover in Zone A. H ouse X = *SiF. length • •WIDTH X • • S.F. X S.F. •X • S.F. • X • S.F. 8. Oarage ‘X • S.F. C. nptVFWAV X »S.F. X • • S.F. • • _ n. Sidewalk 7^9 "VX1 1. • 3/6.S.F. X s S.F. X .S.F. e. Jatio /D eck ^ ^X o<f<S.F. * <• F. Landscape X •S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY yt S.F. PLASTIC • • SHEETING X . S.F. • X • S.F. G. Other ^ • X S.F. • Total H ardcover in Zone - 1 Total Property Area in Zone /924 / 29 • S.F, S.F. [3 [T /924 4 jTj <44Z9 xIOO- ^3 % ^snsaill C 1 DO HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK zone: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 250-500' 500-1000' OmsTiwc Hardcover in Zone A. House B. Garage . c. D riveway E. Patio / D eck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other S4 LENGTH ^ K 0. Sidewalk x X X WIDTH 20 2^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. - S• Ff ^20 S.F. S.F. _________ S.F. R3<c'> S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Total H ardcover in Zone - Total Property A rea in Zone 2I9^ 4 [T] >^4e9 X100 2! 92. j.F. IAI ^4z ‘=> ..F, rii 49 *» ^.' ^ *“ ’***T —* . - : ■ * V '"> . n--rS.' .. ;•V ; • .* <c *^s> •••• -r ♦ * I- ■»*-» * • rr — • '•* * ■ * • .T Trfi^ •yy>4u/^»^ - w;^ t ^ ________________ .i,iZ- V, A U_. -r^ ’••••* '^t:r:!rrjT:i«rrr;T^ ^ X r\^ ■ •—-- I ... %’ •-•-• • 'r.. ^Sr*-^.*.. ----------. -<'**.' • _••- ^«< .5=^ •«• * *r” V /4 To:Planning Conunlsslon Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator May 16, 1990 Subject: #1534 Roland Amundson — 3133 Casco Circle ~ Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IC, Single family lakeshore residential, 1/2 acre, sewered Application - Request for fence height variance to construct enclosure for 2 dogs List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C “ Property Owners List Exhibit D - Applicants Letter of Request Dated 4/19/90 Exhibit E - Staff Letter Dated 5/4/90 Exhibit F - Letter From Neighboring Property Owner Mary Butler Exhibit G - Sketch Received From applicant 5/16/90 Pertinent Ordinances - 1. Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 - "Non-encroachments allows a maximum fence height of 3-1/2' (42") in the street yard of a lakeshore lot which does not abut a major thoroughfare. On Casco Point Road in the LR-lC Zone, no fence higher than 42" is allowed within 30' of the road right-of-way. 2. Section 5.36 - "Kennels", regulates commercial and residential kennels and kennel structures. Specific pertinent code requirements include: A. The definition of kennel structure includes fenced- in yard areas that contain less than 600 s.f. per dog. B. A residential kennel license is required if a kennel structure is located in a "side or rear yard" and is less than 30' away from any property line. From the sketch submitted, it is unknown where the property line is in relation to the fence. [• ¥ Zoning File #1534 May 16, 1990 Page 2 Discussion been submitted. The fenced area would appear to ^ 13'^f/om the and vlrify that I'm: . .ennex license. Staff RecoBstendation Absent the ^''HSlot ^Vke“a“?MSOnsble ?e%'orera.t?o"n“aSf«^°uXa re,ues^ ^ ru:i\nio1Jt\":n%‘t^* p-“a%Taf aays^tior to the Planning Commission meeting. Isv 1] CITY OP OROHO - VARIAHCB APPLICA Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Pees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3135 Casco Circle_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 20-117-23-43 on2q CITY, FmJ5020 Dim OFFICE 7S940 cool CITY OF Ofm 01 CBl 125.00 cm 7L 125.00 RECEIPT-Tim YOU umiio cool ROl^T^^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Roland C. Amundson Phone (home) _ _ Phone (work) Address:1005 ^ti Curvo City I Minneapolis— Zip; 55403 ONNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired October. 1QR4 (month/year) I (kEO^ (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT DSE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost Describe request in detail!^_Construct five foot chain link fence on interior of forested area immediately abutting my garage. VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances ( x Front Side Rear)• ; The closest part of the fence will be twelve feet from Casco Other Circle Road. The entire fence will nearly be covered by trees and other existing bush HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict y enforcement of zoning regulations? Thofo ie wfi vny_to fenoo in—area for my dogs because the garage is surrounded on 2 sides bv the lot line and nt-hpr iide-by-my~drt-veway-and—thrg-r3-~the*~oni7~‘2rvart'abte’~area7~‘~—~*~~*~***~ DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; 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. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Slcetches or plans of floor and elevation views. 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. YOU ARB REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (ll" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your vari*»g* application is not cosg>lete if the above infomation has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by Clerical Staff t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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 origins-^ fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of th-is app2-icaj:ireiv. and certifies that the Information supplied is true and/Correct^Oj,^eIie his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's Signat Date OmnSRS SIGNATURE The owner hereby aclcowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commiss^jwrTnem^rs, an^,-CeaA^iV'members for purposes of investiga tion and ver>^i^tiony<« ^hj/^re^es^y rZ/'rm__Owner's mature *//y/v//(/^yj7&/yyyy^An(^ Date i^>pllcant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled j.^view 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 to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. .r-6>«. £^\\ l|« ;S /:TJ.e80d', \i% -sii^ m-r,"* \'• 1 ' . / (60) • ....... L‘; / V •••• .* 1 >s ■Ar > #/-■• V-. ^^UTZsiiU'iy^ v.% _i_Sb. “t; / 'Oil .VAC OOC NO If ot) (6) _i^^./ IISV^ (7)I* ly ••••...• VV^ l« S ' » -ClS (H) 167.5 '/ X »0 1667579 (6>.iV.'- '•f I7t . ...... i (22) ■B .......... (3I) iv’- ^•i. V. \“5 585- i\e !C8.6l f ■& V(2I) Y ^ 1■ • 1 '60 1 60 1 ••1 1 ?A5 42 7 • A 1•*(30) i *60'• 3 .(22) AO (28) V/' i(23)^ y//. Ci.:'; ■ #1534 St !■«u i K. O O O at ^ M > > U tfl A *f\ o 7« K >ssis il:i < < •A >. M 3 > N t^eoT# « ro O O »A O X X XUi « CVJo O X K> M U »A O K < M U »H I O , CM lA iH CO lA Kl O UI O' -J »A X UI U iA -i X U)< -i X 2t« u. lu p Z ^ -I ^ < UJ UJ U H X 3 lA N U U vj- >• K CMoo X fA M^ u •A CM I K iH rM I O CM (H »A lA <A X lA Ui M X u UI ®5 a- *-a -22 «ooooo *9oo a <<>- g 55SJ O > > M fA MMX O -i -i o ^ •A M (A <A -J KJ“**sa ««SI= -a K ^ U o M*i>lA>- CO lA ^ < M < »A O Z Z >A Z « lA lA O ly X li«ig2»3 X § X < Xlll^1 VI V. U H lA N lA > la X O 3> N X < ly rx (V U X Ui X X M X O O r.v c> c=^ e STATE OF MINNESOTA FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROLAND C. AMUNDSON HCNNCPIN COUNTY GOVCRNMLNT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SBAdT 16121 346-7698 4i- J a i f ' t . r. . »■# IA Oi- w‘»*'- April 19, 1990 iAPR 271• '•'’a Jeanne Mabustn Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono 1335 S Brown Road Orono, MN 55323 Re; 3135 Casco Circle, Orono, Minnesota Dear Ms. Mabusth: Enclosed please find the Application for Variance along with a $50.00 fee. (I paid an initial variance fee several years ago, so I assume a $50.00 fee is the appropriate one here.) I am also enclosing a Certified Property Owners List which I obtained from the County Finance Office along with a plat map. I will be forwarding for your additional consideration photographs of the scene so that you may be assisted in your analysis of my request. If there is anything further I need to include or # • CITY CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66*CrysUl Bay, MinneaoU 55323•Municipal Offices OF ORONO On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka May 4, 1990 Roland C. Amundson 1005 Mount Curve Minneapolisr MN 55403 Dear Mr. Amundson: The Zoning Department is in receipt of application for a front setback variance for a 5 high fence on your property at 3135 Casco Circle. However, additional i^rmation must be"" submitted in order for review of your application to proceed: 1, Certificate of Survey. 2. Site plan indicating proposed fence location. These items must be submitted no later than in order that a staff review can be completed prior to the y 21st Planning Commission meeting. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have any questions. SincereT Michael P. Ga^-^—. , . ^ ^ « Asst Planning « Zoning Administrator cc:^^Jeanne Mabusth, Building Zoning Administrator BUILOING A ZONING • 473-7357 . ASSESSING AOMI.NISTRATION A FINANCE - 473.73SI FAX-473A5I0 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-735F % 5^ •«.CITV Of OPCNr ^atuay MAY 1 6 1990 Orono City Planning Conunission Orono City Council Roland Amundson, my next door neighbor, wishes to build a p for his two Doberman Pinschers. His placement for this chain link enclosure is adjacent to his garage, at the street side iJ hirioI! This area historically (for the 20+ years we have lived here) is covered with underbrush and haa looked rather ratty. Mr. Amundson has greatly improved the appearance and now seeks to put this otherwise unuseable portion of his yard to good use. I will take this opportunity to grant my concurrence with his tS state t"t there »1U be no adverse tapact on our property, and to point out that the area is away from more ^iJed in' areas of our yard. The area Mr. Amundson wishes to utilize is most appropriate for the use suggested.i i Thank you for your attention .incerely. Mary C _________ imms^. •• ^ ' *• ■* •".• .**-«? • )^^»**&* te- » . 4 *.•• ••-.r** rT*:''!!:i:«*-.r.#»r> r..,-;..,*»;x» • xrr.ir.v.* ^ -* -j,.. - . i' ..*.*• *"V •*“•'*• V ,.'*• •»',;» •*’ , i*.v «■•, •• • 1* . :• . ••• , ... ^ •/»:•/•, * • fvVI v--< *• '.•**/'•'•■••■’ * *j «i • - -‘j ’ %r *. '* ■ ■ .• • -V. : ’ ^ 4 .•*•- 1;.• '• —Al»»• . • . • •* uijJH *■ -- ------------------------- PI."liitLMi « •• * • VKVffSW • ?*X. gr<^V ».j*” ? i-'n-'t.-—vav>.»r»*- 4^ • rrTv - v::*- V'-C V«-'^‘^' / :•• V V’' .'A^ **^'?C1*•v^ * ■>T' •.1 r. *.^f>v:v-> iv,-~ vr^. .. . •• . •m’^ ■ •* **. . * ■ • . . v: V' •* -*(• '. : - ':>N • .* 4. ^ TV* I 17. TO: OrSSS banning Coimnission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building t Zoning Administrator Date: May 16, 1990 Pia4- - Reauest to amend Resolution #2652 - subject, sugarwo^o^d^s „ctura I and nonatruotura 1 improvements within Front Street setback area List of Exhibits Exhibit A “ Exhibit B ” Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Memo to Council . ll?rFlan Approved with Building Permit for Lot 2, Block 2 Sugar Woods Plat Itto?ne?*^s L^tter/Sample Turnarounds staff Sketches-Turnaround, Backout Apron ?able of Front Street Setback Areas for 25 Lots within Sugarwoods Resolution #2652 - Condition 1 P The applicant %rTvate^opI^protection area within t p setback areas defined (namely within those areas no futurewithin each building l^=b- "”33 i„ excess of 2" owner will be allowed arading is allowed in diameter at A* hmrr—residential within ^ ♦'Q ~20'~^e leading_ ^lot may include bi~gra3ed and trees .^s^ma^r b/ -:-:f3.‘°a.fre\1.e Vrctec?el rr“s''s1.Vh%^.’"hTsetback area of each lot and the private open space outlets. This specific o*Jh*iS'^Timiti^^ access drives impact on the existing t « 20' The question of to'^one at a i,“.«tiof aro.; at the’time of theinterpretation of this «e a Block 2 to issuance of the Exhibit B). Based on the Steiner and K°PP®i®*" to the Front Street location of backout apron and turnaroundsetback area, portions of the bacKour specific site SSSdi^onrfor'thisTot ®%Siriil"l "c;sS^*o?Vhlr"*lotl^i*^^^^^^^^^^ the desire will be 1 a Sugarwoods Plat May 16, 1990 Page 2 of 4 itiern'tS^^rtopor.piic features.features. In reviewing ‘ 1 vate ;?:v ‘fd*e^d Xnd'ifd^s Hntr’rTe.*"ar?«la t‘o° o‘;?e ‘''ar‘’iv ‘e« y La public made. be discouraged. This approach and loop Gerhardson notes that in lialnance was »PP”/*«, i" since the passagae of that rrdiranc^ 1 mw\nT« considerations:UCi a - ’lassif7e"d! heavuy ml^ficed public roadway, private road. a roadway is ^he driver does not back out intoviolation of State law if the direction of the flow oitne airetuxwi* ---- hr the hpril a,rd »rn ‘d^rurtlefLrcreVUrirtt^^ fh‘e “dVve'llpef* a^d "on'tmtors to a lop Bmndard^a^^or cJ^eria fo? 'h* 'necessary-^encro^^^^^^^^^^ ‘•<=l“‘*‘ifte* improvements within , access from and to thebacking out maneuver and access employed by Please note ^^®®®, reviewing staff when clearly <*®^^”® both developer placement of the house near or :^5menri:^rh: ?^:nrss?e%%''setbact line. 01..J- .fctemoted to control in early f"ont street setback yards by improvements , J„„th (i.e., backout apron from limits on size, f 20'j a turnaround backout »Pf®^aaraae limited to a depth or -iu , « widths, etc.). nm?ted to 15- , also noted that a loop road Refer to Exhibit A and F. that had less than 2C0 of would not be allowed on lot would qualify 7 of the frontage on Sugarwoods Driv ^°^L*Jould 25 lots for concerns that turnarounds wouldpJSerder:irhln ‘Lt,rior of lor. I II Sugarwoods Plat May 16, 1990 Page 3 of 4 As you may recall, development within this project is limited to no more than 80% of the defined building pad being covered with hardcover improvements. The normal lakeshore hardcover regulations do not apply. In review of the most recent application for Lot 2, Block 2, the smallest of the building pads, it would appear that the 80% hardcover allowance is not a problem, that is if additional turnaround improvements were required for this site. There is an additional 3400 s.f. of additional hardcover available for the improvement of Lot 2. In no case can the total improvement of any of the pads within the Sugarwoods plat exceed the 80% allowance. Since the Council meeting of April 23rd, staff held a meeting with consultants, the developer and contractors within the Sugarwoods plat. It became apparent that the first attempt at a control on limiting such improvements to a specific size would not be functional nor realistic. The developer's engineer plans to develop various site plans for specific pads with various alternatives providing interior cul-de-sac turnarounds, turnaround aprons and loop road configurations. It was the consensus of this group that should the need arise that each pad be allowed a percentage of hardcover within the front street setback area to insure minimum encroachment. (Lots 100'-180' allowed 20%, Lots 181'-200' allowed 15%) Staff conceptually developed a table for hardcover allowances by grouping lots based on frontage widths (i.e. 90'-119' allowed 30%, 120'-139' allowed 25%, etc.) and soon realized that this would not be workable. It may be more appropriate to develop a table defining allowed hardcover for each of the 25 lots based on a specific amount of hardcover rather than on a blanket percentage. Review the table of Front Street Setback Areas for each lot. Review of Previous Considerations Staff's first attempt at presenting the issue to Council dealt with setting limitations on backout improvements (turnaround apron, interior cul-de-sac or loop road) and driveway widths within each front street setback area. Since the Council meeting, staff has met with agents of the developer and staff consultants. It was determined that possibly a hardcover limitation would more appropriate as it was obvious you could not set limits on the sizing of turnaround improvements that would respond to each individual lot's final development needs. Sugarwoods Plat May 16r 1990 Page 4 of 4 Staff has explored the idea of limiting such improvements to a specific hardcover percentage based on frontage area of each lot but this method may not provide staff with adequate control. Staff has yet to receive site plans developed by developer's planner providing graphic examples of such improvements to determine if the hardcover control would work. Council has asked for direction from the Planning Commission to determine if members have any comments concerning issues raised by staff and developer. Is hardcover control a valid method? Do Planning Commission members have other suggestions or ideas? in consideration of the extremes in area from the smallest lot frontage at 99' to the largest at 349', staff feels each individual lot should have a specific hardcover allowance if indeed hardcover is the agreed upon method of control. I have created a listing of front setback areas of each of the individual 25 lots in Sugarwoods for your consideration. Please let me know prior to the meeting if you would like other exhibits or information prepared to assist in our discussion. Planning Comission Action To provide further direction to staff on the following issues to assist staff in preparing final amendment for Council's review and action: A. Define site conditions that would suggest need to locate home at front street setback line. Do you agree tree location, topography or other unique physical conditions are acceptable? B. Method(s) to control amount of encroachment 1. A minimum of 10-20' is needed to back out of garage 2. A minimum of 15' is needed for turnaround apron Isv f «( Tot Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom: Datez Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator April 19, 1990 Sobjecbt Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods - Request for Loop Driveway List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Pflaum's Letter Site Plan - Loop Drive Site Plan - Turnaround Site Plan - Backout Apron + Interior Turnaround Cul-de-sac Site Plan Approved by Staff with Issuance of Building Permit Affidavit - Steiner & Koppelman Inc. Hardcover Fact Sheet Area Calculations for Sugar Woods Lots Staff Sketches The developer of Sugar Woods has asked for clarification concerning Condition 1-F of Resolution #2652 (resolution approving conditional use permit for PUD), written as follows: F. The applicant has created a no-grading zone/woodlands protection area within the private open space outlets (namely Outlets A and B), and the setback areas defined within each building lot. Within those areas no future owner will be allowed to remove trees in excess of 2" in diameter at 4' above grade. No grading is a1lowed within the protected area, however, each resHential lot may include one driv eway up to 20' wide leading to the loop road. This driveway may be graded and trees of any size may Be removed to build it. The subdivider's agreement should also define the protected areas such as the setback area of each lot and the private open space outlets. Staff has not researched the minutes nor the staff memos that would confirm the City's Intent regarding this specific directive of that condition. It is the City's position that a single access/curb cut/driveway with a maximum width of 20' was to be installed to serve each residential pad. Such a driveway would cross the 50' wide front street protected area. The single underlying theme of this PUD has been to protect the unique trees within the subdivision. This condition was an attempt by the City to lessen the impact on the tree growth by limiting access drives to one at a maximum width of 20'. It would be the City's position that a loop driveway would be two driveways. It is the developer's position that a looped driveway is one driveway and not prohibited by resolution 12652. Please review Exhibit A, Mr. Pflaum's letter reflects his clients position. : r Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods April 19» 1990 Page 2 of 5 The interpretation question arose at the time of the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, Block 2 to Steiner S Koppelmann (review Exhibits B, C and D). Obviously, there are portions of drive, backout apron and turnaround areas that cannot be classified as a single driveway at a 20* width that encroach the front setback area. This is not just an issue of two drive ways at a 20* width intersecting the front building setback area, but of the other required improvements that would also be placed within the protected setback area (review Exhibits E, F and G). Staff issued a building permit to Steiner & Koppelmann based on a driveway and backout apron designed to limit the encroachment of the front setback area to 1,000 square feet (20* maximum width of drive by 50* depth of front setback area) until Council would approve a greater encroachment. Specific site conditions for thi» lot require that the house be placed right at the 50* setback l:.ne. This will also be the case for other lots within the plaL where the desire is to minimize impact on trees and taking advantage of gentler elevations. In the case where a house is laced right at a 50* setback line, the City must deal with the question of portions of a backout apron and possible turnaround withij. the front street setback area. It would be appropriate to aine.'’d the approval resolution to allow for more than a single 20* wide driveway directly to the street where appropriate for safe Ingress and egress. It is the hope of both the developer and the Cic ^ staff to establish standards/criteria/guidelines for ^ature tuilding permit applications within the Sugar Woods plat so thr , it ..«» not necesuary to come back to Council for every bui Idin*' pe'ini* ti at cannot follow the very general guidelines of the .wu. If you have a cuance to visit this specific site, y*.” ' a11 find that the jgyy^rity of the front street setback area on the portion of the curved lot that extends westward, has few trees. A looped driveway will provide minimal impact on the trees within the protected area. Note the contractor has already screened off the larger trees, in fact, the looped driveway is almost defined by the vacant corridors in the protected area. (As you may recall, development within this project is limited to no more than 80% of the defined building pad being covered with "hardcover" improvements. The normal lakeshore hardcover regulations do not apply.) Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods April 19, 1990 Page 3 of 5 It should also be noted that there is no hardcover probleir. (review Exhibit C), This is the smallest of the building pads and it would appear that we have 3,400 square feet of additional hardcover available for the Improvement of this specific lot. In consideration of the PUD as a whole, hardcover will not place any restrictions on additional turnarounds or looped driveways on a given lot. In reviewing this issue with the Public Works Director, he once again advised that in the recent amendment to Chapter 6 that discussed driveway approaches to both private and public roads, that properties were limited to one driveway approach and that loop roads were to be discouraged. This ordinance was approved in 1988. Gerhardson appreciates the concerns expressed in Pflaum's letter and made the following suggestions for criteria that could be used in determining whether a lot would qualify for a loop road: 1. 200' minimum frontage on Sugarwoods Drive. 2. Heavily treed or unique trees located within front street setback area. As there is no doubt that a loop drive limited to a minimum width of 12* and strategically placed would reduce impact on protected area. It is staff's recommendation that where safety concerns are the real consideration because of placement of lots on curves, that turnarounds on site always be preferred over loop road configuration. Chief Kilbo has advised the City against allowing the site to be developed where only a backing out onto a roadway is permitted. He warns that you are in violation of State law if you don't back out into the direction of the flow of traffic. In the site plan approved by staff, the user of the property would have to back out onto Sugarwoods Drive as no turnaround is General Staff Recomiendatlon ' A. Criteria for Loop Road. The loop road configuration shall be allowed within the Sugar Woods subdivision as long as the following site conditions exits: 1. Hardcover must be maintained at 80%. 2. 200' minimum frontage on Sugarwoods Drive. 3. Heavily treed or placement of unique trees within front protected area in order to reduce Impact on front street setback area. Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods April 19, 1990 Page 4 of 5 nnrtiiona of the front street setback area. Driveway approaches must-be 10' from side lot lines at intersection of private road. ;ynTrund7inteAor apionu K^ated within front street setback area. Encroachment allowed under the following site conditions; 1. House placed at the 50* setback line because of unique site conditions (trees - elevations). a) backout aprons from garage areas shall be limited to a depth of 20'; trees), staff to make final determination. Please review staff sketches, Exhibit I, that graphically depict staff's discussion. in conclusion and in consideration of the conditions that may exist in the Sugar Woods plat, encourage the developer and contractors US6 shsircd dnv6S whGT6 possxblG# ©mpl y turnarounds/interior cul-de-sacs within where there is minimal impact on trees within front ^ we would at last resort, seek the use of loop Public encouraae the developers and contractors to contact ^"® Works Di^rector in the early stages of application for a building Council Action - Direct staff to draft a resolution amending resolution #2652 that ^«ntea conditional usecriteria for permitted improvements encroaching front street setback area. /t I Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods April 19, 1990 Page 5 of 5 Staff Recomendation for Current Request - To approve a loop driveway for Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Hoods limited to a 12' width as it encroaches front setback area providing necessary turnaround and the encroachment of a 20* backout apron within the front setback area based on the following findings: 1. Lot consists of 200'+ of frontage on Sugarwoods. 2. Portions of house placed at 50' front setback. 3. Minimal trees within yard area designated for loop road. 4. No hardcover problem. Subject to the condition that no portions of turnaround - Interior cul-de-sac or turnaround backout apron be allowed to encroach setback area. Proposed Motion: Moved by _ _, seconded by_ _, to adopt staff's recommendation based upon the findings and conditions noted above. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. *iS ; i r» 9f e I r 8 TJ 01u cda 01 h:i ft.fr( O h* CO QC O ti. >• LU >cc h^l >.m i) t v.! -IMJC 1..I I ............. S3M C9 m± .••‘V • /•%•••: i”i •* .•* ? ''J *•». « I ri ,WTi y \ I n./ 7 / ^ - qii:' /' 7 / \ r/ K"- 5j / V. N.izr> 7/>r:\ J \ / ^ V" / > .✓ * ^ y ' '' ✓/ ^ \ iC<C-^.r '• // //"v <“ f \V ^ \ 'vy1 i'my )S,irv^4->vF ^-^_- \/n 'll-Id-'-'' I'l \i \ A' • ' I' il 'j. ^'- i \ \; •a V \ \r . \ ' ■ // ■ I - i I H^'fv' PMP,\' \ V j :^' - rl / If I^7^T:3-i i \ fc —■ A'^ .7 \ ^ \ N \o o ^ V |\ \ \ ' \ l \ » » I 'i \ I J • '/ \K\\\ m^rX' \ liLi-U \ f V ; ‘l-rKi \«* —. c k 11 /V--^n -'./ \ ^/ -i! A \ l' *v \' » ' '>+\A % \ N U X wPill \ \!! 1 A g ! • ii I "III r;Z -! \i.oc I*/ / / yt I X X X % A';. \ ■< r> 1 i'^ I ^^-1.4 / '' )|l /t 1 » » Y-VI -V. / /L-^ ( / ,ii .V \ law orrices LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD •*0«1T LO«M»* HAIKX.0 O nito. JM * ALWCM I tACM* tmomai o rctNBCuo* MORR iI m tMCRMAN* MO«OC ■CILLV* CMAiKCt • OArroM PAVIO M COa* tTERMlR m RTLAUM* CMAAVCl A MATS* COMStLJ M>TCtOOM* OCOUPI r m«OUN*mO«.C. * •tCMAMO O RSRiN. JA r»tO«*C T •OSCNPLATT* STPOM K STAARS* jCMM m mcaman STtVSN O 0«AUTTfA* WAMCS A OOASrr AATMLCCA m oaamam BTKAmCN J OAVIOSOA* STtAMCA A LITmAR* OAVIO C. lALA* KOMAAO M MOCASrCCOCA* AOPCAT kt«nS SAAAOWS* At RT 1 A<MCT PiCHAAOJ WCOCRCA NUOR M MATRAMO* rAtOCAiCKM MOARiS ,X>»*M C AUCNM BAAOICT J OICLAR M>CMACL A RCniCN* MAATMA C PAARO* OAVIO R MAVRCS CAAOCTR CRALMCAt JAMCSV AOTM* AOPCAT L- OCMAT AROCLAM POMMARR AOPCAT A TMAVIS* OAMCPO PULLAAO* ^PCAH M riRLCT* LAtRACRCCJ ’^CtO OAVIO W ACWLCT MAAA P WCm* OAVIO L ULLCMAUO OAVIO AARTOA AROCLAM CMAlSrr MAAM A. LIROOACR *1 ■oriM TT -1 COATOM*<Qa» SUITE 2300 ISO south fifth street MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE I6I2I 335*1500 FACSIMILE I5I2I 335 »65T April 16, 1990 miC ma CL l pcaoc LOMCLL V PTOATl OOUOLAS P OACCRSAAO CLLCRO SAMASOR teAAOAACT M VAR VAkACHPUAP AOPARRC RATMARSOR SMCARI L ARUTM MICMACL 0 TATLOA jOMR M OCTPiROCA Thomas A SAROCAS AOPCAT CCOLOVITC m TIMOTMT WCLCM OACOOAT C PAOMR tUSAA M ROPIRCA OCPAAO STACMLOM rcoca a laasor M<MACL a COMCR RARCT WILTOCR ACIPCAT VIA04RIA P COMC CATMAAIRC POSCRCC MICMCLLC A MILLCA Timotmt a MCTCASOM JCRRiTCA A AAAR PLAAC SmCAAAO. JA WILUAM L CACCRC STtVf PCLTOR AfTCR N PACHMAR MARC 0 SIMASOR Sma UR C MeCLMATTOR JAMCBJ PCATRARO JAMCS A PCMACRPAIRACA MARA m OCLCMARI^ ACTCR C PCMirSAT LAMRCRCC a SCMACrCA RORALOJ SCHULTZ CAROLER V MOtSAI STCVCR J RiROSiO JAMA M ARiZ OCOROC P LCORAROI STC ARTHUR L M STRCm>pTT.iS«4l PCRCO*CT OCiRARO l<••C •l•At• AMOS S OCiRAROl>AM •Mti IRCRC PCorr OARlCL O rOTM OARICL M SATORIUS or COwwMk (612) 335-1546 wniTCR BY MESSENGER Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono 1335 South Brown Road Orono, Minnesota 55323 ReI Sugar Woods Planned Residential Development Our File 18311-2 0»AM MUMSEi crrvOF ORCVOD.______ UUllEIlO^ APR 1 6 1990 Dear Jeanne: This letter is in furtherance of recent discussions you have had with Rick Lang of Steiner & Koppelman and with my partner another curb cut one driveway or two driveways?” I understand that you are taking the position that a looped driveway is two driveways and is prohibited by Paragraph F o City Council Resolution No. 2652, which was intended to protect the^existing trees in the project. We believe that a looped driveway is one driveway and is not prohibited by Resolution No. 2652. However, we do not want to get bogged down about what the City Council meant in passing Resolution 2 , what the developer understood and what city staff understood. Even if the City Council fully intended to prohibit looped driveways, we believe there are good reasons to eliminate tne prohibition at this time. L_ Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth April 16, 1990 Page 2 We are hereby requesting that the Orono City Council formally approve the use of looped drivev/ays in Sugar Woods, because straight driveways are already proving to be impractical and unsafe. Looped driveways are common in Orono and should be allowed in Sugar Woods. If the City Council agrees, it could pass a resolution interpreting Paragraph F of Resolution 2652 as allowing looped driveways or it could pass a resolution amending said Paragraph F. In either case, no driveway should be more than 20 feet wide as it passes through the 50-foot wide front setback area. The question of looped driveways arose recently with the application for a building permit for a house to be built by Steiner & Koppelman on Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods. I understand that several driveway layouts were proposed, namely the following: 1. The builder proposed to build a looped driveway with the enclosed layout ("Choice #1"). It was rejected, because it involved two driveways that cut through the 50-foot area front setback area. 2. The builder proposed an alternate layout consisting of a straight driveway with a turn-around circle (enclosed as "Choice #2"). It was rejected, because portions of the driveway were more than 20 feet wide within the 50—foot front setback. 3. The builder prepared a third layout with a turn-around "Y", which could have been modified to satisfy both the one driveway rule and the 20-foot wide rule (enclosed as "Choice #3"). It was also rejected, because it would occupy more than 1000 square feet (50* x 20') in the front set-back area. 4. You proposed and the builder accepted a fourth layout, consisting of a straight i4-foot wide driveway that widened at the front of the three-car garage (enclosed as "Choice /4”) . If my recitation of the facts is not completely accurate, please forgive me, because most of this is second hand. However, it is clear that on this particular lot a looped driveway would be the safest and most sensible layout, as well as a more aesthetic Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth April 16, 1990 Page 3 solution. Please recall that on this particular lot there are almost no trees within the 50-:*oot front setback area; and that the purpose of Paragrah F of Resolution 2652, as we understand it, was to protect trees 2” or more in diameter. Even if the City elects not to change Resolution 2652, it should permit a looped driveway on Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods. There are many other lots in Sugar Woods where looped driveways would make more sense, even if more trees are taken than with straight driveways. There are four lots on the inside of curves of Sugar Woods Drive and six lots on the outside of curves of Sugar Woods Drive; and straight driveways would result in cars backing into Sugar Woods Drive where it curves. Most of the lots are heavily wooded and backing out of heavily wooded lots into Sugar Woods Drive would be dangerous. Looped driveways encourage off-otreet parking by guests and this is desirable. Sidney Rebers has demonstrated an extraordinary desire to preserve trees on this site. He personally planted many of the trees and he has relocated many trees during construction of Sugar Woods Drive, rather than cut them down. Through his control of the architectural control committee for Sugar Woods, Sioney Rebers will be able to continue his efforts to preserve trees in Sugar Woods. We respectfully request that looped driveways be allowed in Sugar Woods, subject to the site conditions, subject to the approval of the architectural control committee of the homeowners association (which is controlled by Sidney Rebers during the development period), and subject to the limitation that no driveway may be more than 20 feet wide as it passes through the front setback area. We do not think that every request for a looped driveway should need to be brought to the City Council or its staff. We request that this matter be heard and decided at the regular meeting of the City Council scheduled for Monday, April 23, 1990. Sidney Rebers and Rick Lang will attend the meeting and I hope to be there as well. However, I have another governmental hearing scheduled for that afternoon and, if it does not finish on time, I will ask Hugh Maynard to attend in my place. J Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth April 16, 1990 Page 4 Thank you for your understanding and your help on this Koppelman and the other builders by approving looped driveways in Sugar Woods. Very truly yours, LECN STREET AND DEINARD Stephen R. Pflaum HMM:rbb cc: Thomas Barrett, Esq. Mark Bernhardson Sidney Rebers Rick Lang Hugh M. Maynard, Esq. Robert Kost • 0 > o □Ic UJ Vj a o o 5T U <!( O £/) 0) ? JJ s’ o <0 Q O 0 uu OJo 4J o C2>n 061 s 100 ' BSbd I IO0'39Wd CZtlX 06« 6 _jyoynv<) ^ h^OAtf^ _^yo^-p^^ Oi^-nn^y ^-y^ ^ ^ P9^-».ja^>r5 Hoi'o^f^ 0 N^^O N*^ ✓ I J P IO0*39«d CZill 06* B CM I Jj-ay OL. *>Oo,0V.^ ^ -Pr-^i^Y n '■'''Y =«>-^r>T /yo^4^ _/??<? >7y>^ I • CO ^ o ) I a e 111 O Q O O > U U1 & o r 1^/ AVOA^y _po>;,TDy ffu*V' “•“''-O ( J* K...I, o-e ^t>o^ «/ooy T?;/) 0 OVo-y c/^^'y M • » Exhibit G Table of Front Street Setback Areas Frontage Area Lot If Block 1 286 14,300 s.f Lot 2f Block 1 259 12,950 B.f Lot 3f Block 1 246 12,300 S.f Lot 41 Block 1 117 5,850 S.f Lot 5,Block 1 102 5,100 S.f Lot 6,Block 1 175 8,750 S.f Lot If Blcck 2 163 8,150 S.f Lot 2f Block 2 331 16,550 S.f Lot 3f Block 2 173 8,650 S.f Lot 4f Block 2 155 7,750 s.f Lot 5f Block 2 158 7,900 s.f Lot 6f Block 2 327 16,350 s.f Lot If Block 3 324 16,200 s.f Lot 2f Block 3 160 8,000 s.f Lot 3f Block 3 150 7,500 s.f Lot 4f Block 3 155 7,750 s.f Lot 5f Block 3 349 17,450 s.f Lot If Block 4 162 8,100 s.f Lot 2f Block 4 100 5,000 s.f Lot 3f Block 4 120 6,000 s.f Lot 4,Block 4 153 7,650 s.f lot 5,Block 4 155 7,750 s.f Lot 6f Block 4 167 8,350 s.f Lot 7f Block 4 171 8,550 s.f Lot 8f Block 4 194 9,700 s.f To: Fzomt Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 18, 1990 #1526 E.W. Blanch, Jr., 3150 Shadywood Road - Sketch Plan - 10 Lot Subdivision Zoning Districts - B-4 & LR-IB Total Area ■= 31.26 aores Pertinent Ordinance - Please refer to the sketch plan sections within Chapter 11. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D “ Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Application Cook's Report Zoning Map/Municipal Boundaries Legal Description of B-4 Zoning District Resolution #913 Map Locating Area Receiving Fill or Spoils Sketch Plan The 31+ acre property is the remaining undeveloped lands once owned by the Fresh Water Institute and now owned by applicant, E.W. Blanch, Jr. The property is located within both the cities of Minnetonka Beach and Orono. Lot 1, Block 2 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 are located within Minnetonka Beach; Lots 3-9 are located within the City of Orono. Lots 3-7 will achieve access via Old Beach Road; Lots 8 and 9 via Shadywood Road. The City of Orono will work with the City of Minnetonka Beach to complete the comprehensive review. Applicant should advise what the proposed use of Outlots A and B will be and will the use involve the City of Orono lands? Staff has the following comments concerning the proposal within the City of Orono. Lot Configuration - All lots appear to meet the rer/j^re'’ lot width to the rear of the 35* setback. Lot 9 and portions of Lot 8 are within the B—4 commercial zoning district (refer to Exhibit C). The application is presented as a residential subdivision. The City must ask for the rezoning to LR-IB. The lot lines between Lots 6, 7 and 8 should be realigned so that the obvious building site on the hill be contained within the boundaries of 1 residential lot. The wetlands area within the subject property has been designated as an out lot. To bo consistent with Orono's platting regulations, the wetlands area should be incorporated as part of the residential lots and designated as a draina^s easement. Zoning File #1526 May 18, 1990 Page 2 of 4 In preliminary discussion with the City Engineer, typically, when a wetland interacts with the adjacent Jake such as in this case, the wetland is to be designated at the 931.5' elevation (100 year flood elevation of Lake Minnetonka). The preliminary plat survey must confirm that each building site has at a minimum 1/2 acre dry contiguous land. Applicant may seek credit for wetlands areas as property is sewered. Drainageways that drain to the wetlands within the property via the culverts under Old Beach Road, Shadywood Road and Shoreline Drive must be designated as drainage easements as they flow through lots to wetlands to north and eventually to Lake Minnetonka to the northeast. Access - Staff and City Engineer have reviewed the lots for access purposes and find no concern for lots along Old Beach Road. The City will ask that Lots 8 and 9 share access, somewhere in the neighborhood of the shared lot line, probably where partial drive has been created to lift station on Shadywood Road. It is staff's understanding that Lot 9 is to be acquired by the Fresh Water Biological Institute. If this is the case, access will be provided via the adjacent northern property. Applicant should provide further direction as access to Lot 8 must be defined. The Engineer also asked for the upgrading of Old Beach Road. The City of Minnetonka Beach and the City of Orono should work together to determine what standards/criter ja shall be used for the upgrading. The City will ask for the dedication of right-of- way for Old Beach Road as shown on sketch plan. In addition, the County will also review the plat for potential acquisition of right-of-way. Grading/Drainage - The subject property was once used to receive spoils from a suction dredging project within Lafayette Bay. The spoils were not placed within the wetlands but were located in the higher elevations. Based on the map locating that area (Exhibit F), it would appear that more than just Lot 4 was involved with the fill, but appears to involve Lots 3, 4, 5 and possibly parts of 6. Applicant's preliminary plan must locate the fill area. This kind of information will be useful for the building staff xn determining what lots will be required to provide soil borings. The City will also ask that the basement elevation of each residence be located on each lot. Applicant's engineer is advised to review the sewer as-builts within Old Beach Road. Applicant should provide a drainage study/map of the property. The engineer should locate all drainageways that enter the property along the southeast and north sides to determine Impact, if any, upon dry buildable envelopes. Zoning File #1526 May 18, 1990 Page 3 of 4 Rezoning - As already noted, Lot 9 and portions of Lot 8 are zoned B-4, Applicant should advise if the Institute plans to acquire Lot 9. There will be a need to amend the zoning boundaries with the formal subdivision application (please review Exhibits C and D, the legal description and zoning map of the district). Sewer/Water Unit Charges - There will be a unit charge of $897.62 for each sewer unit, and there will be no water unit charges for the 7 lots within Orono. It should be noted that these fees are based on the 1990 Fee Schedule and will be readjusted in 1991 based on an Inflationary rate. As the City of Orono provides sewer and water to this portion of Minnetonka Beach, sewer c»'«rges for the Minnetonka Beach units will be at the same rate v$897.62/unit). There will be charge of $1,691.78 per water unit for lots within Minnetonka Beach. Applicant shall provide the following information upon the filing of the formal preliminary subdivision application: 1. The formal subdivision application must include a rezoning petition. These fees will also include the engineering fees for a public road ($900.00 + .50 per lineal foot for portion of Old Beach Road within the City of Orono ). 2.The preliminary plan should Include the following: A) Wetlands designated at 931.5'. B) At least within the City of Orono portion, wetlands located within Orono must be incorporated within the boundaries of each residential lot and designated as a drainage easement within that lot. C) Applicant's surveyor to confirm dry contiguous buildable land within building envelope of each lot. D) Plan should show the municipal boundaries clearly. E) Designate the legally defined B-4 zoning line. Applicant should confirm if Lot 9 is to remain as B-4. F) Locate all areas that received fill in 1977-78 dredging and filling project. i t 'i Zoning File #1526 May 18, 1990 Page 4 of 4 G) Basement elevation for each residence shall be designated on each lot. H) Drainageways that intersect the property from the adjacent roadways should be shown if there is impact upon dry buildable envelopes. I) Realigned lot lines of Lota 6, 7 and 8 so that building site on hill is contained within the boundaries of 1 residential lot. 3. Other Issues raised by Planning Commission members. CITY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address_ _ _Unassigned Q Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) See attached_ _ _ Please check one - Property x abstract or x torrens? Attach legal description to application. ffD CITY OF ORONO FINANCE OFFICE . I35v20Qm # APPLICANT Name Phone (home) Dennis E. Sandin Phone (work) (612) 591-1329 Landstar, Inc. Address: 6100 Golden Valiev 7^d City: Golden Valiev Zip: 55422 OWNER (if different than applicant) Neune L. W. Blanch, Jr. Phone (home) Phone (work) (612) J,'-3310 Address: 3500 West 80th St._ _ _ _ City: Minneapolis Zip: 55431 (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 6 31.26 Present Use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units _ Other (specify) Vacant Land Present Zoning District_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PROPOSAL _ _ _ _ Division for Tax Purposes . if—X Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) . Existing Units _ New Units Total Units X Units per 1.9+Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) 2. 3. MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Fioperty Owners List of owners within 350* (you must obtain this list from Hennapin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 4. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date 1•. • 2. 3. 4. 5. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 'iltle opinion. Easements, Covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date FEES X Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III} Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I s II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residentlal)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 established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Date Date Applicant must have all submittalsviptq ) 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 authorised agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. iL, ^ I Bonestroo ML m Rosene SRB Anderlik & ^1 Associates Engineers & Architects Obo G Boneufoia. •oDen W Boverv. P£ Jorrp^ C Pf RjcnanJ £ Turner PE 0»yx> PE Gcfvi« CooiL PE Thomjs E Noyei PE toOeft G Sc^urc^L PE Mjrvin L PE Keen A Gordon PE Ricrurd W Foner. PE Oonjid C SipgaicX. PE Jerry A Bourdon. PE Mart A Hjfdon. PE ThJ X PiPXJ. PE Mitnier T Rjocrrxjna PE BbOe^ ff PHe^prte. PE O LosMxa. PE. rrtorrvii W Pptenon, PE. Mcnad C Lyrxn. PE James ft Maiarvl FE icenrw P Andenon. Pt. Mark R RoRl FE ADOert C Russet. AiA Thomas £ Angus PE Howard A SanM. PE Dan«< J Edgerton. PE Mvk A Sen PE. FTvH) J Caswd. P£ Mark D VMftl PE. Thorrvis R Andenon. AlA Gary P Byurxjer PE Mies B jertsen. PE L Prsefcp Grawd ■ PE CharSfS A Enckson Leo M Fs^^rtiky Hartan M Oson Suw> M EOertn. CPA May 1^. 1990 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Ret File No. 139-1526 F.W.B.I. Dear Jeanne, reviewed the proposed residential subdivision on the Fresh Water riolorical The area is served by City sanitary sever and !ater* The developer should be required to upgrade Old Beach Road. There are seven proposed lots in the City of Orono and three lots i» the City i M!„n!rLkr^each Lots 8 and 9 on CSAH 19 should have a joint access Lot : “Sg. .poil so car. in locating the house .111 he necessary. Outlot 'A* be a part of the other lots. Flowage and cLse^IIatlorea««ent8 should be indicated up to the 931^5 elevation. Drain age and utility easements should be required along lot lines. Please call if you have any questions Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK i ASSOCIATES, INC. Glean R. Cook GRC:li 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 i- 5 f«»A-• • »> y4J/fr m i<)/ M %f/•»W/ :• 3f W% . ^ oWfV .»•• • 4 A /# # IV ■>i> \ iH N<5'-r<= Isy ■?o q. 4./ .* *. Ai>*- i .#<• • I » '*> ,N 4 o V 0 /s aji •K.i' / *:‘.*v; *-i ^ V, .O - C.’) S' J*s.l *. I r i 1' ,y ^•n ,-i) i •/ >^"> »■». (»*' rf X. 7: •i ♦. ✓ /•' *w« •W —« n4 ' • • 1• K,. y! «aa/ ••••**' <<M»/I / til /«)•MS'Ti-vt —4? (?»;•..... I A7O f 9» J •«/ A • •• • D The followirg property in Section 20 and 21, Township 117, Range 23: Conunencing at a point in the North line of Section 20 distant 1761.42 feet East from the North 1/4 corner thereof; thence South at right angles to a point in the Southerly line of County Road 15; thence East along said road line 49.53 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 841.51 feet * * *• • • a distance of 265.42 feet; thence South 20 degrees 52 minutes 16 seconds West to the center line of County .Road*No..19 which is the point of beginning; tyj^Ro a __ ;nc@?)^S^^3^egre e i jui t es!^£Isecpod^a I ^ __________ 5bsyi9^feet~a«Aeri^:Sb'uth'lia^'^egreTs.^7^^minute|^^^ •* - - dJ!geSgcelS>£f233 .vfe et ?~x thence^oufeheagfeer^^yaSa^nters^ ee t ."^NorthAakterly^ ^pgyiT^^ggfyhgSnag4nn.»4-AA»-.«SQutAeaste£lvMS5Ssgtt^ cT;i€lL3f4^'<iHS^XNor th- . .•• • •• *• •• •• •/ • •.«• •••• .1* • . •• • • • . Jo?- . • • . f « . «. ^ ' '•. • ■ ».• •* ')C- •r" — • *^;l mi ♦.A..* •/“• :1' M •v> • iu Ai ;»r-:l«<f*i?.<,v.-% Etw »;*•';• ^ f>.j • V ^*r^* • / . • ;‘ V- .* .... «-T •C*\" » '*••' ,.*^ i: V rj'”* *♦.4, r t*»« • ■ -% .»• _-^ W*f—* •*. ^-a„ L^' •' . ■ mm^-;f •r •is ,1« u* ‘iS, k-^fi ii-": ' •*■') &:v ■ g$^>- v y^i kj *i£ ■ *■ *. J RESOLUTION NO. 9/“? A RESOLUTION APPROVING CERTAIN DREDGING AND SPOILS DISPOSAL FOR THE WEST SHORE LAFAYETTE BAY ASSOCIATION WHEREAS, the City of Orono Is a municipal corporation organized and existing mder the laws of the State of Hlnaesota; an WHEREAS, the City Council Is concerned about the problems created by xmregulated dredging In and adjacent to T.*^* Minnetonka, which problems affect the Lake and all the property adjacent thereti. and WHEREAS, the City Council Is concerned that permanent structures and artificial obstructions located in wetlands, lakes, dralnageways, and on property adjacexit thereto may adversely affect the natural resources, open space, drainage patterns and wildlife habitat of the City; and WHEREAS, because of the above noted concerns and for the protection of the health, safety and general welfare of fh^ eicizenx of Orono, the City Council has established and adopted regulations providing for strict control of dredging In and adjacent to the lake and strict control of filling or alteration of wetlands, marsht: dralnageways and land adjacent thereto; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City fionn**<i have reviewed at length an application by the West Shore Lafayette Bay Association for certain maintenance dredging of a channel in Lafayette Bay, Lake Minnetonka, and for placeoient of dredgtid materia upon land occupied by the Fresh Water Biological Institute. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact: 1. The channel dredging Is located In Lafayette Bay, Lake Minnetonk as shown on Exhibit A attached. 2. The channel dredging is required to maintain riparian access to nine residential properties within the City of Orono. 3. The channel to be maintained was previously dredged undgr proper state permits. 4- iv4:JOluClOn No. Pa^e 2 :1 I 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The dredglxig will only remove allt from within the exietlng channel and %d.ll not affect the hard lake bottom. ^ * «• t The dredging will be done according to the condition* o£ the MNDNR permit No. 78*6325 attached hereto aa Exhibit B. * a The dredge apolla will be depoalted on property owned by the Fteeh'^ Water Biological Reaearch Foundatloi aa shown on Exhibit C atteched* The Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District has detexmliiaid.^«^'. that the disposal site la dry land and not wetland or marsh lead/;* . .... . . 4 V The spoils disposal will be a settling basin behind earthen as noted on Exhibit D attached and aa regulated by MPG4 state disposal system permit (application attached as Exhibit E). 9.The effluent from the disposal area will be contained within the large FWBI wetlands and the wetlands water quality, will be dally monitored by FWBI staff as a research experlsmnt as noted on Exhibit F attached. .y y * AND, BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED, that based upon the above noted findings of fact, the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby grant to the West Shore LaFayette Bay Association a Conditional Use Permit for dredging and spoils disposal subject to the following conditions: 1. Dike construction shall be subject to a building permit, which permit may be Issued by staff upon receipt of permits by the MCWD and MPCA and upon payment of the building permit fee. 2. Dike Construction shall be subject to the approval of the City engineer prior to the start of any dredging. 3. The culvert under Old Beach Road (between the FWBI marsh and Lake Minnetonka) shall be sealed to the satisfaction of the City engineer prior to the start of any dredging. 4. Dredging may not begin until receipt by the City of permits from the MNDNR and MCWD and until at least 24-hour notice be given Cb the City inspector. p 0 Reaoluclon No* Page 3 I^Vv . -< ■ # *ri \ inr. * Jtu 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. w Upon construction of the dike, e sign shall be erected at*the applicant's cost on the disposal site, visible fren Old Beach Road and at a location acceptable to the CiQr inspector, irfiieh sign shall be as follows: Size: Material: Legend: 10. no less than 3* hi^ bj 5* long on posts at least 6* hi^. wood or metal with white painted surface and rad, black or blue letters. Vest Shore LaFayatte Bay Aasociatlon Fresh Water Biological ^latitate^ RESEARCH PROJECT (Urger Utters) * Effects of Dredging & Nutrient Release Permits granted by: Minnesota Dept, of Natural Reaourecs . Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minndudia Creek Watershed Diatxiet City of Orono Prior to the start of dredging, the FWBI shall saiq>le the watns .of LaFayette Bay and the FWBI marsh for turbidity and for imtrient levels and shall submit a report of same to the City. During the dredging operation, the FWBI shall daily monitor « turbidity of LaFayette Bay water and shall submit weekly rcpcncts of same to the City. Prior to discharge of marsh water to the lake,' the FWBI shall monitor the concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus and dissolved organic carbon In the FWBI marsh, shall weekly submit reports of same to the City, and shall prohibit discharge of marsh water to LaFayette Bay until concentration levels are ecpial to or lower than LaFayette Bay levels. After completion of the dredging and release of the marsh water to LaFayette Bay, the FWBI .hall prepare a comprehensive report Including conclusions gained from the study and shall submit same to the City, the MNDNR and the MPCA. If, at any time during the dredging operation, the nutrient levels In the marsh water or outlet to IsFayette Bay rise to a point determined by the City to be detrimental to Lake Mixmetonka, the City reserves the right to enforce a stop work order prohibiting further dredging activity until the nutrient levels are reduced. • • <4 • •r • • Resolution No. Page 4 nV-'f ^ “I'-r of th« dredging end releeee or11. Upon conpletlon of tne oreog^ «h*ll be recontoored ««w--Vf s. -u». sirlandeeeped, Incluo^ rowv eroeion end to return the e»*ft-ti-M or .hrob to pr^t ^ ^ ^ .ppllomt'p to o noturol ocoto* irtilch Iw P*o® «*.. viij& •■<*. dtp • lotto eit md for Which thoTWUo«.t .hoU Pgft 'rttn too an , of credit for;»3.000.00 to cncuro porforoenc.. • o •• ... . ,c »». ■* 1^^*. 12. tto w«t «>«•Biological Inctltuto .hall ro^» ^ hola* • - rffS?i:^iSS'.^^»‘-« ^ "^fri^iiment In Se space, provided. AGREED: Earl Sween, Ovalnnan West LaFayette Bay Association A faA hv the city Council of the City of Orono on This Resolution adopted by the C ^ 197^ the DlroBMfh. Biological Inetltute w. Van Meet. Mayor ATTEST: r*!** I' "*- * ,V»w»»yr»'< ZZ . V '• — X* -. J--. 75 ji »’V-- j .... - rS -n To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froa:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: May 11, 1990 #1533 Richard A Julie Marklund - 3415 High Lane Sketch plan of a two-lot residential subdivision Zoning District - RR-IB, Two acre, single family, rural residential, unsewered Application - Sketch plan request for direction for a two-lot residential plat to create one additional building site List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Letter of Request Exhibit C - Survey Exhibit D - Plat Map Exhibit E - Topographic overlay from City files Exhibit F - Topographic enlargement with additional information added by staff Exhibit G - Wetland air photo (1970) Exhibit H - 1989 air photo Exhibit I - City Engineers Recommendation Discussion - The applicants request consideration of a lot split to create a new 3.5 acre lot from the southerly half of their property. They propose to access this lot via an easement driveway fronin Christine Drive rather than by creating a driveway outlet. The driV'ivay would cross proposed Lot 1, over which the Marklund's would grant a driveway easement, but leaving Lot 2 with no actual public or private road frontage. (Exhibit C) This proposal raises numerous questions regarding access, future roads, and viability of the building site: 1. Refer to Exhibit F. Recall that the recent Ducharme subdivision proposal adjacent to the eas*, was recommended for approval with a 25' private road outlot along its west boundary common with the Marklund property. This was intended to provide for future connection between High Lane and Christine Drive with the remaining 25' to come from Marklund's property, for a total 50' width. The Ducharme's have never gone forward to the Council with their subdivision proposal. Zoning File #1533 page 2 ‘SirsSu?/ # . T <-htt citv Engineer is now3. Per Exhibit I, the d recommending that Chr ^ ^nd Ducharme ?rpfa looppakve PV OacHa..e aSnarlclund for this to work. 4. Does the Planning “™^fi°si,on'^withLt an access to approve the plining Commission have any outlot? Further, %uch a Subdivision i"s5i1n":t ‘in," a\° a’lle%°:%o\“/idor to the east via an outlot? . 5. in staffs °Pf"j;®J^ e\tSeSSly^lim^ted°Ss to° house proposed lot line ® _f suitable slopes for the locations, since °i\|SSate site leaves very probable mound sy®^^®® ®"ongtruct a house. My sense is little area be in the area of 6-7% that the pf ^There also may be some concernslopes (See Exhibit F). Tner property about a drainage '^.^y Finally» an alternate ®^^® affecting ®®P'^i^®f®b‘ut s?opes averaging 18% south of Lot 1 must be do'^bt® as to whether this is the house raise some possible. or flag lot? Skere"?"°Doe^th:^oad'hav^ 3. substandard area of Lot 1 based on Enginee proposal? Tot 1? Viable 4. Alternate drainfield site for Lot building site for Lot 2? Ple.se .1.0 review she coe.ents of h- Ciry Engineer, Exhibit !• 1 CITY OP ORONO - SOBDIVISION APP PROPERTY LOCATION mfiBE ams M J \v , I I fV\»\ r—<^'aer/ 150*00Site Address 5S\S L-curv^^^ Lcr^ LaKfc. \m M SS3S(q-------- ‘^Wccwkm^rn ’^Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Q^-lp -XS—OQ17 COOl ROl TWO!- 04/2tm Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application j^PIiICANT Phone (home) M*7 S ***3 ~i(e ^— Name R.vKdn^ (vv^^ Marklut^A Phone (work) Address; ~^<4|g> Lafrxf._________ City; Lnkgx Zip;_5S^Si& OWNER (if different than applicant) Name 5^gL>rv\ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address: (attach list if more than one) _ City;Zip: EXISTING LAND DSE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 5.M<\ Acres Dry Land I .C Acres Wet Land Present Use (check) I ,C fvpydJ^ Acres Wet Land (*.> Acres Total, all parcels X 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: _ O X I 1 Existing Units ^ New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) J_ _ _ Units per Acres A- AjYrtoi Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land X Residential Other (specify) . I r 1. 2. 3. 4. millHUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION nlS»a™on on Certificate of Su^ey. nllZ^fi^APronBrtv Owners List of owners within 350' (you roust obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center A^In^lVdendum 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. Date Zoning Official's Signature,_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ii-rT—__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ I?"‘JI^Iiinrof'fi«'(part ‘f;er’fiung fee, ' 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal pla . 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_ _ _ _ _.— _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & HI) _ _ _ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement 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; ________________________ requested by the Administrate , ^ application and ?i?t“e\"’aq«Ts « pay al l^Tdlt^c^n'feef established by ordinance. P . n 3 Y\ I S y/tc /i $150.00 250.00 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* Applicant's Signature Date ^c> DateOwner's Signature Applicant must have all submittals ^ =t^^n°Mlttlngl^«’'hetl”” Ihl Planning Commission Meeting. must be present at all scheduled bSJi^r.ri?;gVor?be"»bnV/« “Sobibe°d “aVe'nt a\te?d*?n your*pla"c"e a^d to advise the Building a Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. )ticfiarcC G-. flarWuncl S415 Hl^h Lane Long LaHe, ntnnesota 55356 4/26/90 City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 N O O To The Attention Of; Orono Planning Commission Dear Planning Commission Members We are submitting a Sketch Plan Application for your general The address is 3415 High Lane, Long Lake 55356. A Sketch Plan prepared by Mr. Mark S. Gronberg is attached for your review. Our proposed plan is as follows, and the explanations are keyed to the alphabetically or numerically marked items as follow: 1. We would divide our existing acreage into two parcels marked as 1 and 2. Parcel 1 would be two plus acres and remain our primary residence. Parcel 2 of acres would be offered for sale as one parcel / single residence site. 2 We would request that access to parcel 2 be via -OUTLOT A- (marked as "A") which is We Division and currently is connected to ^ would arrange for an appropriate easement from the edge of "OUTLOT A" through ^PP'*®’'B" )’"^We^wou ld"al so^ Mr m Kreb 3445 Hiah Lane ( marked as B ) . we wouia <aibu grant an easement for a private driveway our P'"OP®*‘^y (parcel 1) marked as "C" to provide ^ ^ building site in the general area marked as D . 1 "P" Indicates the property directly to the west which is a residence constructed by Mr. Tom Betz in the Betz Division, and currently for sale. 4 Mr. Steve Schirmers of SP testing has reviewed parcel 2 and believes that soil conditions will be approximately in line with those found in the Betz Division directly adjacent to parcel 2. (t • ^ / /» Tit-iTi-•*^—-^ i« 5. Parcel 2 is mostly fully wooded. We appreciate your consideration of our Sketch Plan and look forward to your comments and recommendations. c;. Richard and Julie Marklund iI % I C Skficfi tor Kicnordti. nurki.inii In iocs } jiNi 50. Aihi. Mill. na. ^5 iieniteiiiii (mwity. hhuiosuij «-ual ilcscription: £m\ 148 feet of the west 1*06 3. Auuiturs. Sutxiivision 203. Inc LOl ____or of record in tne office of rhiiuieoiri County. ^SO rent ut tne Sonin 525.5S led ui accord I ryj lo me uiat inereoi on CCAjnty Recorder in and tor ;;aiu rile -V..' lot 30. Auditor's Subdivision No. 205. iiennciMn County. Hinncsoln. ALSO liidt part of lot 5/. Auditor's Suuuivision no. 205. lyino riortneny oi srhme Htrmesuta Mcsiern KjilHoy.line urnMO uurallcl Mitn jnu distant 45 (cci liortrurasicrly 01 riwiii uiyjies lion tne center line of tiic aoin tracic ol I iicreDy certify tnat this sketch nos nrepored by ec or iNKier ey direct supervision, onu that I au a duly rcoistereu Civil engineer and land Surveyor under ' tne laks of tne State or Hinnesota. CdTFlN t CRONOeRC. INC. E. Hark S. Gronoerg HN. lie. iiu. \27vj Engineers, land Surveyors. Planners long lake. Hinnesota ^aiet 1 m^n ><6^reet Sate : April 28. 19« In'*kr .**• * 2 f o* ae.ftn £m-r M 6 •• ■1 .» f o h'*’'h:!sl>v o 'Si'*: II;;-' & ■■■.• <«<»/» f iK; 0«J^ .t 1- I. • : &■ '■ •pS ■ ••m :. ...ooCti 1 (■ .^/f, finff!!/ .W-l q • /Tk;7 V '^l- l»f, " rA lith’.- 2^iof / V.'a J >■% !^r f.. 0 P3?‘3f||si « k. .,».»• ./ i u ] , • ^.. ;v^\ 4 ^ *VV- • % . ' k. • V V./ VjV ^ REdlSTERED^lJAND ' y' 1. ■■ ^ ■ . .. . j/- . • f f iV^‘' jg, Kr Ml \ ' I'? irnfra-.' M' ^ ^ • ' ikii.82io ‘¥%f *• livIfT ^ 1 • ! f iK '• ' ; '41 *' ^ •'i *k.^^■■, 'jf ■ 1 *i'- .\•<^’■ \ > '.’vT-. 1^49 . - v*^^* Jf*' • riT-'* II MILL V r' V -rROADp j V I 'Z^*i' r* 1^' .' 4 -• , «• .*• ;r rf.. •. ii' ,jJ--*'’ , .' -••j*-# y^Pt'Kks J: te^lV>T y/A*;.-/*- --------------------- t-v-m f pp?s .ur:’ti r i .r rkk4um t'A?>W i. .- m i: V .•'i?y\, r%‘^i ■•v%i I1K» Bk w',' *". .- jBI • . *• :jt >•V T^i ] 1-:^’f^.’B iSi*-‘-:;-''> “«-4 ,.,,3--V'-'y.. ■' *mQ ■1^, ^u;.V-4' > i - f?:.Vi; • ’ * Gv; r r>.,. • - 4^ Vi Vir^'- -£r.\s -is-?;, I ^ ' ■ ^ :W ‘ jKkt ‘*;V rTOWfft^te \V. -?^X r*t; . - '‘•l '? ■S%v- ,**■ w - < r • — :-¥■ V'^.- 5^ r.U‘■tm r. ’. •‘ »-.' w «._^* r* - ■■ ' • i-u’ /’ ^ '. y'V'%?«•■■••? ...; ^i«?.-vas£ /-V %.-,- li. •*-• ^ .A..'V . f ,<|l|* . -rw' k<i' ■•* •'» "•.14 i .W'i' I' f tk .V*';;^‘- v'-r. v>>I I J -»♦- ^ J***•> c;.^* ■' c ■ '«<' ■ -i r f f ; • « t t- «• • .»j Uv'i I■fVV.. . if V.V :•• ;*.u ■; *•• >v /.v-.u V* 0«l 25i m Bones troo Rosene Anderlfk & Associates Otto G Booctffoa PE RotxfX W ftoiene. PE. Jovepn C. AndefiA. PE Ricn^ E Turner. PE. Mmei C Oion, PE Gieno ft Cook. PE Thomas E No>n PE ROOCft G Schuncht. PE Marvin L SorvaU. PE Kerth A OofOon. PE R<na«i Jt/ Toner. PE OorukJ C. BurgaidL P£. Jerry A Bourdon. PE. Mark A Han«)n PE Teo K P«kl PE Michjct T Ratxmarvi. PE Roben R PWTtfie. PE OavxJ Q Loskoca. PC Thomas W Pwerson. PE MkTimi C Lynch. PE. James R Maiand PE iCenneth T Anoersorx PE. Mark R RbRv PE RoOeri C. Russek. AJA Thomas E /viguv PE. Howard A Santord. PE Damd J Edgerton. PC Mark A. SiMi PE Phkip J Ciswef. PE. Mark O WMd PE. Thomas R Anderson. AIA Gary F Rytarxler. PE Mies B Jensea PE L Ph*p Gravef ti. PE Crsanes A. ErKkson Leo M. Paw«<sky Harlan M Ohon Susan M EOerkn. C PA Engineers & Architects May 14, 1990 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Re: File No. 139-1528 Marklund Dear Jeanne, Ve have reviewed the proposed Marklund Subdivision. We would recoounend that a roadway Outlot be taken across the property for the future extension of Christine Drive. This will require cooperation between the Marklunds and the property to the east. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Yours very truly, B0NE3TR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:li 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 iv: ‘• .aioJ \%\xas — s 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MBBTING MONDAY, MAY 21, 1990 7:00 P.M. 1275 BROMN ROAD SOOTB - COONCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - J. Diann Goetten ATTENDANCE PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 p.m. #1521 Almond Kreb, 115 Old Crystal Bay Road No - Prexlmlnary Subdivision 2. 7:15 p.m. #1528 Constance M. Scott, 2300 Longview Circle - Preliminary Subdivision 3. 7:30 p.m. #1531 Carol Ke.lly, 3020 Casco Point Road - Preliminary Subdivision 4. 8:30 p.m. #1532 Fullerton Properties, Inc., 2225 Sixth Avenue North - Preliminary Subdivision 5. 9>00 p... 3765 Watertown Poad - *ch”uled”puS!ic®h«rln|l/'’'°* commence between 6. #1502 7. #1516 8. #1510 9. #1513 10. #1522 11. #1523 12. #1524 13. #1525 14. #1527 Michael Hilbelink, 2180 Prospect Avenue - Variance - Referred Back to Planning Commission by Council ^ Whitney McMillan, 156Q Pox Street - Subdivision — Continuation of Public Hearing Richard W. Brown, 2685 Shadywood Road - Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing Walter Krahl, 4775 North Shore Drive - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing James & JoAnn Nordlie, 2505 Dunwoody Avenue “• Variances - Public Hearing Rolla Martin, 2675 Shadywood Road - Variance - Public Hearing Trinity Pre-school, 2060 Sixth Avenue North - conditional Use Permit — Public Hearing William & Joan Wroblewski, 630 Park Lane - Variance - Public Hearing Lyndon S. Bill Stubbs, 2555 Pox Street — Variance - Public Hearing PLANNING COMMISSION MBBTING MONDAY, MAY 21, 1990 7:00 P.M. ACTION ITEMS CONTIN1 15. #1529 John B. Thiesse, 3845 Bayside Road - Variances - Public Hearing 16. #1534 Holland Amundson, 3135 Casco Circle - Variance - Public Hearing 17. #1334 Rebers Construction, Sugar Woods Plat Reconsideration of Allowed Hardcover within Front/Street Setback Area SKETCH PLAN RBVIEff 18. #1526 Landstar Inc., 3150 Shadywood Road - Sketch Plan of a 10-Lot Subdivision 19. #1533 Richard & Julie Marklund, 3415 High Lane Sketch Plan of a 2-Lot Subdivision ADDITIONAL ITEMS LVo^MietiSg"^^®®^®” Approval of Minutes of April 16 r 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: Subject: May 15, 1990 #1521 A1 Kreb, 115 Old Crystal Bay Rd. No. Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Application: Subdivision of 3-Lot Plat, Class 3, Division - Original proposal reviewed under Application #1289 - Robert and Ann Will. Access issues remain the key issue for this review. Total area ® 8.04 acres. Lot 1, Block i Lot 1, Block 2 Lot 2, Block 2 2.53 acres dry buildable 2.50 acres dry buildable 2.51 acres dry buildable List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List - Plat Map - City Attorney's Opinion - Ordinance 77, Second Series - Rolling Meadows Second Edition - Site Plan - Private Driveway Outlot/Septic Mapping, Lot 1, Block 2 Exhibit H - Map Proposed North/South, East/West Roads Exhibit I - Council Minutes 12/11/89 Exhibit J - Preliminary Plans Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit C D E F G Review of Current Application - The former applicant was unable to negotiate a sale of the property. The property has a new owner. Mr. Kreb is the formal representative of that new owner. As in the original plan, all three lots will achieve permanent access from the extension of Wear Lane North. Staff recommends that a 25' driveway outlot be provided along either the north or the south boundary. At the Council meeting of December 11th, both Council and original applicant reaffirmed that the driveway outlot along the north border of Lot 1, Block >. would provide the least impact on existing plantings. Staff has also been advised by the new owner that the applicant, Mr. Kreb, will reside in the existing residence until that lot is sold for new residential construction. ' ? • \ Zoning File #1521 May 15, 1990 Page 2 of 4 The owner has asked that the existing access to the current residence serve as temporary access during that period of time. A permanent access is to be provided by the 25' outlet along the northern border. The City will ask for additional septic testing to confirm suitable area to the south of existing septic test sites within Lot 1, Block 2. (Review Exhibit G - note encroachment of road upon septic test area.) Please review Exhibits H and J. Cook's report asks that the City consider taking a 25' driveway outlet along the southern border of Lot 1, Block 1 providing access to the Avery Stubbs property at the west boundary. This request has been made in order to minimize the impact upon the wetlands located at the midpoint of the Stubbs property. This issue was not addressed by the Planning Commission at the earlier review. Please review Exhibits D and E. Based on the City Attorney's opinion, the City has adopted Ordinance 77 providing further clarification regarding the City's right to allow adjacent land owners to achieve access via private roads where the City has underlying easments. At the Planning Commission's November meeting, we granted approval of the 3-lot preliminary plat, specifically, recommending that Wear Lane North and the extension of Wear Lane North be defined as a public road to be maintained by the City of Orono upon satisfactory completion of that roadway. In light of recent directives received from both the Planning Commission and Council at a joint meeting earlier this year concerning private vs. public roads, members agreed to delay on a policy change due to the potential financial burden placed upon the City if the City was suddenly required to accept all current private roadways for public maintenance. The City Attorney opines that the City could require existing private roads with underlying public easements to be used by adjacent property owners for access and that these roadways could remain private and maintained under private covenants. issues To Be Resolved For this Review 1. Access to Lot 2, Block 2 - Permanent access shall be proposed via a 25' outlet along the north corridor of Lot 1, Block 2. Applicant asked that a temporary access be allowed via the exxe^inq driveway serving the current residence. At the time lot la sold for residential development the new access would Le via the private driveway outlet. Is the temporary use of the i .> 1 Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom; Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: May 15, 1990 Subject: #1521 Al Kreb, 115 Old Crystal Bay Rd. No. - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Application: Subdivision of 3-Lot Plat, Class 3, Division Original proposal reviewed under Application #1289 - Robert and Ann Will. Access issues remain the key issue for thxs review. Total area 8.04 acres. Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 1, Block 2 Lot 2, Block 2 2.53 acres dry buildable 2.50 acres dry buildable 2.51 acres dry buildable List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - City Attorney's Opinion Exhibit E - Ordinance 77, Second Series Exhibit F - Rolling Meadows Second Edition Exhibit G - Site Plan - Private Driveway Outlot/Septic Mapping, Lot 1, Block 2 ^ ^ Exhibit H - Map Proposed North/South, East/West Roads Exhibit I - Council Minutes 12/11/89 Exhibit J - Preliminary Plans Review of Current Application - The former applicant was unable to negotiate a sale of the property. The property has a new owner. Mr. Kreb is the formal representative of that new owner. As in the original plan, all three lots will achieve permanent access from the extension of Wear Lane North. Staff recommends that a 25 driveway outlot be provided along either the north of south boundary. At the Council meeting of December 11th, both Council and original applicant reaffirmed that the driveway outlot along the north border of Lot 1, would provide the least impact on existing plantings. Starr has also been advised by the new owner that the Mr. Kreb, will reside in the existing residence until that lot is sold for new residential construction. Zoning File #1521 May 15, 1990 Page 3 of 4 existing driveway a concern? Prior to scheduling the application before the Council for preliminary action, applicant must provide the additional septic testing required for Lot 1, Block 1. In preliminary discussions with on-site evaluator late last year, Mr. Shirmers confirmed that he saw no problem with expanding the existing septic area to the south. 2. Driveway outlet along Lot 1, Block 1 to serve Avery Stubbs property to west. This was an issue raised very late in the earlier review. It would appear there will be no impact on existing septic test sites for Lot 1, Block 1. Applicant to ^ast developing 16-lot plat was not asked to provide a driveway outlet to the Stubbs property. Is it reasonable to seek the access corridor from this property? Should an access corridor be provided through the property to the north? B. Options: A. Acquire with this subdivision Acquire at time of future subdivision of property to immediate north Avery Stubbs property be served by an interior road accessing from Watertown Road C. 3. Public road/public maintenance versus private road/private maintenance. Has the Planning Commission changed from its original position regarding the designation of Wear Lane North and its extension? Options: A. Private road/privately maintained B. Publicly ovmed/publicly maintained Op'tions of Action for 3—Lot Subdivision 1.Denial - If current proposal is to be denied, please cite the necessary findings for denial. Refer to Chapter 11. 2.Approval - If approved the following findings may be considered: A. All standards of the RR-IB zoning district, subdivision regulations and on-site septic code have been satisfied. B. Access plan for the property satisfies the intent of the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Zoning File #1521 May 15, 1990 Page 4 of 4 Approval based on the following conditions: A. Dedication of 33' of right-or~way for Old Road. Crystal Bay B. Payment of a Park Fee of $400.00 ($200.00 for each newly created lot). Application was received prior to May 1st deadline, effective date of new Park Dedication fee schedule. C. Prior to scheduling application before the Council, applicants on-site septic evaluator to provide additional septic testing for Lot 1, Block 1. In addition, septic test sites on Lot 1, Block 1 to be fenced off and protected at time private driveway is to be installed along northern boundary. D. Applicant shall be responsible for the extension of the road known as Wear Lane North to applicants northern border providing a temporary^ cul-de-sac as shown on revised preliminary plan. Applicant shall also be responsible for the removal of existing cul-de-sac within Wear Lane North. E. Applicant shall execute a developer's agreement and post a letter of credit ot 150% of the value of the improvements. F. Provide direction and recommendation concerning use of existing access serving Lot 2, Block 2 while current residence is in use. G. Depending upon resolve of issue of public vs. private road, if roadway is to remain private, applicant shall execute deed granting underlying road and utility easements over Outlot A and execute private road and maintenance covenants to assure that the future extension of the roadway is maintained by the benefiting properties. H. Planning Commissions's final determination regarding access to the property to the immediate west. Is it to be via this property? If so, a driveway outlot must be designated along the southern boundary of Lot 1, Block 1. Isv y^\ ' n ^ C j i! ■ CITY OF ORONO - SOBDIVISION | S ' - "• r--"---:--;;;;:----------1350200000 01 SH 360.00 1350200000PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address IViO-t 0 ^cL ^^V^9Vrt( property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 33- \ \-?-3.--M Please check cne - Property abstract or - - torrens? Attach legal description to application. 01 CE? 4.5? TOT/li . 1064 h APPLICANT Neune W. Phone (home) *4T?>-^*1 7^L>____ Phone (work) 799.^'yitr McOk/* vv 03/22.-' Address:3^5~ Ovtsv^o OcCvit^A ■ City: O'TCtopCZip; Phone (home) Su«.>-v-~ac<_ONNER (if different than applicant) Name L.owkWwAlz.z.< _______ Phone (work)--------------- Address: \<^^3C Co>v-'vk:oCity:SW^;tfA- - -Zip: 5'S ‘b~*>\__ (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels \ Development Size __ n.h Present Use (check) 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) \y^ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: ■ . Proposed Use: (check) \ 1 Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per ^W-Acres oOO Sq Feet Dry Bulldable Land Residential j. Other (specify)_ n MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY 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). As an addendum to this application^ please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 2. 3. 4. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1. 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. 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 Review (Class I, II S III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 250.00 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 additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature 4’/Date J^ Date Applicant must have all submittals into City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday cf 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. r.'V J * B I.♦M& si lAJ iHssoi.N> Kl _ K) & K N Ul UJ I H H» CO CO K SIS S3ni^ W O <0 <0 _ ^ ^rg o ca O < < M Z«o N> o oM o K or lo ^ a &M M K O Oo SIS Q. Q. « (/) UJa* M X CO ife o: K S lA f-( X UJ UJ M ^r _ Ui Ui M X SSSo^ CO tj lU Uj \ PKi o X X u S* ^ CO 10 M Ul U CO •O M eg K flC inm 0 rH O O ^ CK to M U ?5 S3rg 1 to Hi in tol^ CO to o a Q. M M ii sso. a (0 (0 ui ui (0 (0 M M« cr a a cc B UJ UJ UI UJ B B < Ui rg ^ X I n “> M < to ’/) «ito in (9 ca CO to N. M M in pzCM B B O o (j u eg 1 »H O Oo egoo Xu < o t- $ too UI K<on M o 0 X1 a eg A A A Z 1 h- A A ^ X A < > > A A B A rg X A A A V “°gsA L» )» A -i A O A A A ^ ««• A A A Q«^ggsi A O O O A ^ U z M B A Z Z Ui Uihi o ^ o o aO < rg t-> -4 «i < rg CO I- to to u X X >- eg t* t- < t O Ml M X 2^S55 ^rg I to to s o o CO ^ ^ ^ <»88“g M B B «H > O O < O CO CO rg X o B V < eg A o O -Io < A to > B to U eg t o rg o UI t- M 5S M Ml ii in to in in -J M I to to inrg rg to o to o UI UIu o ►g Ml ii SSiS B A < ^5 B U UJ O < si B O o Z S S JM \ Ao 0 to rg B 1 < S3 rg I to to A Ao Oo B B A UJ > > Ui UI rg rg A A S (9 Ui •• ^ X Q. U rgr r Arg Z A A t- A S| C" Si * O'oo 0 ^ B A rg U A eg B 1 < S3rg I A A A Srg O 0. CL rg rg X X A A B B B B < < Q. 0. A A A A A A rg M B B a CL B B A A ^ Z A A B B < < SS33 g> A B A < A g A Ml >y A Ml X -J o!NO. u n. -i B A O to •> oo & 0 «0 ^ BA Ml M U M Aeg B z 1 < A S33 IH A I B A O « X A eg A O B M Ml Z B A A S3 A A B O -0 z iUi I- Msa g» rg A <o M >0rg O A <a A rg 6 B O O< g B B B A B O IP S d A O O O ^ «J 0 5 -I ►- M A A X ^ > B A A U eg B 1 o A -I «• *H O rg ^ I u A rg A O X 2 X A O A O X M X K rg A A < O A X B - 2g «e Q Z > B Ai vg A > rg B A < rg _ X A U Ms)k)v‘>' I B memorandum TO: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator City of Orono FROM: RE: Thomas J. Barrett, City Attorney City of Orono ~ propertyRegulation of the use oe DATE:July 21, 1989 ISSU.i May the City of "”|J^roirwUhourmaki°g“the toadpuhlio passage on a private roao public? conclusion cimpel such eo=e« SSf Si^esota Supreme Court in Borchertwas interpreted by the Minnesota P^ 3,^ V. Village Qf North Qaics^, li^62). ri7t;rn5b3ION AND ANALYSIS ^ nrivate owners to allow May the city of Jad without making the road public passage on a private public? A.mhe City of_°r°n°J M^\L-r^nra:s-^ie^^ rxqnua ww - ander the terms of «n“haranJSSrt“op^^%hi1tiJa?r° may be able to live on the private toad or to al j^pje^hf «S?rSr?nsonably expected to use the roads. ^ K« »-h,i Citv C , who couia DB - -- n-nno XM.. exercising of the •“•-H^It’rLS^g^Senf ^laf JSe12?ni?Uf^r^S^pS-ation Plan of the City. D ' i The CMP provides that the purpose of the easements is to "ensure legal*access of the public tc the properties served by the Drivate road." CMP 7-12. The Transportation Plan provides that. [t]he arrangement of streets shall provide for the continuation of streets between adjacent properties when such continuation is necessary for convenient movement of traffic, effective fire protection, for efficient provision of utilities and where such continuation is in accordance with the City Compre hensive Municipal Plan. City of Orono Municipal Code, S 11.32, subd. (H)(1). Pursuant to the CMP and the Municipal Code, the easements may be utilized by the City to ensure legal access of properties served by the private road. In making its decision to exercise its easement rights, the City may decide that the opening of private roads for use by homeowners in new subdivisions is necessary for the convenient movement of traffic. B.The City of Orono may compel private owners to allow public passage on a private road by "eX’.Tcising its oeneral* welfare powers. The Minnesota State Legislature has provided specific powers for city councils. Among its enumerated powers. The Council shall have power to provide for the government and good order of the city, the suDoression of vice and immorality, the prevention of*crime, the protection of public and private property, the benefit of residents, trade and commerce, and the promotion of health, safety and order,- convenience, and the general welfare by such ordinances noc inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of this state as it shall deem expedient. M.S.A. S 412.221, Subd. 32 (emphasis added). The welfare powers which are outlined in M.S.A. S 412.221 are to be interpreted broadly so as to sustain municipal activities reasonably related to the needs of the city. Sverkerson v. City of Minneapolis, 204 Minn. 388, 283 N.W. 555, 556 (1939). The Supreme Court of Minnesota has held that the general powers contained in M.S.A. S 412.221 are broad enough to allow a village to regulate traffic and to expend funds to enforce such regulations upon privately-owned roads. Borchert v. Village of -2- I Vs NHnn 22 117 N.W.2C 396 (1962). The courtNorth Oaks, 264 Minn. reasoned. This court has heretofore held corporation has the power under [M.S.A. ^ p!lS?ic pJopLty!... [wjhatever the extent of police ?o5er o?er ordinary private roads which not f?e^y used by the public, that power must be neld to Lch private roads «here_they^==™p-^ the ooUce'pouecrcovers a wide range of subjects, and ^while it is especially occupied with whatever affects the oeace, security, health, morals and aeneral welfare of the community, it is not limited ► wearofeo but cxteods to dealing with conditions eiis? s”« to bring out of then the greatest :oi've“ence o1 genrral Irisperity and to everything ^nSaMtanJ of Jhe cLocration.... That which may at inhabitants of cn . „itnin such power, may, «®ani?heft"l? by reason of changed conditions, be “cognised « rie^itimate subject for the exercise of the power.' Id. at 400.(citing 62 C.J.S. :iunicipal Corporations, S 128). The road system in the “fSrono! 'Ltr^wis analogous to ^te toad system^^ contained in the cities are are unique in that many in the respect'that theprivate. The Pities only differ in ^h^ bo„Po„„ers in North Oaks underlying easement . nroro The City of Orono maybut reverts back to the City in Orono.^^xne^c^ Ordinances so rely on the reasoning in ^ homeowners and their that all private roads roads to get to their and b^e^t.n^e^^s Itls^ISplwJrertfSI un^dL H.N.A. S Ul.lll, subd. 32. that a^cur«Sncil The Attorney ‘!“‘'®?th due ?2gard for the public f“««r?o b2 s«ved by'the city providing the service directly.," il- 3- D-1 • • •0-/ The City of Orono hasalready changed the definition of a private road contained in its municipal code. Section 6.01 of the Orono Municipal Code originally read, Subd. 2. "Private Road" means any street or roadway which has not been dedicated to public use or which is not maintained by public funds, but which is open to travel pursuant to an easement between persons or between persons and the City. Private roads are private property except as regulated in this Chapter. City of Orono Municipal Code, S 6.01, subd. 2. On July 25, 1988, the Orono City Council amended the definition of the term "private road". The new definition is similar to the old definition in all respec*;?. except that the underlined language in the above quoted pesjawe has been deleted. The Orono City Council could again amend S 6.01, subd. 2 to include an addendum sentence which reads, "All private roads must be open to all people who own homes on that road and their invitees*and to all people and their invitees who could reasonably be expected to use that road to get to their orivate residences." ZSRP718 i Ji’ OSDINANCS NO.77, 2nd Series ,« «T,nTWTMrv AMZOTING the municipal CODE OP ORONO by co«PBLLn.G poblic papsasz the city council op the city op ORONO ORDAINS: section 1. Section 6.01, subdivision 2 of the Municipal code of Orono is hereby amended by «:dding t.he addendum sentence described below; All private roads must be opened to all to their private residences and the-- -n - section 2. This ordinance shall be published in The Laker eKaiT he s^'ective upon publication, and The Pioneer and shall oe ^ Adopted by the city Council of the ‘Auwb/w ^ j. • ^ u-1,^ nn 8th dav OE oanuaty, i.-vu.regular meeting held on c.iS ocn uaj Attest 2TJB80 Mayor ~>7n. ailin,' City Clerk t' it H I? 2*’' If? iv I 2}l Ml8lf ijs•« •2IS pillhi 2 1,f ! w ^ c j 55 ? I I 5s I • I 5-I i !3SJJ:I •5 1f 11 I ** ll >» »* ■ w OV- = S =, 9 i fl sD t j j jD Q IH !i ® iu 8? I S O• s I s Q % • I IM Q 8, fx 8 z chutes of the oeoho codecil heetieg of oeceeeer u, 198, E.y,=0. Motion passea. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS park dedication policy ^-hsrdson indicated that thereCity Administrator B®rnhardson inai^ Berhardson said that no representative dedication policy for initial he was P'’«8®"''^"|jrt''®CoLils\ion Representative =°"'® ?hr«nu«n: 1«0 He\tin, for discussion of thus policy. CounciImes'bei' ijn'^fees,^ but*thought'^the proposed looking at the Park = "“'n was glad that the Park fels wire a drastic aban^i3\°o Vb* «a"<^ared if Coms,ission was P^^^^^^’ould review this. the Planning Co«sission CoM.lssion Mayor Grabek “1;t “ission for their review and tl^eTtVbrfoIl the%aiu*a"ry S^. 1,90 Council Meeting. ‘^“•™flan ““nTcoSni “Tr^^^ later. rtHrS-no^^ty cV^irc"oS«^*.^ “coi;t; Rrad^!SJ- tor e'’^ii‘I°f”s?a\'LeVn\*“reVard^'^^^^ ^ «?y “of*?oI^ "Ik^and the oTalTlted that .e of^Orono.d receive end tUe*r^e°fofe “h^.*ca*ro? dSicuss the oatter further. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: tif S ROAD EOEIE wa« present for this review.Mr. ana Mrs. *r . City Administrator Bernhardsoi cave a brief explana this application for su v s , < nt zoning Administrator Mabusth advised that the appllcan » t < » MINUTES OP THE ORONO CODNOIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE #12a9-WILL CONTINUED plans to provide an access corridor along the north side of Lot 1 to serve Lot 2 as originally indicated. At the Planning Conunission Meeting, the applicant revised his proposal to locate the access corridor along the south side. Mabusth said that additional septic testing will be necessary if the access corridor is to be located along the northern boundary. Mabusth said that the location of the cul-de-sac should be left to staff's determination so that elevations, plantings and the location of the septic site on the far eastern lot can be taken into consideration. She said that the road cannot encroach within 20' of the septic test site. Mabusth asked Mr. Will to indicate his preference of the location of the driveway outlot. Mr. Will said that the real preference is to locate it on the north side of the property. He said that if the cul-de-sac is moved further north, the outlot should he along the northern border. Mr. Will said that there are less trees in that area as opposed to the south side. Mayor Grabek asked how access to the north would be achieved if the cul-de-sac is located in a more southerly location? Mabusth asked City Engineer Cook to respond to that question. Cook said that a driveway could be constructed between the cul-de-sac and the northern outlot? He said that the cost to the property owner will increase the further the City extends the road. Cook said if the City does extend the road along the street right-of-way it should be constructed to City standards. Mabusth said that as part of this application, the Council is being asked to approve Wear Lane North as a public roadway. She said that the Planning Commission has recommended public maintenance of the road if it is to be dedicated to the public. Planning Commission Representative Brown commented that the Planning Commission recommended public maintenance because it was their feeling that the road would not otherwise be maintained. Mayor Grabek asked what made this different from other private roads. Mabusth replied that the cost factor set for each unit by the current owner of the subdivision on which Wear Lane North is presently located is $20,000.00 and that is prohibitive to Mr. Will. CounciImember Goetten expressed her concern for the need ‘to address the issue of private vs. public roads. She questioned whether a precedent would be set by making this a public road to be maintained publicly. RTNOTES OP TH7. ORONO COONCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE #1289-WILL CONTINUED Bernhardson said that the City does have the ability to dedicate the road for public use and require it to be privately maintained. He said that there are multiple property owners along this road, as opposed to one developer owning all of the property as in other subdivisions, which makes this unique. Councilmember Goetten asked whether the City should be addressing the issue of private/public roads as a whole, rather than addressing them individually. Bernhardson said that access, maintenance and development of the road are the issues. The developer will be responsible for the development of the road either way. The question in regard to maintenance is whether or ”ot the property owners of the three lots, short of the dedication of a public road, have the right to go over that portion of the privately maintained Wear Lane North. City Attorney Barrett advised that the Council need only draft an Ordinance amendment stating that in such circumstances access m.ust be allowed to any adjacent property via underlying public access easements taken over private road outlots. Mr. Bill Wear asked where the cul-de-sac would be located. Mabusth depicted the approximate location on the overhead sketch. Mr. Wear asked if the City was aware of the trees located in that area that would need to removed? Mabusth replied that the trees will be considered when determining the actual location of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Wear had no other comments. Mabusth asked for clarification from the City Attorney as to how much of the road will be dedicated as a public road? Barrett replied that at a minimum the northern portion will be dedicated because the easement that is available to the developer to the north is the one that the City owns. Mabusth asked if the portion of Wear Lane North now existing will remain a private road. Barrett suggested .that the Council pass an ordinance that says in these circumstances these private roads must be opened to homeowners and their Invitees who need to cross over the private road in order to get to their residences. Mr. Bob Lorenzen, 2050 Wear Circle, said that he currently has a l/6th interest over Outlet A, which includes both Wear Circle and Wear Lane North. He asked how this public/private issue will affect the maintenance costs he now p^ys* MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE il289-WILL CONTINUED (CounciImember Nettles arrived at tnis zxmei Mabusth replied that the 6 properties in the development will still be responsible for maintaining Wear Circle and Wear Lane North. Mabusth atked who would be responsible for maintaining the poj.'tfQn of the rocdwav constructed by Mr. Will that exists on Mr. Wear's property as a result of extendino the cul-de-sac. Barrett said that his understanding is that Planning Commission’s proposal was that, because of problems of enforcing maintenance, that Mr. Will would be responsible for maintaining that portion. Planning Commission Representative Brown said that was not his understanding. He said that the Planning Commission had pr0f0rred to have the entire road publicly maintained. Mr. Wear asked about compensation from Mr. Will for constructing the road. Barrett said that the issue might be whether or not Mr. has the right to compensation of that portion of the road by the homeowners and their invitees that would use it. Barrett said that in his opinion, he would not be entitled to such compensation because the would City regulate it. Mr. Wear asked whether or not the Council had approved the covenant filed with his property? access of the road. Mr. Wear asked whether the Wills had actually purchased this property they are applying to subdivide? Mr. Will said that he has not had the closing to purchase the land as of this date. Mayor Grabek asked whether the City has spent all time on this application and they have not been dealing with the property owner? Mabusth said that Mrs. White, the owner of the property, joined in the application with the Wills. Mr. Lorenzen asked whether the existing covenants were sufficient in handling what is being proposed. Mabusth said that what now exists is sufficient. ^ % minutes op the OROMO council meeting op DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE #1289-WILL CONTINUED CounciImember Callahan said that the road, regardless of where the cul-de-sac is located, ought to go to the northern boundary line of Lots 1, 2, and 3. It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance in accordance with the opinion of the City Attorney, which will require land owners in the position of the Wear Subdivision ownership to provide access to adjoining land owners and following such preparation and in conjunction with it, the preliminary subdivision be brought back for review, and is therefore tabled at this time. Motion, Ayes=4, Goetten, Nay, Motion passed. #1445 GREGORY C. PETERSON 1355 ARBOR STREET VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FURTHER CLARIPICATION OP COUNCIL’S KECOMMENDATION Mr. and Mrs. Peterson were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson summ.;ri2ed the events leading to this reconsideratxon of variance approvals. Bernhardson said that the Public Works Director has denied the applicant's request to keep Che fence in its present location in tho right-of-way. Zoning Administrator Mabusth said that this is a two part, application; the appeal of the administrative decision disallowing the fence to be located in the right-of-way and the height variance for the fence located within the 50' rear yard setback area. Mr. Petersen explained that he had indicated that he would be installing a 6' fence and that was part of the building permit apolication for the pool and the porch. He said that they indicated at the Planning Commission Meeting that they intended to replace the existing fence. Mr. Petersen said that they made the same representations when they met with the Council. He said that he is shocked to be back before the Council because he thought he had covered everything the City required. He said that he had all along asked the City staff if there was anything missing from their application. Mr. Peterson said th^at the Resolution only refers to the fence in one paragraph, but the fencing was part of the application from the very beginning. Mrs. Peterson said that she distinctly remembered talking of replacing the existing fence at the Planning Commission Meeting. Councilmember Goetten read a portion of the Planning Commission minutes from that meeting. Goetten also recollected the discussion tnat took place at the Council Meeting regarding this matter. Goetten said that she did not believe any discussion took place regarding a fence under 6' around the property. Mr. Peterson said that this was a terminology issue. He Bones troo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers S Architects Otto G Bon^unxx P£ RooefT W Roseot. P£. jone^ C. AnoertR. PC. IhcnjttI E Tbmer. P£. jamn C Oton. PC Gier^n f CooIl PC Thomji E Noyet PE. Rboert G Sc^un<ru. PE Maiws L SotvjU. PE. Ktf A. Ooioon. PC. Ibcrvud w Postef. P£. DorvUO C- Sun^JiOL PC. Jerry A Soiadon. P£. Mjrt A Hernon. PE. >0 ic Fc«i PC M^naet r Kaucnvina PE. RDOen P. PWfctie. PC 0#nd Q LosiBxak P C. Thomas W. Petenon. PC. Mchsd C Lyncn. PE. jsm R Maiand PE. Kenneth P Andenoa PE. Mart R M. P£ Rodetf C iSAse*. am Thomas £ Angui. PE. HoM<a«d A SanM PE Oan«< X Edgenon. PL Marti A Seid PE PhkQ i Osv^ PE MartiQ VX^Pl Thomas E Andenoa AJA Gary P Rytandet PE MiesE Jensen. PE L Phflp Grawet ■. PE Charles A Enckson Leo M PM«Hky Harlan M OHon Sms^ M. Ebedn. CCA. November 10, 1989 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Jeanne Mabusth Re: Robert Will Our File No. 139-1289 Dear Jeanne: tfe have reviewed the proposed subdivision for Robert Will. The Will Subdivision provides for extension of the cul-de-sac in the Vear Subdivision. The access to Lot 2, Block 2 is best served off the new cul-de-sac. The access onto Old Crystal Bay Road is not good because of sight distance problems. Consideration should also be given to providing driveway access to property west of this subdivision along the south side of Lot 1, Block 1. The security deposit required for the project is as follows: Clear & grub Common excavation S 4.00 Class 5 Aggregate Base i 8.00 Class 5 Aggregate for Shlds 9 10.00 2341 Bituminous Surfacing 9 24.00 Restoration 15* RCP e 20.00 15* RCP Aprons g 300.00 Total Construction 50Z Security Deposit Total Security Deposit If you have any questions please contact this office. Yonrs very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC, 1000 L.S. C.Y. 800 Ton 50 Ton 250 Ton 40 L.S. L.F. 2 Each Glenn R. Cook GRC:dh LB/25 $1,500.00 4.000. 00 6,400.00 500.00 6.000. 00 3,000.00 800.00 600.00 $22,800.00 11.400.00 $34,200.00 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 ‘1 To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 16, 1990 Subject: #1528 Constance M. Scott, 2300 Longview Circle - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-lB Application - Class III Subdivision - 2 Lot Plat Total Area = 4.0 acres dry lands List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit P Exhibit G Application Property Owners List Plat Map Septic Map Lot 1 Septic Map Lot 2 Plat of Longview Preliminary Plan Review of Application - This subdivision involves the division of Lot 5, Block 1, approved for a subdivision creating an additional lot. Lot 5 is the last lot of the subdivision with a potential area for division purposes. ivi Each lot meets the required 2 acre dry contiguous area and also satisfies the lot width requirement to the rear of the 50' front street setback at 200*. In fact the narrowest width of the lots proposed is 210'. The existing house on Lot 2 meets the required side setback of 30' from the proposed division line. ^Lot 1 has been tested and found to have adequate area for a s alxow trench septic system. Additional septic testing has been provided for Lot 2 confirming adequate area to the east for future septic expansion. Note that the 20' setback has been maintained from the existing drainfield lines within Lot 2. The City Engineer has reviewed the site to determine if there would be any concern with access and has found no sighting problems for the newly proposed lot. Access to Lot 1 must be reviewed by the Public Works Director. j Zoning File #1528 May 16, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Staff RecoBDBendation - To approve the 2 lot plat, Class III subdivision, finding all standards of the RR-IB zoning district, subdivision regulations and on-site septic cede have been satisfied. Approval of this subdivision is subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedicate drainage and utility easements along the newly defined shared lot line, 5' on either side. 2. As plat was filed prior to May 1st deadline for new Park Dedication Fees, applicant need only make payment of $200.00 fer proposed Lot 1. 3. Driveway access for Lot 1 must be approved by Public Works Director. #152 8CITI OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2300 Lonoview Circle Long Lake. Minn. 55356 _________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) n!^-T17-23 23 Q0Q4 Please check one - Property _ _ abstract or X torrens? Attach legal description to application. Lot 005 Block 001 ClJy OF Dl<&l0 01 f t j t tn I uU^^7z7l0 cool f<01 TlOiOl 04/L6/h APPLICANT Phone (home) 473 1 941 Name Constance M. Scott Phone (work) f^42 8828 (husband) Address: 2300 Longview Circle City:Lonq Lake. Minn. Zip:55356 OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address:City:_Zip: (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels one Development Size two four Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total» all parcels Present Use (check)X Residential; no. of units one Other (specify)__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) ‘/X Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: ono one= two two Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) one £7120 Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per tWe Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 o © NIMDM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 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. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date 3. Payment of fees (par)c 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 Review (Class I, II & III) Preliminary Review (Class I S II Subdivision) $150.00 ‘v 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 additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature 'Itf //jk ? ^ Date Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Conunission 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. ft 9 To: Proa: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 16, 1990 #1531 Carol J. Kelly, 3020 Casco Point Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-lc Total Area - 1.09 acres Lot 1 = .57 acres Lot 2 « .52 acres Dry buildable determined at elevations above 929.4' (ordinary high water mark). Application - Two lot plat. Class III Pertinent Ordinances - Chapter 11 - class III subdivision. Specific sections: Section 11.01, Definition - Lot Area; Definition 34 - Lot Area; Definition 40 Definition 43 - Lot width. Section 10.02, Lot Line Rear; Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover review for Lot 1: 75-250* setback area = 15,500 s.f. Allowed Hard jver = 3,875 s.f. or 25% Existing « 4,735 s.f. or 30.5%* Excess Hardcover Within Setback Area 860 s.f. or 5.5% House = 1,670 s.f. Garage = 520 s.f. Driveway * 1,820 s.f. Sidewalk Paving + Patio TOTAL - 4,735 s.f. 725 s.f. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Preliminary Plat for Previous Applications Exhibit E - Cook's Report Exhibit P - Cook's Sketch Exhibit G - Staff's Sketch Exhibit H - Preliminary Jian Zoning File #1531 May 16, 1990 Page 2 of 4 Review of Previous Subdivision Application Involving Creation of 2 Riparian Lots - In June of 1976, the Orono Council approved the 2 lot riparian subdivision. The applicant failed to pay required park and consultant review fees. The original approval expired within 6 months of the approval date. Applicant reapplied with the same proposal and was denied based on the need foi lot width variance as property did not meet the required 200* of width at the 75 setback line. The 2 lot riparian subdivision application was denied by the Orono Council in April of 1978. Review of Current Application - Please review Exhibits F, G and H. The current proposal proposes 1 riparian lot that meets the required lakeshore setback of 100' at the 75' setback line. Lot 1 also meets the required lot width to the rear of the front yard setback line of 30'. Lot 2 has a rear line that ends at a point. Although Definition 40 of the zoning code would suggest that the rear lot line be determined as shown on the staff's sketch (Exhibit G), a lakeshore setback of 75' is applicable. Lot 2 is obliged to meet the 75' setback from the 929.4' elevation although not defined as a lakeshore lot. In review of Cook's report (Exhibit E) and his sketch (Exhibit F), the area of the drainage ditch cannot be Included within the dry buildable 1/2 acre building envelope of proposed Lot 2. Applicant's surveyor has been asked to confirm the dry buildable envelope exclusive of the hatch area defined in the Engineer's sketch. Staff has asked the Engineer to stake the drainage ditch along the east lot line. Upon a site inspection, it will be difficult for members to determine actual lot corners. Note the encroachment upon the property of the gravel drive serving adjacent neighbor. Applicant's surveyor has already confirmed that there would be no problem meeting the 1/2 acre dry contiguous requirement to the west of the defined drainage ditch. Staff notes that Lot I's existing hardcover, the newly adjusted 75-250' setback area at 15,500 s.f., now shows excesses of hardcover totaling 360 s.f. Applicant must advise what portions of existing hardcover ate to be removed. Cook has also asked that all portions of the lakeshore property involved within the flood plain (areas below 931.5 ) be designated and the City take a Conservation & Flowage Easement over the flood plain area. This action would not be consistent with previous reviews in determining dry buildable areas for lakeshore lots. The 931.5' elevation has been used to designate wetlands adjacent to the lakeshore where wetlands and lake interact. Please review this property's lakeshore. There are no wetlands nor are there designated wetlands shown on the City ^ official mapping. Dry buildable area of each lakeshore lot has always been determined from the 929.4* elevation. Staff would recommend that the drainage and utility easements ^ defined as always within plats along the perimeters of properties and along the shared lot lines at a 5' width. Drainage easement along the south and east portion of the property is to be designated at 5 on either side of the center line of the drainageway. Zoning File #1531 May 16, 1990 Page 3 of 4 The final plat must show a dedication of C-sco Point Road up to the southerly lot lines of Lots 1 and 2. Municipal sewer and water lines are all located within the rights-of-way of Casco Point Road and Maple Avenue. As already noted. Lot 2 is not riparian to Lake Minnetonka. In a similar subdivision review, because the City failed to file a restrictive covenant against a non-riparian lot, the courts upheld the property owner's rights to achieve access via a walking easement through an adjacent property. The courts did not recognize the final resolution approving the plat that noted the lot had no riparian rights. Staff will ask the City Attorney to draft an appropriate restrictive covenant denying all riparian use to Lot 2 of Lake Minnetonka. Options of Action - Denjla^_^ If Planning Commission poses a denial recommendation, please refer to the necessary findings set forth in Chapter 11. Approval. If approved, the following findings may be considered: 1. The proposed division satisfies lot standards of the LR- IC zoning district. 2. The subdivision has been found to meet all pertinent standards of the subdivision regulations. 3. There is adequate sewer and water to serve the newly proposed lot. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon application for a building permit for new construction on Lot 2, the future owner shall pay the following sewer and water fees: Sewer unit charge * 1,513.86 Watt' unit charge = 1,691.78 It should also be noted that this rate is based on the 1990 fee schedule and will be adjusted based on the inflationary rate in 1991 fee schedule. 2. The City to file a restrictive covenant against the title of Lot 2, denying all riparian access and use of the lake via Lot 1 of this subdivision. Zoning File #1531 May 16r 1990 Page 4 of 4 3. Prior to scheduling the application before the Council, applicant's surveyor to provide an amended site plan of Lot 1 designating existing hardcover improvements to be removed so that hardcover is maintained at 25% within the 75-250' setback area. Hardcover to be removed prior to final plat approval. 4. Final plcit shall Include the following: a) designation and dedication of Casco Point Road adjacent to south lot lines of property; b) drainage and utility easements along perimeters of property and along shared lot lines, 5' in width; c) Drainage easement is to be shown 5' either side of drainage ditch, plat to dedicate drainage and drainage and utility easements to the City, 5. Marne plat. 6. Future owner of Lot 2 is hereby advised that hardcover within the 75-250' area is to be limited to 25%. tin •• \5i'' CITY OP ORONO - SOBDIVISION APM^ATON I o o 1PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3020 Casco Point Rd. 1350.# Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 20-117-23-34-02^— Please check one - Property w abstract or _ — torrens? 250.00 iH75S30 cool RolJi2:.504/27/90 Attach legal description to application APPLICANT Name Carol J. Kelly Phone (home) Phone (work)471-7528 Address: 3020 Casco Pt. Rd,Citv: Orono Zio: 55391 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name SAME Phone (home) Phone (work) Citv:Zio: (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels 1 lot and house Development size 47/640 sg. ft.Acres Dry Land 1.09 acres Acres Wet Land Acres Total/ all parcels Present Use (check)Residential; no. of units 1 lot & hous Other (specify)_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning DistrictResidential_ _ _ PROPOSAL 2 lots Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) t split 1 9 ]gj^lvision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: ^_ _ _ 1 Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per _ _ AcresProposed Gross Density: 1.83 u/a_ _ _ Minimum Lot Size:lot Pyet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check) _ _XX- - Residential Other (specify) ! . » MATERIAL N^SSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELTMIMARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form at^-x^cation 1: “ Certificate, of Survey. t ; V‘ Owners IiieSti of owners within , “ennepin County Department of Finance A^-eoS Sovt 4. 348-3271). ‘ " -- - - -- a-oux Govt Center «y*o"ther*p"er™ ne° yl“tisS'’ioS«S'ol’\MY apVli«tion?““* c™ple*te?‘^°" '’®Pe'^‘”en‘ that Preliminary Plat Application is Zoning Official's Signature Date 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.Easements, Covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zonlng^Official^s^Signlture*^^*"^ Final Plat Application is complete.Date PEES XXX Sketch Plan Review (Class I, li & iii) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I & ii Subdivision) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-resldentlal) Pinal Plat Review (Class III) •(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $150.00 250.00 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* Applicant•s Signature Owner's Signature Date Date submittals into the City offices 25 days before the third^Mon?iJJ’'^o®f Planning Commission Meetings are held on theniro Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all schedui«H unable of the Planning Commission and Council, if an applicant is aS?Sorl2ed Vaen"t attlnd®1 “^®‘' “®®V"^' arrang^ents^o ha^e in Sffi«"II^^!rcha^^^pr^Sr’^?rth^'meV^„^^^ the Bui lain, e zonln. 1 a v.^ & sH I 82 /? [I P-« I c- y r tl mS^I gg^^il^Ss! •^“■**sS K 2 ** O Z^ u ><>< W Z-r ya3<< to (0 JC 3C < to Kt ttl H ^ «CM a < < Z I o u u X _ c«- o <2 M < «• «• -J z •H Q I o( 0^ S ^ O 0 3 CM « CO «o z < SS»r.“- OOm{^CMP- W O 1 “> IH CO Ki o o 0 'O' N) Kt CM 1 K #H I O CM s Ms < ►— Ul V s» CL 111 ui O 2M M CJ Z o CO Ktm o §S9<5 < o »- 10 N»«>ss OS OS to z to -i Ul u. Mz o «o Kl o z1-4 M MM o to a. Ml O ^ M a Zt a< Sm iil. _ M M rw < ^ ^ O OL O' Kttoto o. u m4 U U O t- L- u CM CO OS OS _ ^ Ul UJ (0 0 ^ 'T 0 CM O O ^Kt O OS K CM < < <N>- % SO h- CM o: -Io < o ^ < s:g3-I»o o a7«5 K < U Io oCM to OS CO to O to O X aa: isO CL O' Kltoto z o 2 t- U H os to Z so pH O H X O Z a Ml siHlA OCM IK•H U «H CD I S to MssCO Kl ^ to o o i oOS t-CL r4O' Ml to x|! o < to a z Kl o os CM O O I lA t- < M ^ 7ir 2 oCM 1-4 (A 'O M O OS CO Kl o Ml O O o “SJ ^ to M tos « o 2 sss Q M SQ 'O >> O O < t- Kl Z 2 CMN S Ul <o so X ut- < CO ocUl SK-(A gju M A Ul (A Q H> C 0 P O I N T R O A D M N 5 5 5 9 11 1 7 - 2 5 5 1 0 0 6 5 C A S C O P O I N T R D T0T4 H O R A N H O R A NS C O P O I N T R O H N 5 5 5 9 15 6 2 0 - 1 1 7 - 2 5 5<* 0 0 0 10 5 0 5 5 C A S C O P O I N T R O T B E R T H I A U M C / C K A C H E N n T H O M A S B B E R T H I A U H E 5 0 5 5 C A S C O P O I N T R O A D N A Y 2 A T A f M 5 5 5 9 15 0 2 0 - 1 1 7 - 2 5 5 9 0 0 0 50 5 0 9 5 C A S C O P O I N T Rl C U R T I S J E N G L U N O E T A L C U R T I S J E N G L U N O 5 0 9 5 C A S C O P O I N T R O H A Y Z A T A M N 5 5 3 9 1- 1 1 7 - 2 5 5 9 0 0 1 2 C A S C O P O I N T R S T E N S A B C K A S 0 A / B A R B A R A C K A S C O P O I N T R O A M N 6 5 5 9 1 S o o 3 <^ O Kl CO CM ^ <Kl O CO Ul CM Z 7 (.».«<< o os « U a O' ul Ul ^ > 0 CM ^ t- ^ ^ Kl O (A (A CM z 1 -1 z ^ <o M u aCM to Z > ^ < >0 ^ X to N O' X OS >o > CO CM < O' < •A O X X CM Z o ^ < 5 o aCM tA < <^ X tn Kl O V) MI" u. 52 UJ I2O. Ul ru 5 0. IUls oO' N 12s so i Xu <or ►- « §s UJNu*Xs M X UJ Xu- Kl eg 0 22 ^ O X ro X UJ K\ O £ eg Irv u «0 «erH O “ * <M K W </)2CO eg _o -> -) u)oUJ rH> in < lA o < < ^ u u VI VJSIS I* < k“- eg ►- iH (A 0 1 >s UJ >•X X oo UJ UlIS «g♦ w eg I K•H iH I Oeg ii •HO' HI » UJo Ulo ^ CO HI m X Sit HI Ul O 1 UJ M ^ u. >- UJ Ul < "1 HI 2 v-> 7? ^7 • ^10 o s HI HI egI M •H I Oeg K K eg O HI HI o X H HI S it:ss ^ o «• X X o M M < HI o eg I gUJO “kUJ u« rs. Ul Ul eg ^ -J HI <H-a> S iH UJ mJ HIu in ^ ^ X in . X X M I < <o o o O H- eg lA X X < O ^ < Ul N ^ HI X X O > CO HI u U HI < HI O Ul Ul HI X I :s iT U i HI O eg I rs, f-4 O iH I Oeg K z O' eg 06 CO HI HI O O < 06Z UJ O' ^ liij 1^O U Ul O X lAsr u 2o «e O Z -I S H 2 O' > O HI egj X UJ I a 1 lAHI Ooo $o X 2 o K 'O g HI HI HI O eg u ri.a__ •H o < < »H A CD I S UJ O < < UJ ^ eg <o- X Ul HI V >. a O X X HI HI < < eg h- o (d CD ^ lA 2 5:A s O'3 3 HI 0 t 0 2 M HI 0 Ul a u. Sf?2 1 g0 u W 5« 0 Z UJ •J M H HI IL 0 Z (g CK 5 55591iH O* 0 HI X U| A 0 r-f X UJ 0 HI M «J HI ^ U H- H- 0 Ul _ (A U) X U| HI 0 < < M 0 Q ^X ^ UJ O' HI M -J HI 0 U A 0 lA _ p X Ul HI 0 0 X M o eg A HI_ o a zCO HI < HI O M M o z < S3 I Ho ^ ^ «J •H O < < «H XX toeg H. to < eg 2 HI < o Q a §5i/> eg u » i/l Ho < < < S “ao >- ^ orH I Oeg O' o HI to HI HI O i ^05 _ UJ y®sj22 ^ UJ « X O' N «• X o >0 < HI < -J -J HI Z o I?•M J > \ .-I * ''jV ' 1 • i THIS ITEM HAS m MICROFILMED Pint of Siurx'oy of Tract Hennepin County, KiJnef^*^."?; (PR£L! M it/ARy) • • • I 6 • /r 7^ y > t / £f *5 * I /# ^J - .l"/s .. / * ,Or tl fi f;;, 5)jp,Qy. I JioroJiy cortiry tfv, t t».ir la n truo and rorr-^ot rrpror.on‘.itlon of a aur^-ay r ,hc boiitulnrinn of Tr-,rt T Ho^'jat/,rn.l Und Survc/ fV. a.,, '' of Honnooin, nnd of tv>r» il 1. * ‘•■Llso of Rni'iotrur of TiMoo n «"<1 all "f e" "oo-e the prooocel location of. It "loo •^cnlo; Rite j o I 1« = 50' 3-5-73 Iron marker • • • Cordon I^d Su^e/or and PHnner * ^ i»ong Lake, tlinneeota if t Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & ^1 Associates Engineers & Architects One G Bonesfooi PE ItoOefT W Hdtene PE JOVph C Andfr^ik. PE PiChJ«d E TUner PE C Olicn PE Glern I? Coott. PE Thomjj E NiOyiri PE Room G Schuncht PE M^»n L Sorv^j. PE Krtn A Gomoa PE P<hjrtj w Foser. PE Donjuj C ButgM P£ A Bourdan P£ Mjfk A Hjnwi PE Ted K P<4(J PE Mch^ T R^ucmjfvx P£ R P^pfflpfie. PE Om O loUou. PE Thomai w PKersoa PE M<n»ei C Lyncft. PE -Umrt ff UHjndL PE K«orw» P AneJenon PE Mjrfc R AoTl PE ftooen C Ruurt. aia Thorrvis E Ar^gm PE A Sjnfbrd. PE Ojrvet J, Edgerton. PE A Semv«. PE Mjrt D VIWH PE Thomai R Andmon. AIA Cuy P Rytjndfr. PE Mi« B >meo. PE L P^•p Cfivft m PE ChjfiM A Enckson 1*0 M PjM«fsky Hjrtjn M Olson Suun M Ebertn. C PA May 14, 1990 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Re: File No. 139-1531 Kelly Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the proposed Kelly lot subdivision on Casco Point Road. The major concern is the drainage ditch along the southeast side of Lot 2. The easement along the drainage ditch should be 5 feet on each side. Conser vation and drainage easements should be shown to elevation 931.5. Drainage and utility easements should be shown along the lot lines. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:li End. 233S >»lest HIghtway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 \- \ ^ ^ ^ • “ • # ^ fc* '* • •*• ^ ^ ^ •*****«k. •• •• •• ^• *‘**^* •-•• r^/* f ‘ • ' V • . ••-....•*•'• •* * .. . . - ................. -■ ^ •• • ..-. • • - ••* . -. • .i . v-. . . •. • ,. . ■ v-: i--.••• .' . v.tv> • •••.••’''. ?r‘k-V;w.v;v^-^.. •.'■. c,V-V, -..vv''*’.= •-•vvf.-.- ; ;'r .- . .'. ,. • ;.•■■>- ■•••.'■ ■• • :'. '•'! . ..■•■■■_ . / • -••.:■.•■ •• • •■ ■• .r-'.'.:; .fir-.-v, . .. va;:vv/ •.•' iii ________________ !|t !’i SDfOfoncMo iiSfc *: ______\jbc>iA>or>'. L>--vc-j i^K'^ - * - _ - — Vi.v\xy.> 'W ( ^ f^lS.' Vit. ‘^0*' xOuCfi^: -P i (5 OrA\./-AA(A , V x>.\i'-y f PtX.VA,‘‘A '• - iVii t'Aau^iv .^IvAcV \\.A^^'•V.-'S . jap^y • ^ Z ^'cvAiiW-i o-iWas ^0 clo.-v^ s <^Ac( Suixl.v'iAx i^vLir' Vu^ > • .. -. __ 'ircx.'f^C ^ V*'^ \v ic‘t^ \oc.<^> Or^ p- ^ • . To: Prc» Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 18, 1990 #1532 Fullerton Properties, Inc., 2225 6th Avenue No Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-IB Total Area - 36.8 acres 5.8 acres wetlands 31.0 acres dry Proposed plat of 13 lots Density Ratio = 1 unit per 2.3 acres ory buildable 1 unit per 2.8 acres total area Pertinent Ordinance - Chapter 11 - Class III subdivision 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 - Cook's Report - Cook's Sketch - Grading - Drainage Plan - Engineering Plans for Road - Preliminary Plan Review of Preliminary Subdivision Application The applicant has submitted a revised plan showing nr^“«ur?cn°U°l'ilccri" located 15' fro„ the -wly ^“ned l«ent of the codris to have such structures meet the required setback for principal structures adjacent to roadways. Planning Commission consider granting a conditional us p for aclessory structures for each of the if such structures meet the 50' setback from rear of street lot lines? Zoning File #1532 May 18, 1990 Page 2 of 3 A future access corridor to the south has been shown and per Planning Commission's directives, the northern corridor requested by the City Engineer has not been designated. The l?*-:.inepin County Department of Transportation will review the plat to determine if additional right-of-way will be sought for County Road 6. The City will ask for 7' of additional right-of-way along Willow Drive to be consistent with previous acquisitions along Willow Drive with other subdivisions. The Planning Commission may remember that Mr. Cox, the owner of Lot 1, Block 1, contested the issue of granting an additional 7' of right-of- way. Staff has not received any additional written material to support his position. Clearly, the City staff must ask for the right-of-way if Mr. Cox wishes to appeal to the Council he may do so. Staff would only request that he state his position in writing. The City will ask for underlying road and utility easements over Outlets A and B and the execution of maintenance covenants to insure regular maintenance and upkeep of road. Dickey Lake shall be designated at the 985.5' elevation. Staff met with the applicant out at the site and staked the perimeters of the adjacent wetlands to Dickey Lake. This area is shown on your preliminary plan defined as edge of wetlands. The applicant is in the process of preparing for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District review. A copy of the preliminary grading and drainage plan is enclosed in your packets (Exhibit F). As these plans were just received (5/17/90), the City Engineer has not had adequate time to submit his review comments. The applicant has shown 2 road names for the 2 plat roads (Kings Run Drive and Cox Farm Road). Upon preliminary approval, applicant will be asked to provide additional road name choices for the formal road name review by the City. At this point in the review, staff is unable to provide a final recommendation concerning the septic report submitted for preliminary approval. Unfortunately, the rains have delayed diegramming of septic locations on each property. In addition, Gaffron reports in the sections of the septic diagrams submitted, huuse sites have beer shown at a minimal unrealistic size and septic drainfields have not been shown to their full size, nor will some meet the required setback from the lot line when fully shown. He has also noted that he may have to request a lot line change. Gaffron has recommended that we table action on the preliminary plan until he can make a final recommendation to the Planning Commission. He has advised that he will seek direction from the Commission concerning a need to realign the shared lot line between Lots 6 and 7 that would require approval of a lot width variance for Lot 6. ft-.. Lt^- .’ A.*',S * * '* • /*• - .!/•* ».. r . jC 4 v; . •- . * * • ■A . '- - *■ k/? Zoning File #1532 May 18, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Issues to be Resolved At This Point in the Preliminary Review: 1. Final resolve of outstanding septic issues between staff and on-site septic evaluator. 2. Mr. Cox, as joint applicant, is asked to submit a written statement setting forth his objection to dedicating 7' additional for right-of-way of Willow Drive. 3. What is the Planning Commission's position regarding granting a conditional use permit for accessory structures if setback of 50* for principal structure is met? 4. Report from City Engineer on grading and drainage plan and engineering plans for road. 5. Schedule for removal of existing structures on Lot 5. 6. Other issues raised by Plcnning Commission. Planning Commission Action - To table application #1532, providing both applicant and staff additional time to review final submittals and to schedule application for final action before Planning at their June 18th meeting. fi,-• . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- -- —. .. . . . . . . .. . . k ^ ^ ^ ^ ! > _ A . . ^ ^ ^ hrV' I CITY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATIQ f- I *>v ^ (sHifiue. CITY OF DW FimCE &TICE PROPERTY LOCATION . Site Address Ia^ < ll o>»/ *• CrV*v^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Please check one - Property V abstract or _ _ Attach legal description to application. torrens?RFcm-rmK^ you 04AMi mo cool Phone (home) H ^ ^ *4 4 A 0 Phone (work) ^ ^ ^ APPLICANT Name Rul < CTa rJ 1 ^ ^ I Addresst -afTD HOP City; 2-^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Name CoV 9>MA T^Agy^ Phone (work) 3> ~ ^H Address: |Q>o ^ »V!) illoMd City: La VI^Ziyt SS'^^C* (attach list if more than one/t EXISTING LAND USB Number of Tax Parcels Development Size *b^.0 :21k % Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check)Residential; no. of units Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District PROPOSAL 2b. Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites:C Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) Units per Acres 2). <^C4UT sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) I I • MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY 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 Jepartment of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list rf any other persons you wish notified of this application. 2. 3. 4. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1. 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. 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 Review (Class I, II & III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 250.00 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 additional fees establisheJ by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Date ^/■Z 7/JD Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plaining Commission Meetings are held on the third h >nday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Ccmmission 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 Vii)he)cr*Ij)•n) m o ^ *-is sH s 9 Z -i IM O•a ►- UJ CM I «SS M M tj o X sO •-C < O IH M O U i «►- ino z in •j -I oe M a __ <5^^ IM O «J ^ K M ^ O z -Iu. bu O O M %0 Z ^ iH O U *-4 ^ « o o S ui m □ •n Kl ^ CM K O K»mm Jii!* iH O -i -J IM IM I « < H iH 1 XXgd d d M D pH 1 K ooS^ >• CM O $ in in z _ SSoS 2 o o Ml O 2 2 in o") "> rv j ss IM IM ^ O O O ^ ^ CM CO Q Do&iss ^ OCO tA o cr O O in»o inm ?5 “*s;£ CO M t« «• < ^ IM M O (0 X ^ N. «4 ^ ^ M in IM UI .liiSiro o Q O eg ^ oo Z o IM eg > Kl < Ml eg I CO rH fH I fs. eg CO Kl X 5 M in IIu. u. Z %n in Ml in in in in d d IM IM X X H- ►-o o oc d fi CO g§u u |5 IM 55 in eg eg <g 5 in d M rv Q L- o H- O IM IM Odd w 3 -> Kl > <Ml 4M 7g- CO M *H O in M Kb- IM Q. IM U d M O in Mlm in I eg S in M ►-♦- IM Q. U IM < M d CO IM eg _ CD r4 ^ d o o rM O IM O m K1 > Ml IM CM d CO M r-l Q M I K CM O rv N. o o in d Mlo in md iMd o d O Hf « M d J d IM iUi Q> O d “ r M -j ••SSco O -I IM S5 CMs i <a si $o Xo ►- K CCl Ml iH O O iH V- Ml U Ml r eg Ui I ^ (0 < *-i in I eg in Ml •H CO *M Ml O ^ m -J Ml Q in d “> -• 2 IM IM dx55 8-"*SiIM IM d d CM CO iH o Z 0 -S!Ml < in Q. Ml X IH eg p -j • X -I CO M *H^ in X •H Q. 1 K d CM O 9 eg < Ml w> a. W9 in Ml inin in CL 3 i M X d o d eg -J Jg i|§d 2 in o z 0 d CM O CM ^ 1 -J CO M M X fH I M* CM O eg CO S Ml O < ►— IM m Ml in d m o O IM M IM <<*5 in inISii »H -I sO o o omO IM inMl®5Ml ^ d Mlinino in m Ml IM CO M M- ►- Z S*22S I K CM o*=>=2 o in m IM »H IH O CO o o o o Ml O -J -J O' IM > Ml UJ X X eg ^ u y CO M 2 2 iH o ^ -J IH X CO I K CM O « o < 3 3 d d s& Ml O -> “> K «i ■] «> rtt.W • #V *VV * 3 • ! 6 :-i ll ll f l‘ ■.'■\ % •_ ■'. !• - 1 *'•r~^yf ^i’ *9* •■‘ • ■* 1 i??' *1 '.'( Hi * *• *^ (4 in ^ 4^' <I» ^ JU4.«*««I t» fU *rsi-sow : 5^vr\ M ;, •1C is t* %&• ’ .< t . * ^5 ■•'• t fH>iSTirT EJ ■iTI '* ’ . /•* ’’i’'.' . ,» t . _ . , 9 ^ I Bonestroo Rosene ^=5 Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects OtTO G Bory*«rt>3 Pc Ptxxrrt W Rojere PF Josf*pn C Arxj^fi k. •'E E Tufn^f P£ Jarr^l C Ofion. PE Gi^n R Coo* PE Tnomai E .*vo>tri PH RtX>frt G Schun<,h{ PE Marvin L. SorvaU. ^E (Cfith A Gordon. PE. Rthirti W Foster PE DonjkJ C BurgartTt, PE Jerry A Bourdon PE M.ifk A Hinson PE Trd K PE M<nie< T Ritjninn PE Ruoert R PVfefe. PE Oivid O Losiioti. PE Thomas W Peterson. PE V<hjei C Lynch. PE James R Maiand. PE Kennefh P Anderson Pt Mark R Rotfv PE Pooerr C Rustec A i A Thomas E Angui PE Howard A Sanibrd. PE Darei J Edgerton PE Mark A Sep PE Ph*p j Cas>\^. PE Mark O Wa«dL PE Thomas R Andenon. AIA Gary F Ryiander. PE Maes B Jensen PE L Pr»«i) Gravel m PE Charles A Enckson Leo M Povveisky Hadon M dson Susan M Ebertm. C PA fi ^ April 11, 1990 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 'ipff I f Ja Attn: Mike Gaffron Re: Fullerton Properties Our File No. 139-1519 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the preliminary site plan for the Fu’a rton properties subdivision at Willow Drive and County Road 6. The street layout should give consideration to a connection onto County Road 6 and access to property south of this subdivision. Wc would recommend that outlets be provided for future connections as shown on the attached drawing. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENi, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:dh grc/42 233S West Highway 36 • St. Paul. Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 r /,fe?;:• -:'■>’':. r':^'uvis-i^'c- / F • f / 1 1/ r #/ rliLLt/CTOAs/ LEVERING, HAISLET ASSOCIATES 2285 Daniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 i612) 473-8864 (800) 421-0434 iiwr 2i 1®* To whom it may concern: May 1990 Attached please find a drawing of the proposed four parcels in question. The middle lot where the existing house sets and parcel A on each side and parcel B in back. In 1968 parcels were deeded but not platted. At this time we were considering lot A & B as outlots to the house parcel. However, an acceptable plan and one that has been discussed with your staff as a possible alternate,would be to combine all of the parcels into one realigning the lot lines and exclude the 7 foot easement. Ine property owner was advised by the Highway 116 committee that all of the widening of the roadway would be on the West side of the highway since it was undeveloped and they wouldn't have to disturb the large trees that border Wil* w on the East side. *• LEVERING, HAISLET ASSOCIATES 2285 Daniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 (612) 473-8864 (800) 421-0434 I n '■ ! 4* Each Office 1$ Independently Owned And Operated • « To:Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Conunission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator M?y 16, 1990 #1535 Gerda Kennedy/Ned Butterfield, 3765-3745 Watertown Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-lA; Single family rural residential, 5 acre, unsewered Application - Lot line rearrangement to place existing garage within property boundaries of 3765 Watertown Road. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exliibit G - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey of Proposed Lot Line Rearrangement Survey for 3765 Watertown Road (1986) Letter from Attorney Anderson 11/14/89 Letter from Attorney Fafinski 4/24/90 Pertinent Pacts - 1. The contract for deed owners of 3765 Watertown Road are Larry ana Linda Cook. The fee owner is Gerda Kennedy. The house and greenhouses at 3745 Watertown Road are owned by Ned Butterfield. 2. This lot line rearrangement is a result of recent survey work which showed that the garage serving 3765 Watertown Road is almost entirely outside the actual property boundaries. Although all parties involved had believed that the old fence line east of the garage was the property line, the surveys indicate otherwise. This proposed rearrangement is intended to place the garage inside the property boundaries of 3765 Watertown Road. 3. Kennedy and Butterfield have come to an agreement regarding the disputed lot line, and are proceeding with the lot line rearrangement. 4. By staff's calculation, 3765 Watertown Road will gain 6,500 square feet (excluding road) in the front cf the lot, in exchange for approximately 15,000 square feet to be deeded to Butterfield at the rear of the property. The net result according to the survey is that, including the road right- of-ways, each property will contain approximately 5.02 acres. Zoning File #1535 May 16f 1990 Page 2 of 2 5. The proposed lot line leaves a setback of 10.88' from the residence on the Butterfield property to the new lot line. The garage at 3765 Watertown Road will be 6.0 feet from the new lot line. Obviously, neither of these setbacks meet the current standards for the RR-lA zone, which would require a 50' side setback for a principal residence and a minimum 10' side setback for this size garage. However, since these buildings are existing, and because the proposed lot line in the area of those buildings follows the fence line historically thought to be the property line, this application should not be considered as granting a variance for setbacks, but merely as a lot line rearrangement to better accommodate existing buildings. Discussion - I am advised by Mr. Fafinski representing Gerda Kennedy and the Cooks, and by Ned Butterfield, that .11 parties involved have agreed to this lot line rerrrangement to settle their property dispute, and that all parties will agree to filing of the appropriate documents. Staff would note that the 2 triangular parcels have not been shown as separate tracts for purposes of our resolution/combination requirement, hence the surveyor will be advised to label these 2 tracts and describe tnem separately, per our standard metes and bounds lot line rearrangement procedure. Regarding how this division affects the principal residence structures on each property, the visually perceived lot line will not change. The new lot line will increase the east side setback of 3765 Watertown Road from 32' to just over the required 50'. The west side setback for 3745 Watertown Road will decrease from approximately 39' to about 10'. Regarding lot width, at the 100' setback line, each property previously contained approximately 213' in width, both short of the 300' standard. The new arrangement will decrease the defined width of 3745 Watertown Road to approximately 193', while increasing that of 3765 Watertown Road to approximately 233'. Staff Recommendation - This is merely a lot line rearrangement and is not creating any new lots, but is solving an existing problem and placing a lot line generally in a location where all parties Involved historically perceived that line to be located. Staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement, subject to combination of the triangular parcels with the appropriate larger tracts, as shown on the survey. 1^^ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site 3765 Watertown Road- - - Property Identification Humber (P.I.D.) ^SZS^ D Please check one ~ Property abstract or torrens? ri 77 OF OROiO FINAmi OFFICE Attach legal description to application APPLICANT Name Timothy W. Fafinski Phone (home) Phone (work)545-9000 Address:5881 Cedar Lake Road_ _ Minneapolis Zip:.55416 ONNER (if different than applicant) Gerda L. KennedyName Phone (heme) (218) 233-3372 Phone (work) _ _ _ _ Address: 3208 So. 9th St.p *205 cAiiVi Moorhead, MN (attach list if more than one) _ _ _ 56560 EXISTING LAND DSE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels » 2 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: Proposed Gross Densiliys Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) i Exist.!ng Units New Units Total Units Units per ,5_ Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ mNIIION MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY 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 2. 3. 4. 348-3271). , ^ ^ ,4 .. rAs 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 1. 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. 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 Review (Class I, II & III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 250.00 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 additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings ® third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is Office of this change prior to the meeting. IL ■ I.!/.'. / S' <^5 ' A. Tj, (0 .ji ::)i - 115-^3- r '" ••• a •w V M ti>»«ir tv# I7'<>§.li- M 9 iff 9 '•15? €(M) ite^fllflplfiprf. (Ill (•I ::i*i §Ui6 ED '/'7-5fe (15) . «•! (la) ElLbhN .ST ■ ^vn mrt ^4 (II)I ffj. •■■■• ••’>■# • 9 ’ • . r -' j.-,. .'-..-.'■"I -4-"«— ^ . .-.(a-V} 'y ■ ' V' 0 O K> iH ^ iH j, CL K SCL UJ OC S cn COs iio oc S 5 csj K UJ UJ W O r4 Q O OC O tA K> U> 4A _ > K O ocac ui Z C V " 2 S I- z O < UJ O OC M ^ X ^ U UJ < r-l h- -J I ^ ^ < a ^J z K) in < >> UJ>« a cs in -ICK oc >o a. <0 UJ < < m o (d ^ in r inss m o M (/) K CK Mm ac oc QC oUJ < a: cr 22 0^ I fw to CO to * < _ <*5 z X ^ z «• UJ = t*18o cn (/) m in tola 1 S2 UJ -Ja 2 O' o o -t O X «t ^io K ^ M a UJ <'J UJ M t K IL CO < oc »H z UJ^ IKi m o CO to to O tD a oe O' in »o inm a|5u, »- Z« OC M UJ UJ < I- -J m Kl O o o m o o Xuh~< CO o H t4 >o so tooo 22 S'" °S «li O in to in in o 0 _ I® »n X o u CM UJ _ _ 1 I- < < I- Z « 5 QC M c!i « S S ^ »n in < UJ in X X o ^ Ip K I* '4» a to to < <0/ is. ^ to O U U 90 X «o il hM ac a ac a UJ < X 5 ^ r^‘ I i» •r> r* o o f* in the SE % of the SW ft of Section 32-118-23 ' Hennepin County, Minnesota •V #1061 ij -"r f ■ i ** % ‘I : " 4' « : ' « .ft' • • *, .f'ft »r- (1, ... i>’ ii: ; - P*>• r * I iereby certify that this is a true correct representation of a sur- of the boundaries of the West 19q.50 feet of the Southeast Quarter iJ the Southwest Quarter of Section Township 118 North, Range 23 ^ , .f 5th PriiTcipal Meridian,lying South of the centerline of Watertown Road, and of the location of four existing buildings. It does not purport to show any other im provements or encroachments. •t= i :IM .! .'I- :ii; : * % i t rV 1 .‘ f *1^*■ ‘1’7»-.* IN & GRONBERG, INC .:*i y • ! J'. Marjc S. Gronberg MfT. I' Lie. No. 12755GorJon R. Coffin MN. Lie. No! 6064 ' neers, Land Surveyors, Planners « • Lon) Lake, Minnesota f.i M 1 Inch s 100 feet July 24, 1986 Iron marker ».. •. < . w ■1 < - »i 'i 4 '•4: 'r - -I h. * • . ImH* r i-,- j * * DAVID B. AlUtOLD CHABLCS ■. CARKICMAEL OABT D. MCDOWELL STBVBM A. AKDERSOK O. BABBT AKOEBSOK STEVEM S. ROOE LAUltA K. FBBTLAKD DAVID A. BRUEOOEKAKK JOSEPH M. PAIEMEKT JAMES UTLET JULIA A. CRRlSTtAMS RICHARD O. McOBE A rnold 8c Mc D o—______ A ttorkeys at 5681 C edar Lake Minneapolis , Minnesota /;55^16 (612) M5-90( MN Toll Free eoo-i C able MCLAW Mi>itEira/ is TELECOPIER (018) »A5-1790 II >r COUKSKL I ah W. CAMERON ^AUL D. DOVE TTH FOURTH STREET rOK, MINNESOTA »»37l f(018) OaS'SSIA foPIER (018) 309-0000 lOl PARE PlACB HUTCi:iNSON. MINNESOTA 00300 (018)007*7070 telecopier (018) 007-4096 November 14, 1989 Orono Planning & Zoning Dept 1335 South Brown Road Orono, MN 55359 R2; Kennedy v. Butte^ield" Section #: 32-^1-8^23 x-c UjAddress: Watertown Road Our File #: 3204-86-0001 Gentlemen: with a readjustment of their property line. I am assuming that as a matter of municipal law, need to be approved by your department. We are having a su^ y prepared with the new line in mind and I assume that survey will need to be submitted to your department. I would appreciate it if you would advise me at your earliest convenience the requirements of local or-Unance for approval of tranSfiJr of small parcels of real est^*te for the purpose of quieting title and cleaing up land descriptions. For a survey required of both parcels, or merely that portion of the parcel that is in dispute? I would also appreciate it if you would advise me of the evenings that these matters are considered so that we can when the appropriate requests, permits and applications are file . • t« Orono Planning & Zoning Dept. November 14/ 1989 Page 2 Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Very truly yours, ARNOLD & MCDOWELL 6. ^rsy Anderson GBA^lsj Richard J. Rodney Gerda Kennedy cc: X o Arnold 6c Mc D owell Q g DAVID B. ARNOLD CHARLB8 R. CARHICMAEL** OART D. MCDOWELL STEVEN A. ANDERSON O. BARRY ANDERSON* STEVEN 8. BOOE LAURA E. FRETLAND DAVID A. BRUEOOEMANN haul d . dove JOSEPH M. PAIEMENT James utley JULIA A. CUKXSTLANS RICHARD O. McOEB TIMOTHY W. FAFINSKI Attorneys at Law 5881 Cedar Lake Road Minneapolis . Minnesota 55410-140L» (012)545-0000 MN Toll Free 000-340-4545 Cable MCLAW Minneapolis TELECOPIER («l«) ftAS • I7t»n or COUNCIL WILLIAM W. CAMERON SOI SOUTH FOURTH STREET PRINCETON. MINNESOTA 8S371 (OISI) 3S9- TELECOPIER C018) 069-8506 lOl PARE PLACE HUTCHINSON. MINNESOTA 58050 (OIS) &67-7S7S TELECOPIER (019) 5S7*4096 April 24. 1990 Orono Planning & Zoning Commission Att: Michael Gaffron 1335 South Brown Orcno. MN 55391 ReI Gerda Kennedy - Lot Line Rearrangement Our File No. 3204-86-0001 Dear Mike: Initially, I would like to extend my deep appreciation for your assistance, not to mention your patience, with respect to this matter. Enclosed herewith is the Subdivision Application, together with the required attachments. If there are any deficiencies, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours. ARNOLD & MCDOWELL Timothy W. lafins! TWF/ls Enclosure •certified as a CIV.L TRIAL SPECIALIST BY THE MINNESOTA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ••certified as a BEAL PROPERTY LAW SPECIALIST BY THE MDTNISOTA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION -• *• r •. . • $.L TOS Dates Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusthr Building 6 Zoning Administrator May 16, 1990 Subjects #1502 Michael Hilbelink, 2180 Prospect Avenue - Side Setback Variance - Referral Back to Planning Commission for Reconsideration List of Additional Exhibits Exhibit Q - Site Plan Exhibit U - Front Elevation of House Exhibit V - Floor Plan Side Street Setback Variance - Required Setback » 50' Setback of Previous Residence *= 10' + Proposed ■» 22' Variance 28' or 56% The applicant has asked to be rescheduled before the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the original side setback variance sought by applicant in original proposal. If members will remember, applicant had planned to move a specific house onto property, but negotiations failed. Although applicant had stated that he had a specific house design in mind, the Planning Commission, being consistent with previous actions in the past, failed to act on a siue setback variance absent a definite building plan. The applicant submit: a single story ranch style house for reconsideration of side setback variance. tin '..1 dministrator b Avenue - or Reconsideration led before the B original side il proposal. If move a specific though applicant n in mind, the ious actions in riance absent a style house for CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared for*. 4|6/^0 Aid anUarfc MIKE IIILDELINK Reviicd 3/\k>/*)0 to shouJ sUrrn V///////J. \iA ..r•. ‘.'V WSMS •-------Ii4 —^ DenatfS c«nUvr-------1:1^^ Dtnaifs pr«p«M<* con^oar r las \ CffiTBoM -r< «=:ci208.00 sWm fearer <r-^-------------- <------------ Mol.e -------- / froposea eAVrr€aV ^ -‘j; k--.v«;;SA — 'n » 1 .•.• ■ *.■5' , \v;.. •••••; i> liM ■■■ ■>:•■. I»' ■108" * «*-4' TOT lo7.2 « ^fli Whi- z—All It \ ij•V'::; iV :rr ■i •- •• • LECAL DESCRIPTION: All that part oi the Northeast Quarter of the South west Quarter of Section 10, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of the Northeast Quarter of the Soulliwest Quarter of said Section 10 51 5.625 feet nortli of the southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of tlie Southwest Quarter; thence North 130.00 feet; thence East 208.00 feet; thence South 1 30.00 feet; tlience West 208.00 feet to the point of beginning. GENERAL NOTES o Denotes iron monument *'*’* Denotes cross chiseled in concrete X 939,7 Denotes existing spot elevation 19391 Denotes proposed spot elevation *-------- Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denotes proposed features Solid contour lines denotes existing features Proposed top of foundation elevation = |ofc.® Proposed bosement floor elevation - Proposed garage floor elevation -loc.e> BENCHMARK-. Iny oC sewer c«fcK t.ny u' ------- ' m Usio near NW <»r«er ot (xbovt properly. • loo.O ALL-METRO LAND SURVEYORS 2340 Daniels Street 1 htrtby ctrYify that this turvay, plan or rtport eat prspartd by me or under my direct tupervition and that I am o duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the Stale of Minnesota. J SCALE 1" - 30' CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepored for: 4|6/?0 A^() c»n)*ur» Re\liit<l S/lb/OO (o shou) sUrm an»l di^ai o«x<At.. ^ a y///////A \\A MIKE niLDELINK V* $ V. LE(3AL DESCRIPTION; All that part of the Northeast Quarter of tlie South west Quarter of Section 10, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of th^ Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10 515.625 feet north of the southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of tlie Southwest Quarter; thence North 130.00 feet; thence East 200.00 feet; thence South 1 30.00 feet; thence v/est 208.00 feet to the point of beqinninq. GENERAL NOTES Denotes iron monument Denotes cross chiseled in concrete Denotes existing spot elevation Denotes proposed spot elevation <-------- Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denotes proposed features Solid contour lines denotes existing features o *+• X 939.7 Proposed top ot foundation elevation * iou.ft Proposed basement floor elevation * Proposed garage floor elevation - tOC.6 BENCHMARK*.Inv storm sevrev C a UK l>»Sin near NW (oroer of obovt prop<r Jj. AssumM t loo.O] ALL-METRO LAND SURVEYORS 2340 Daniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Ph: 475-1433 1 htrtby certify that this tunrty, plan or rtport wot proporod by mt or under my direct supervition and that 1 am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the Stale of Minnesota. DATE t/ziho REG. NO.nozh FILE NO. Wife A ,>J ' ^ : V ■ ■ 7, \i ••?.4. . • ••1. 4.1^^ •• •* • 4 • • ■ 4 - * .* , ; 1 * '-.'•x- ..<• J «‘. . s'*'V.,'»* \ ».• 1 w** *, ;r***w V ’ .■^* ’<*' • ' • n \» .'•*■* .. • '* • •. • •.>••'I|vy‘“"; - ' ! i.5- ' vv^ A..* • -y i >•**; .' .*») . * •*-•/ • . • H** .•'•••*4^ • . 4 »• •’*1 •! ' • ^ %..4 is',. ' .. • V I •• 4. • • V* ■ ------------ • • • f. t..,; • *• * •* 4'* ’ '• 4- * ^ . ■ • .,.•• . -, .J .-• ;•• /.y.* 4';.:;,k 4 ^ ’ J •• . « . I V •*. I •* .- •■ 4 ‘ «;•.••I ; •;• • -V , ^. f:, y r i» ^ ;n*v ■ : v;^ [|fajni • ' - .r ♦v .fv * I LKV'-JIc. .... [■■V '.■•^ '1. •-. : .• i .l.‘ .. ^IT ' •, . ' * ! . -f .rrti.- * / • • ^ • • . • 1 .- -.I •«• X*' • .•>•.»• I ■ .. * T-j' -■» ■ a ■ ■ . rt—y -»■' • [ 1 >» 'll , • ‘'»4 * \» ^ J f, ■'. . ‘ ■ . *.• ,»*\ ;••**•. .* ^ ► :• • ••. . 11 ';■ .C ■'U^ ^V?;,•>,.'•■ 2t '•« ■ • ••'.-•.■■ .• . :•■■•• r v'- yv.' ,! •, ....... .............. J ‘ I—rHff ■•- *1' : n•■ - —'I .2 . - V •-■-g i le*^ -8 ■ ■ • «v .. *- .» 'X«. *4 • ■ . ■ • • «' *» . .i. ■V ^ • *4 • 4^.'3 "..'pT'.--^>•' •lf ‘\v. ;•' % 4, >• *4 I 4 »,4 ' > * • • ••4 . I -*4Vi—.' *• -»■ . V" ;• -t» 4 • ♦,:.% I 4 . ».' ’•‘x .:ji f ' .• • 44 f JtNk. - ; ■? 't* ■ '*• I•V •-* ’• 'f . -% '*V : V ' •' * , 4^ I ■ •/, 4* W:j 4#4 ^ %iL^»4>4 :?cr ♦ I i »5aTfe V* » »«4^>A«« 4>w 'a>^4 »>» *• I A • • 4 • r ! '•» CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY . ’ Prapored for: ♦)iH® Aid <*a W»-* iRlHlUfd 3/|b/*)0 ft) shou> sfnm 4<ujrr «n4 d)T4*A«^e... .. Cnifcd. ♦/nb« tW ^ffTW|^/y/ /// / MIKE HILBELINK .«k a-r •*:•’•? • • ------gj}-— Ot**»w« fr»f*M ffl•WM , »ftl4 08.00 It !•!. frofoied 15 a Wpi fC4Mr w33or. Vt 1 *i»»4 a i _ ^ • ^ .• ' LftS^wlaiiaf PROSPECT LE(^AL DESCRIPTION; o Denotes iron monument *^* Denotes cross chiseled in concrete X 939.7 Denotes existing spot elevation |9i9| Denotes proposed spot elcvotion 4--------- Denotes surfoce drolnagc Doehad contour lines denotes proposed feotures Solid contour lines denotes existing features '’/eUWoTel' I01.S' All that t>art of tho Northeast Quarter of the South west Quarter of Section 10, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of th« Northeast Quarter of the .Southwest Quarter of said Section 10 515.625 feet north of the southwest corner of said Northe.ist Quarter of tho Southwest Quarter; thon'-J North 1 30.00 feet; thence East 208.00 feet; thence South 130.00 feet; thence West 208.00 feet to the point of beginning. GENERAL NOTES Proposed top of foundation elevotion ^ Proposed basement floor elevotion * Proposed gorage floor elevation * |0i.S BENCHMARK; Inv,C a UH : ^nv. -------- ^ f ba<iin OMr NW t«r«»«r of Atsve pr’op^*' ^ j • Kssuit»rtl • l®0<0 ALL-METRO LAND 1 Nrtby e«ftify thol Hilt tyryty« pton or wot prtporod by mo or undor my diroct •Mpt^^Ofi ond tbot I om 0 duly Ropitltrod Lind Suruoyor undor tho lows of tho Stoto of Minnototo. J- '72i^(UfU SURVEYORS 2340 Ooniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55336 Ph: 475-1433 nxrr nre w) rite NO. sooife A TO:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson 7 From:Michael P. Gaffron» Asst Planning S Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: May 16, 1990 #1516 Mr. & Mrs. Whitney MacMillan, etal, 1560, 1580 and 1620 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Revised Proposal Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Revised Proposal (large plan) Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4/26/90 Exhibit C - Planning Commission Minutes 4/16/90 Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 4/13/90 Discussion - At the April meeting. Planning Commission made the following general comments about this application: 1. No requirement to build the cul”de—sac, but it should be platted. 2. No need to realign Outlot C (road) at the point it abuts the Norton property. 3. Road upgrade not required until Outlot B is developed. 4. Lot 1, Bloclc 1 if developed must use existing westerly driveway off of Fox Street. 5. Tennis court on Lot 1, Bloc)c 1 must be removed xf house on that lot is removed. 6. If house on Lot 1, Block 1 is bisected by the proposed lot line, it would have to be removed before a building permit could be issued for Lot 2, Block 1. hSve^platttd^rcul-dLsac near the north-west Property boundary as recommended, and have left Outlot B with enough frontage and lot width to be considered as a future building site without variances upon Council approval. Zoning File #1516 May 16,.. 1990 Page 2 of 3 The applicants have verified the location of the tennis court in Lot 1, Block 1 to be 19.6' from the lot line at the northeast corner and 21.5' at the northwest corner. Will Planning Commission accept the existing setback given that this is an existing tennis court rather than a new structure? Now that the lot will contain a principal structure, there is no specific requirement tha*- the tennis court be removed. (Mrs. MacMillan indicates they - *emove the rennic court rather than revise the lot line.) It appears that all Issues addressed at the last meeting have been resolved. Staff Reconmendation - Following is a list of recommended approval conditions based on Planning Commission's previous discussion and the current revisions: 1. Approval of lot lines and outlot configurations and locations as shown on the revised preliminary plat dated May 3, 1990. 2. No upgrading of the existing private roadways within Outlot C will be required nor will construction of the cul- de-sac be required, until such time that Outlot B is approved by the City Council for development. 3. Lot 1, Block 1 shall continue to use the existing westerly driveway access to Fox Street. 4. Standard format road and utility easement shall be granted to the City over Outlot C. 5. Applicants shall execute the standard covenant for maintenance of this private roadway. 6. Planning Commission strongly recommends that a homeowners' association of property owners using the roadway be formed. 7. Standard drainage and utility easements along all property lines shall be granted. 8. Outlets A and B are designated for future development, requiring that access, lot standards, and septic testing all be found acceptable bv this or a future City Council before any development may'occur on these 2 outlets (Flowage 6 Conservation easements will not be required over the ponds or wetlands in these outlets until future development occurs). li .] K tf Zoning File #1516 May 16, 1990 Page 3 of 3 9. Dedication on the plat of 33' of right-of-way for Fox Street. 10. Granting of Conservation & Flowage easement over the wetland in Lot 1, Block 1. 11. Granting of variance to allow garage in front yard of Lot 3, Block 1 to remain. 12 Accessory buildings including 2 garages a. d a12. Accessory Dui XU y removed within 6 months property within that time period. 13. (Optional - Planning CommisBicn to | ITnltl oTt'h\Tat".°‘o^fintniat approval been., it does not meet the required 50' rear setback. 1 i «W' * J r ZOHIMG PII.B NO. 1516 notice op planning COMMISi^TON ACTION CITY OP ORONO p.o. BOX 66 rcoo-j 473-7357 Notice: 4/26/90 TO: Mr. S Mrs. Whitney MacMillan COPIES TO: Herb street 1560 FOX Street Jordan, MN 55352 Wayzata, MN 55391 Larry Hanson, Schoell & Madson type op APPLICATION: Subdivision_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Tn{m vote: 6 For 0 Against Planning Co-alssion following: Table for reasons noted btiow NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled in order for “PPtVe ToV llne^^ ?jL'«:ov"a"l wo“u\VSrtnove^lot line to keep that house within Lot 1, Block 1. ) .. j *. 1 i-Ko followinq qeneral conunents but did not Planning Coinrnission /ecommendltion: yet incorporate them into a formal 1 NO requirement to build cul-de-sac, but it should be platted. g! NO need to realign Outlet C (road, at the point it abuts the Norton property. 3. Noad upgrade not required until Outlet B is developed. 4. Lot 1, Block 1. it developed, must use existing westerly drrveway off of Fox street. a. Trti- 1 Block 1 must be removed if house on that5. Tennis court on Lot 1, Bioex lot is removed. 6. If house on Lot 1, Block 1 is bisected ^ it would have to be removed before a buiiaing p for Lot 2, Block 1. Applicants' next scheduled meeting is confirmed , as .. -51 iqqo* meeting starts at 7:00 p.me Planning Commission Monday, May 2 , » minutVs,='°^her «e 'a"‘“ab?e”f rl^ t°he ‘Ji%f iicirLr'^fter’ r'^eTiiraSS approval by the Planning Commission. minutes of the APRIL 16, 1990 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING attendance 7:02 P.M. . nn the above date with theI«e Orono Planning Con»ission ^ following members Hanson, Cohen and Moos. The Commissioners Johnson, ®®j-^° . ' staff: Building and Zoning following ^«P^®®®"^®f_ Ass/stant Planning and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, As ^j^g^,Qj.der Scheffler. Council Administrator Gaffron and Y ^ gg was Councilmember Representative Peterson was also present, Callahan. #1516 MR. & MRS. WHITNEY MACMILLAN 1560, 1580 and 1620 FOX STREET preliminary SUBDIVISION „ ‘’"®“5he™£ila3iror?ibU=a;?on'^;ni Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. “• r • S:^-?i“>ra"ns“orors?h”o'elf°'. Sir? “Lands“pe !:rc^^te=\" and Hr. da=.< Taylor. Attorney. Gaffron explained tne Mao.Millan-s subdivision proposal. necessary to facilitate -h- ^.^-cMiHan' s wish to maintain as home. Mr. Baldv^in sai ' oossible. The intent is tomuch of the existing character as ooooiox preserve the land.**1.VW — -- - .....srVirrj alignment proposed by the f constructed as we are due to the steep grade. If J"® on the lake side of the proposing, a two-acre par land on the other side to beLtlot. It would allow extra land^^on^^^ ;?:«;ng %"f %"hf" “property »j.l\,';®^Pon«ini"’5o“a%eJ'’:hicr! a area." Gaffron noted that drain!ield°^ites. ^cVff!on alsoless_than,5 acres do have tes^^^^^ ,,, e,tyless than 5 acres have tested^^drainrieiu^^ P^.^P®^^^ noted that the existing through the center wi-1 be iiSJved! Gaffron ^Red If the“ MacMillan-s intended to remove e other structures (the caretaker homes). Larry Hanson replied that is correct. - 1 - I MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING , cour. a.d stated that" it is between 15' and 25' from the lot line. B-llows observed that once the house (1620 Fox Street) is removed there will te no principle structure as requrred if the tennis court is to remain. T« T-«»aard to the proposed alignment for Outlot C, Gaffron fsatd "The City Enoineer prefers not to have the Outlot dead en ?n the middle of 'someone's lot. However, the proposed outlot Snows logical progression ?Se iron, a topography tU idS^of endfn, the road against a City engineer ^^SeSSloSel lot. The point is well taken SSSr“Lth« “ievelopme'St of Shat _ lot could occur if it is combined with property to the north. Kelley asked Gaffron what the City Engineer is recommending to address the slopes if his alignment is used. Gaffron replied that the City Engineer has not commented about the feasibility of putting the road in that location. Mr Tavlor said, "The MacMillans and the property owners to the rSar "7tS“%Sn%er'ned about upgrading rhe ^road between the rnS«inS;%ny“«r''at ""all Tn that area.’ They would like the gravel road to remain as is. Kelley asked how many houses will exist oh the road when this proposal is completed. Gaffron counted 6 houses that will be served by this road. driveS:i^°“ior^P^ok “lfnSt“"t%‘ "t"h"e ^"en\";an"cV‘of "Ihf subdivision. raffron replied that the entire private road system is within private easements rather than on a platted outlot. « 11 "riven that the proposed subdivision does abuw I think that should be cxarified for the re-ord. Baldwin explained that the use of the being increased by the addition of °"® high degree of MacMillan's have a strong desi^^^ slopes and the limited :i-5ite*se"p'tic systems, we would make a mess of - 2 - • • ••• kbptt 16 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING minutes of APRIL 16, «e involved with the ownership of these properties nnfiot A will be achieved. Bellows asked how access to outlet A wixOeAXWWo —- - a“"/iirh!r loV^:t ‘this °t‘r Shflh” ir‘whr'it *een designated as an outlet-naceu e»o —- - ^ ,-hai- Lot 1, Block 1, appears to be a huildib?r!St fnrasktd What purpose it will serve. ^ • Larry Hanson replied, "?|‘°there‘*’“That‘parcel*was brought rrtrt^e* ;-u'’hdrvniSi;““hec‘rus‘''pitt‘Srt; was nee^ded to enlarge Lot 2." Bellows asked why it could not be combined with Lot 2. OeXAUWO - -a. Mr. Taylor explained that there are different involved..VevA. ^ I, .Khe ritv Engineer may have good Kelley stated C, it did not make sense,reasons for his alignment of Outlot c.IlO a.wa. -- - - - • ^ i for the Planning Commission s opi Gaffron asxed for tne regarding the cul-de-sac. hhat the cul-de-sac will run by the front of Kelley stated that the cu the Norton house.lOiUUU u a It it would be possible to locate the cul- de-sarii«her**.o*uth where the grade is more flat. u McsfvMillans have a large garden m Baldwin stated that the MacMillans tnat area.area. , ..^ 1 could not be located Mrs. MacMillan asked why the cul-d in Outlot B. Kelley stated that there are steep slopes in that area -- - - - - -— -‘r- -irt‘er4tri^?rdSt‘nf?;?rs!t‘eS!the south may interrere .e-safii'o^ :rMoi‘toi‘s :nf?hrorhrr^if‘L^^^^ iC xroni ------- ----- j Pnaineer*s reconunendation to Bellows interpreted the City Eg - 3 - < 1 MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING properties." Bellows asked how access to Outlet A will be achieved. Larry Hanson stated that Outlet A does not meet standards for a buildable lot at this time, which is why it has been designated as an outlet. Johnson observed that Lot 1, Block 1, appears to be a buildable lot and asked what purpose it will serve. Larry Hanson replied, "Though that lot is large enough, there is no intention to build there. That parcel was orought into the subdivision because part of it was needed to enlarge Lot 2." Bellows asked why it could not be combined with Lot 2. Mr. Taylor explained that there are different entities involved. Kelley stated that though the City Engineer may have good reasons for his alignment of Outlet C, it did not make sense. Gaffron asKed for the Planning Commission's opinion regarding the cul-de-sac. Kelley stated that the cul-de-sac will run by the front of the Norton house. Bellows asked if it would be possible to locate the cul- de-sac further south where the grade is more flat. Baldwin stated that the MacMillans have a large garden in that area. Mrs. MacMillan asked why the cul-de-sac could not be located in Outlet B. Kelley stated that there are steep slopes in that area Gaffron informed Bellows that placing the cul-de-sac more to the south may interfere with drainfield sites. Kelley asked if it would be sensible to take half cf the cul de-sac from the Nortons and the other half from the MacMillans. Bellows interpreted the City Engineer's recommendation to - 3 - MINOTES OP APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • * . . . . . . ZONING FILE #1516-MACMILLAN CONTINOED include only the dedication of the cul-de-sac at this time.' Gaffron's interpretation is that the cul-de-sac be constructed at this-time. Gaffron stated that clarification will be necessary. Larry Hanson said, "I have a strong suspicion that no matter where the cul-de-sac is located, once future development occurs, it will be in the wrong place." Kelley stated that it would not make sense to move the cul- de-sac down toward to Fox Street. Bellcv’^ stated that perhaps the cul-de-sac does not make sense. Gaffron stated that from a safety aspect and the requirer.-.ent3 of the Building Code, a cul-de-sac should be included. Gaffron asked Larry Hanson how wide the gravel portion of the road is. Larry Hanson replied that the gravel portion is 16' wide. Kelley quickly reviewed the issues involved with this application. The Planning Commission agreed t'nat the grade is too steep to realign the Outlot as proposed by the City Engineer. Kelley observed that the existing 16' paved portion of the driveway will serve more houses than the gravel portion of the road. The City is asking that the gravel portion be constructed to meet City standards which require a 24' or 26' paved v»idth. In regard to the tennis court, Kelley stated that it should be removed. Moos, Cohen, Kelley, Bellows and Johnson agreed that the cul- de-sac is not necessary. Kelley stated that Outlot C should be aligned along the existing driveway. As far as the upgrading of Outlot C, Kelley stated that the portion to be upgraded is beyond the driveway entrance of the new lot. Johnson suggested that Outlot C not be upgraded until Outlot B is developed. Bellows, Kelley, Hanson, and Moos agreed with Johnson. Cohen favored upgrading Outlot C to a 24 foot width. Johnson stated that Lot 1, Block 1, still presented a problem because of the fact that it is a buildable lot. - 4 - ... t . p I! t « «» MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1516-MACMILLAN CONTINUED .... Bellows said, "The access to that lot is achieved from the west, rather than being served by a road within this subdivision. If it is the intention not to use this lot as a buildable site, then why cannot the lot be designated as an outlot?" Mr, Taylor stated that there are other parties involved with Lot 1, Block 1. That party is amenable to what is being presented this evening, but any variation of that would require their approval. Kelley stated that Lot 1 is already served by a driveway from the west. He suggested that a condition of approval be that in the event Lot 1, Block 1, is developed that it continue to be served from the existing driveway to the west. Mabusth asked what purpose Outlot A serves. Taylor explained that by agreement between the two parties, the property line for Lot 2 run. along the lakeshore. The owners of Outlot A kept the lakeshore and the portion to the west of the lake. Gaffron reviewed the proposed conditions for Outlot A (page 4, A through D, of Gaffron's memo dated 4/13/90). With respect to Lot B, Gaffron asked whether it could be combined with the adjacent property to the west since there is common ownership. Larry Hanson said that there is really no need to do that. He stated that Outlot B is a residual piece created so MacMillans could take title to the property with the caretaker structure. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the tennis court be removed. Johnson suggested allowing a specific time period for the structure to be removed, a realignment of the lot line, or the construction of a principal structure. Larry Hanson stated that actual measurements were not taken to determine its location on the property. He suggested that he be given the opportunity to measure. Gaffron explained that the issue is not the location of the tennis court, but rather that it would be an acct * *.ory structure with no principal structure. Bellows suggested allowing one year for the accessory structure to conform or be removed. Kelley indicated that the other accessory structures and the principal structure should be removed prior to the issuance of a - 5 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1516-MACMILLAN CONTINUED building permit for MacMillans' new residence Baldwin asked if it would be possible to overlap that schedule to allow construction to begin while the estate of the applicant's mother is being settled. Tay]or stated that it he cannot be certain that the existing house will be torn down. He said that the lot line may have to be realigned to preserve the house and the tennis court. Cohen said that Mr. Taylor's statement put new light on the information presented this evening. Mr. MacMillan explained that there are other heirs involved and the decision to remove the house is not solely his to make. Bellows suggested tabling this application because the information presented at this point is incorrect. Bellows said that the Planning Commission would probably be amenable to recommending an extension of time to remove the principal structure. Johnson preferred to see the house removed prior to the issuance of a building permit. He indicated that such a requirement is a consistent policy of the City and there should be no exception. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1517 WHITNEY MACMILLAN 1560 FOX STREET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:07 P.M. TO 8:09 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron reviewed the information pertaining MacMillans' application to enlarge an existing pond. the There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for reconstruction of an existing artificial pond, subject to staff's conditions 1 through 6. - 6 - I I Planning Conunlssion Chairraan Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson a Prom: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator April 13, 1990 Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning^Di^s^trict - RR-lB, Single family rural residential, 2 acre Application - lot residential subdivision to replat property additional buiwibll lo?."'' 1 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - 1. 2. 3. Exhibit P - Exhibit G - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Proposed Plat Drawing (1 large sheet) Staff Sketches: Existing Lot Lines Private roads/driveways Proposed Lot Lines Scale Drawing of Propovtt.;' :• isidence Orientation from Pile # Letter from City Engineer 4/12/90 with Recommended Cul~de~sac Location Pertinent Facts - drawing^: follows (per preliminary plat Total number of lots ~ 4 lots 3 outlots Areas: Block 1, Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 513,210^ s.f. or 11,78+ acres 523,444+ s.f, or 12.02+ acres 139,810^ s.f, or 3.21+^ acres Block 2, Lot 1 93,650+ s.f. or 2.15+ acres Outlet A Outlet B Outlet C Road 512,400+ s.f. or 11.76+ acres 326,815;[_ s.f. or 7.50+ acres 54,315+ s.f. or 1.25+ acres 24,585+ s.f. or 0,56+ acres Gross Net 2,188,229^ s.f. or 50.23^ acres 2,163,644^ s.f, or 49.67+ acres Zoning Pile #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 2 of 7 2 The property within the proposed subdivision consists of 6 ’ separ^ate tax parcels owned by 4 different persons or ^oups. In the current Hennepin County tax books these are listed as: 1. Longridge Associates 2. Cargill MacMillan 3. Edna C. MacMillan 4. Whitney MacMillan The applicants have provided copies of a number of signed consent forms for the various apparent course, the final plat drawings will need to be signed by all parties. 3. Three of the existing 6 tax parcels contain existing residence structures. The other 3 parcels are vacant. of the developed parcels and 2 of abut a public right-of-way or a platted private road outlot. Discussion - The intent of primary applicants Mr. & Maf'Millan is to create 1 new building site upon which to construct 1 new single family residence. that a plat is required. While it may appear that this could be accomplished by merely rearranging lot bounds rearrangement to accomplish the applicants y result in extremeli .onplex legal Surveyor's office lixely would reject. Also, only platting allows the dedication of private road outlots and easements, which the City will require in this application. A. Existing Roads/Driveways All of the existing houses are served by private oT- shared driveways (see staff sketch E-2). A separate shared driveway serves 1620 Fox Street and 1700 Fox Street, plus the tennis building and caretaker house adjacent to it. Further east, a private easement road serves 2 existing residences within the subdivision l”a\e®r^^outside the boundaries of the subdivision. This prlva«^ also connects through Orono Orchard Road to the Hamm property the east. The new building site is proposed to be ® line on Sketch E-2. Zoning File #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 3 of 7 in early discussions with the applicants' representative Horh Baldwin staff indicated that within the boundaries of the subdivision, the City would require that a 50* outlet be platted und the standard private road and utility easements be granted over the existing main private roadway. The applicants have shown this outlet within their proposed plat. reques^^t that'^i''cuY-d‘e-sfc‘^be^p\a\^ted^aL it was not standards, given the history of similar situations and the City s growing awareness of private road issues. in discussions with staff, the Engineer although somewhat reservedly, recommended that the . constructed and the entire road within the subdivision be vrtrraf^pd His reluctance again relates to the City's private road pilieies being currently under scrutiny. In with the Engineer, and per his letter received today, he has revised his recorjnendation to include the following. 1. Re-alignment of the road outlet for a future westerly continuation. 2. Upgrade of the currently gravelled portion private road out lot and the cul-de-sac to City private road standards, allowing the existing recently paved private road to remain as is. A developer's agreement and letter of credit would be required. B. Septic System Considerations criteria, have been tested and found to be suitable for sewage treatment needs of the proposed new house. On Lot 1, Block 1, the existin^g bisect removed, which is appropriate since the new lot line will it. This property has an existing functional mou^n^d ani has pos'Lib'^le alternate s.ites to the east court, just west of the Morrison residence. peptic test report for these sites have not been submitted, but tnese required since this lot exceeds 5 dry acres. has VhV heu'/e'^'” "" I Zoning File #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 4 of 7 Lot 1, Block 2 containing an existing caretakers house (which was reconstructed approximately 2 years ago) has a new septic system and a tested alternate site adjacent to it. In summary, each of the 4 lots contain the required primary and alternate drainfield sites. C. Proposed Outlets The subdivision proposes 2 outlets for future development, these being Outlet A west of the artificial lake, and Outlet B to the north. The Orono^ SubdivlRion Code requires that any outlets created within a subdivision be documented as to specific purpose and future intended use and conditions must be defined under which those outlets can be developed. Outlet A will not abut any public or private roadway, and contains a significant portion of the artificial lake area. Absent any specific restrictions intended by the applicant except that this outlet would be for "future development", staff would suggest the following restrictions on Outlet A: A. Future development or construction of any sort within Outlet A requires City Council approval. B. Subject to future septic testing to verify drainfield sites. C. Subject to future provision of suitable road access per City requirements. D. At the time of future development. City will require Flowage and Conservation Easement over the artificial lake. Outlet B to the north under the current scheme would abut the road outlet but not have the required lot width at the 50' setback line to be considered bulldable without a width variance. This area is also intended for no current development and staff would recommend similar conditions as for Outlet A. land.Each of these outlets has about 5 acres of dry bulldable D. Wetlands, Ponds, Etc. The proposed building site within Lot 2 is centrally located within that lot, and the proposed site plan (Exhibit G) indicates that a 75' setback from the artificial lake area will be maintained. This lake is approximately 8 acres in area, and is not "meandered", hence property ownership continues through the bed of the pond. Zoning File #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 5 of 7 Staff has advised the applicants that easements would not be requested for the wetlands or pond area within the outlots, and that those easements would be requested when future development occurs. The City will require granting of a f lowage and conservation easement over the wetlands in Lot 1, Block 1 abutting Fox Street. Discussion of an easement for the smaller pond within Lot 2, Block 1 will be found in application #1517, the conditional use permit for work in that non-designated pond area. E. Disposition of Existing Structures A number of buildings and structures on the property apparently are intended to be removed as a result of this replat. -ri In proposed Lot 1, Block 1, the existing residence, which will have a new lot line bisectljig^it, is apparently intended for , removal totally. That lot wiH''itlMkl contain a tennis court that 22' is shown to be approximately 12' from the northerly lot line. This is one of the few lot linee^that has previously existed and is not changing, hence Planning Commission could justify not requiring that line to move due to its pre-existing status. Other options would be to require 30' setback for the tennis court, or alternatively Planning Commissicn could request a 50' setback if it is determined that the adjacent lot line is a "rear" lot line. fJt TO > In Lot 2, Block 1, there are two detached garages and a caretaker residence which staff presumes will be removed. Applicants should confirm that this is the case. }S-lO In Lot 3, Block 1, the existing Whitney MacMillan residence has a detached garage structure that will end up being nearer the defined roadway than the existing house. Technically, this garage could be considered as needing a variance, although it exists. Lot 1, Block 2 has no detached accessory structures. There are also no apparent structures on either of the two future development outlots. Applicants should be requested to provide a schedule for removal of the accessory buildings that are to be removed, and such a schedule should be incorporated into the preliminary and final plat approval resolutions. Zoning File #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 6 of 7 P. Lot Standards Each of the 4 building lots has the required 200' of lot width as measured 50' back from the roadway. Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 2 all require variances because they do not abut a public road. The outlets are not required to meet lot standards since they are intended for future development. Sunaiary of Issues 1. Realignment of proposed Outlet C, the road outlet, Provision of a cul-de-sac dedication in that outlet.2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Extent of required upgrading/development of existing road and recommended cul-de-sac. Designation of future development outlets, conditions of approval. % Lot line near tennis court on Lot 1, Block 1. i’ypcy Disposition of existing house ending up on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. 7. Disposition of 2 garages and caretaker house on Lot 2, Block 1. 8. Variance for existing garage on Lot 3, Block 1. Staff Recoanaendation - Planning Commission should review the above items with the applicant and make a recommendation on each issue as part of your recommendation to Council. Staff would recommend the following laundry list of approval conditions: 1. Revise private road Outlot C to conform to City Engineer's proposed sketch. 2. Recommend that the road in Outlot C between the end of the newer pavement and the cul-de-sac be constructed to City private road standards. 3. Grant standard road and utility easements over Outlot C. 4. Require execution of standard covenant for maintenance of this private roadway. 5. Developer's agreement to be executed between the City and the developers for upgrading of the road. Zoning File #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 7 of 7 6. Strongly reconunend that a homeowners' association of all property owners using the roadway be formed. 7. Granting of the standard drainage and utility easements along all property lines. 8. Define Outlets A and B as designated for future develop ment, requiring that access, lot standards, and septic testing all be found acceptable by this or a fuvure City Council before any development may occur on these 2 outlets (Flowage and Conservation Easements not required until future development occurs). 9. Existing house bisected by the proposed lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, shall be removed prior to Issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, Block 1. 10. Lot line north of tennis courts to be moved northward to meet the required 30' minimum setback for such a structure (Does Planning Commission wish to confirm this as a rear yard, and require a 50' setback?). 11. Dedication on the plat of 33' of right-of-way for Fox Street. 12. Granting of Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetland in Lot 1, Block 1. 13. Grant variance to allow garage in front yard of Lot 3, Block 1 to remain. 2. 3. 4. MINIMDM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form py-£»i iminarv Plat information on Certificate of Survey.ss‘;is srs;.srs.s;; s. "™v. S'K"..:?.' .r. 2:;;: Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. na+-e Zoning Official's Signature_ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ IT Iiriplrt'fws, fHirg fee, ’ • 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3! Title opinion. 4. Easements» Covenantsr etc. 5, Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit, certification by Zoning Department that Pinal Plat Zoning Official’s Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _;r__ _ _rrzrrrrzzZZTCrr FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement 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^ $150.00 250.00 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* requested by the Zoning ' to orocess this application and W,l>Htenate 1)/^^ I ^ U , ( r y. Applicant's Signature f --—-- - - - - -,- - - - - -— ' , / i/Vic 10 owner's Signature J \VK-^ViO-Vb.,, ■ I ' ' - - - - - - -S- - - - Applicant must have all submittals a^r? he\1"n the Planning Commission Meeting. Planni 9 must be oresent at all scheduled third Monday of each month. Applicants must ^«^P ”“"‘i?”^,pplicant is review meetings of the Planning ®nd PPp hsve an "S?ho7se°d \“ent a\tend ‘ln'yturp'lacl' a^d to advise the Building l Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. CITY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICA PROPERTY LOCATION Site 1560 Fox Street 1 ■’iI Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) As listed to right. Please check one — Property ^ abstract or _ _ torrens? 117 23 23 0001 03 117 23 14 0003 03 117 23 41 0002 03 117 23 41 0001 02 117 23 32 0005 02 117 23 32 0004] Attach legal description to application APPLICANT Schoell & Madson, Inc. Name c/o Larry L. Hanson Phone (home) 937-1462 Phone (work) 546-7601 Address; 10550 Wayzata Boulevard ______ City; Minnetonka Zip; 55343 OWNER S(if different than applicant) Mr. & Mrs. Whitney MacMnlan Name Estate of Pauline W. MacMillan Long Ridge Associates Address; Phone (home) Phone (work) City;Zip: (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 2.49 47.74 50.23 Acres Dry Land Acre? Wet Land Acres Total, all CITY OF ORSiQ office 13502000^ parcels^,hlJU ’-Z Present Use (check)Residential; no. Other (specify)_ of units Present Zoning District RR-IB_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PROPOSAL _ _ _ _ _ _ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New BViilding Sites Number of Building Sites; 4 Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use; (check) •. — Existing Units New Units Total Units (Home on parcel 2600 to be razed) Units per 12.6 Acres 93,6^ - _ Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) W| c j ; —• 'n rr I ^Tlteg-*T^ , 6'Z i eXf iP/2'VAre . ? ; . /eoAjypeiveKiAY isto fox iNiiic<^Tes ADtxiess ; ^P<*<P#0tM#VTe te^CA^TTOAJ OF ^fsnfJG HO»^C* I' '■ j. ■ •. •, ! • ! *.»S'f SlVA^0 - /»jblCATCS • .* .• :. i1.:'^ r h'l J \ C^JOKJO Got-F Co\AliSt VAC- 3SO VAc, <—ABviT^ / e*^L,ti\ti(,C /AlCOC . \ \ H30 |9^0 fox O.L. A ', C(2A i&BA«I(C A-^oC.1700 fox tcajms Cl.^. At^OC. -P-o i.H. Al*c /1B7 TAUSr at. c t.H.Hi«rA»A ^c. ISZOl -£|2ZJ ^rw«3€) •tSTieee^T^ B^}4, / peopos€t> flKtfict, UOT bomm ti Ait,i es /7 -r/i;< pAf^i-l-s) ISftO fox l/oCklCATES ADWICSS APPteWiWATC. LC>cAT10t-i Of CX/STJAJC* ' /MCtlCATCS C-0^.»«ws.O|;0 V / ! i * Pj^ I I £ ■ r j* * ^ i Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & 1^1 Associates Engineers & Architects c;^n / Os . Oao 0 aohnuna W tOivnr f f irnttA C AAoe«itt. fs *<n#<i» fWnrt Ht Jwt C Onr*. Cfitn N COO^. M rhonvi% ^ N6)TV. « «DPfTt 0 SCfVnmf. PC Mar^i I Jorv^ Krr*' A OwSBA tcnMf tv ro«ff Pi oofutn t t\^im Pt JPfy A l^doA A ^tniOfl PM Wien f XiwuhmiFI ttoerf » MtfUm, Pt CMvidO Letiou. Hmwn. Pt MKftsetC Lyrun f| jsmeit Mjuna pp KtrAm p AAoen^ yt Mint Mgti H iBOfifC Avtiek Aia r AaquI Pi A UnM Pt 04AieU loaiftwi M A4f« A. M AC AAAO i CilttMf Af Mjrs li vU|ft% rf thume\« A/^noM A/A <ie*> f fyitntltv. Pf Mm S jrmm Pf I PiAi^i Id Pi t •v»«r» A »hrit)vr« 4IV»M PiAMHfty HjrUhM OhOA Vaji* M ivemCM April 12. 1990 r UlSSCIO^^IM CJTfOf DfiCMO City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 5SS23 Attn: Mike Gaffrar APR 13 1990 Set 139.1S16 Macmillan Addition Dear Mikei Wo have reviewed the plans submitted on the Macmillan Addition. The following modifications to the plat are recommended. The roadway alignment, should be adjusted to it can be extended westerly in the future. The dedication of a cul-de-sac near the end of the road Is recommended. The roadway from the end of the existing blacktop to the cul-se> ,ac should be constucted in accordance with city standards. Drawing easements should be provided along with lot lines. The street grading and drainage plan should be submitted and a bond provided prior to beginning work. . If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook ORCilp \y/or» s« • C. D-..I m. Tot Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator May 17, 1990 #1510 Richard W. Brown - 2685 Shadywc^d Road " variance/conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Notice of Planning Commission Action 4/20/90 Planning Commission Minutes 4/16/90 Memo and Exhibits of 4/4/90 Discussion This item was tabled at your April meeting for primarily from the attached garage. Snhea«l%ntry hail ” to decrease i‘%,%P-*nSoe'“SsrVoo*r ""?i‘’^ee; “Vla*b\e ”«ay ‘to"eUnln'atr«r.osrrbvious :xL'rio%“«c:ss%*harsSg,%s?s" a totally separated apartoent use. in reviewing hardcover the proposed configuration « 27.8. liistvtould* relief htrdcove?, "gur^ou w”««finry l'ea« access to the house lacking. AS of this writing, applicant ha. f^'^hav^^ c4-sff would hiohlv recommend that# it Y® I j f Zoning File #1510 May 17, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Staff Reconendatlonp Planning Conunission can iresolve the access and hardcover issues, a recommendation for approval could be forwarded subject to the following standard conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. Isv The second dwelling unit is allowed as a guest apartment only, to be used for relatives and non-paying guests of the property owners. The unit may not be rented out. The two-family dwelling or guest apartment use shall cease at such time that the current applicant/owners no longer own the property. Any subsequent property owner would have to re—apply for this type of use or remove the kitchen facilities. Utilities shall not be separated but shall be metered jointly with the principal residence. The guesti apartment shall not have a separate street address. ^ 1 1 ; ZONING PILE NO 1510 CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 4/20/90 TO:Rick Brown 6167 Sunny Road Minnetonka, MN 55343 COPIES TO: Richard W, Brown 2685 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance/Conditional Use Permit DATE OP MEETING: 4/16/90 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Conniission recooiBends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled for further consideration. Applicant to explore: 1. Possibilities for hardcover reductions toward the 25% 75-250' standard. 2. Revision of access doorways, so that main access to the guest apartment is clearly through the house and not primarily from the attached garage. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Plar.ning Commission Monday, May 21, 1990; meeting starts at 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 Commission. •V agent must be provided by June 15, 1990. Motion, Ayes-4, Hanson, Johnson, Nay. Hanson voted nay due to the time frame. Johnson voted nay due to the time frame and his preference to allow the structure to be.used for reasonable storage. #1510 RICHARD W. BROWN 2685 SHADYWOOD ROAD GUEST APARTMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.M. TO 8:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Richard E. Brown, son of the applicant and purchaser of this property, was present. Gaffron explained the applicant's proposal and the facts regarding the property. Kelley said there is not mucn that can be done to correct the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback area. Kelley objected to the removal of non-structural hardcover in exchange for structural hardcover. Mr. Brown stated that he did not understand the issue of hardcover. Cohen, Johnson, and Bellows concurred. Gaffron stated that more than likely the applicant will opt to remove hardcover from the driveway and/or sidewalks in order to maintain the 25% allowed. Bellows stated that there is no access to the apartment through the primary residence as required. Gaffron showed where the apartment accesses are located. Gaffron suggested giving the applicant an opportunity to provide an interior access. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1510-RICHARD BROWN CONTINUED Kelley asked Mr. Brown if he would prefer to table this. Mr. Brown stated that he would like the matter tabled. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1511 CITY OF ORONO 2210 WAYZATA BOULEVARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:30 P.M. TO 10:32 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. To:Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator April 4, 1990 Subject: #1510 Richard W. Brown, 2685 Shadywood Road - Guest Apartment Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, i acre Application “ Request for conditional use permit to construct a guest apartment addition to the existing residence. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application & Letter of Request Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey/Proposed Site Plan Exhibit E “ Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Submitted by Applicant Exhibit F - Staff Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G - Proposed Floor Plans/Elevation Views Exhibit H - Letter of Request from Applicant Exhibit I - Section ?n.20. Subdivision 3 (G) li Exhibit J - Air Phocc, ^’ay 1?‘»9 Pertinent Facts - u ^ii 1« The applicants are selling the house to their son^ who will be residing in the house full time. The applicants would be living In the guest apartment during the six months of the year in wh.^ch they will live in Minnesota. 2.Applicants had intended to meet the hardcover limitation of 25% in the 75-250' zone. The only hardcover in the 0-75 zone is a 290 s.f. portion of ar existing boat house, e^jval to just over 1% hardcover in the 0-75' zone. In the 75-250 zone, a staff calculation of hardcover indicates there is currently 28.1% existing hardcover. If no removals occur outside the areas of the new addition, this will increase to 32.8%. There are areas of 1andscaping, pa^io, a shed and excess driveway next to the new garage, that could be removed. This could result in a net 75-250' decrease from 28.1% down to 27.8%. Hardcover Summary: 0-75* 75-250' Existing 290 s.f. (171%) 6,861 s.f. (28.1%) Proposed Same 7,999 s.f. (32.8%) Possible If Remo^’als Occur SaiT.w* 6,782 s.f. (27.8%) I Zoning File #1510 April 4, 1990 Page 2 of 3 3. The guest house conditional use permit section of the code [Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G)] was revised in early 1987 to distinguish between grast houses which must meet all regular lot requirements t id guest apartments, which have specific requirements for access, utilities and usage. A copy of that section is attached. 4, Technically, an average lakeshore setback variance is required for this addition. This property has the characteristics of a peninsula because it abuts the lake on the west side and a lagoon to the north (see attached May 1989 air photo). Discussion - I would first refer Planning Commission to the attached copy of Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G) - il. "Non-rental guest apartments." The applicant's request aopears to meet most of the conditions prescribed for such an apartment, as follows: A) the intended use of the apartment is for the non-paying relatives (parents) of the future owner, and is not intended for rental use; B) an additional 2-stall garage is being provided, hence parking concerns are addressed; C) sewage treatment is not a concern because this is a sewered area, and the applicants intend to maintain the utilities as part of the main house, and not separately metered. Access to the proposed guest apartment can be gained via a number of doorways. There is a single doorway from the new garage with access directly to the apartment. A walkout glass door is proposed on the lakeside on the lower level. A glass sliding door will lead to the existing upper level deck. There will be an access door to the store room above the existing garage. The entrance to the main body of the house is via the proposed kitchen through an existing "entry hall" to the family room. Given the nature of the existing entry hall and the storage area above the garage, it is arguable whether the proposed access layout strictly meets the intent of the code in that "there shall be at least one access door to the apartment from within the principal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment" (emphasis added). One could argue that the new garage entrance will act strictly as the primary access, and that the entry hall access on the lower level acts merely as a foyer between two totally separate units. On the other hand, the obvious shared use of the upper lev<»’ deck helps to integrate the use of the apartment into the main residence use. fi Zoning File 11510 April 4, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff Recoamendation - Planning Conunisslon should address the following Issues in its recommendation to the Council: 1. Is the existing access layout acceptable? Does it meet the intent of the Code in providing primary access to the apartment from within the principal structure? 2. Should a hardcover variance be granted to allow a 75- 250* increase from 28.1% to 32.8%, or should excess hardcover be removed to result in an overall reduction? 3. Does Planning Commission have any concerns with the granting of an average setback variance? Will this addition have any significant impact on neighboring properties? If the above issues can be resolved, staff would recommend approval subject to the following additional standard guest apartment conditions: 1. The second dwelling unit is allowed as a guest apartment only, to be used for relatives and non-paying guests of the oroperty owners. The unit may not be rented out. 2. The two family dwelling or guest apartment use shall cease at such time the current applicants/owners no longer own the property. Any subsequent property owner would hav'' to reapply for this type of use or remove the kitchen facilities. 3. Utilities shall not be separated but shall be metered jointly with the principal residence. 4. The guest apartment shall not have a separate street address. • . / ,6‘'>ir' •// :oM Vi % CITY OP ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPEfCATIO PROPERTY LOCATION 2^^^^ 5*A (A KJ A cm OF D.W ”” Fm%E OFFICE ^nso20(i^ _# Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Z/1 I *“723 Z3Q0 SO 03/15/90 Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) V ^ " Phone (work)_ _ _ _ _ Wi‘ OWNER^if different than applicant) Name /_ _ _ _ _' <Y ' J ' Address4*/^^ / Address .r4<cJc/ ./?J City — Zip 2 Zi Phone (home) '// ~ / Phone A&/City ^ :{month/year)iuC^v'^Date'property Acquired _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ (J^ (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land PEES - CONDITIONAL OSE 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 (church# school# etc.) X $150^0o'^est House/Guest Apartments . $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain - - rrariina and filling ” 101 cu. yd. or more - - Grading# seawall# retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS „ .$200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fee $250.00 Vacation $175.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ZZZr $250.00 Reioning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _ _ _ _ $100.00 Appeals _ _ Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USB OF PROPERTY .. Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DBSOEIIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: 2. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 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). 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 planr 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.' 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11" X 17* OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. 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 beet of% his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's signature Date 0 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 ve^flcation of this request. Owner's signature X^^^T^^ Y Date ^ ^ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I H 1/7 !€C /I ^ Ct»AU y HI HS'S r .e3 4^^000S sf, / / .<• • •• prop^Qc/ t^iVldtrU^ JS / • • • V /kS., •« ^ / /\' 'S'. / i''Mh % V • • • • •<”:"-::::v; Plat, of Survey 8 vp ® for hi chan: H. hreustedt in Lot 2^, rhuacunt i^awn Hennopin County , Kinnooota / area sherthnt os of 5^77 ?r- / /' . •Vk"// ImtofSi/f ,30- ioi'Zi ' £%isit/ty 7 .O '•••./'/ Cortificjite of Survey; I hereby certify t-oat this is a ^^true and correct representation of t survey of the bcuacaries oi that part f of Lot 24,) Pheasant Lavn, lyinc l.orth — r westerly of a line drevn parailel with and 130 feet Korthuosterly frer. th^ Southeast- eriv line of said lot,, the location o* all existing builcinfs therecn, and the snereline as of March 9, 1977. Ko monuaents have been o3-aced to estac m ^ m —^ — Land Surve.-'or and Planner Lone *ake, Minnesota Scale: 1" ~ 60' Date ; 3-9-77 \JLf. tr _IK1 U»e» a.-! 1 HARDCOVER CALCUU\TIOOflfiKSHEET SETBACK zone : (CIRCLE one )(o-75j 75-250 Existing H ardcover in Zone em 6*^ a./V/T A. H ouse i c. Driveway -512.5 *• Vr?9 -j>vr? D,. Sidewalk E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS underlain BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other LENGTH 7rx/i?r .-vr . Sy- 7S-X/0 2. - ^ '^B. Garage __ X - X X X X X X WIDTH 250-500' 500-1000' • _ S.F. _ S.F. . S.F. . S.F. . S.F. S.F. « S.F. S.F. S.F. Total H ardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone 230J _ S.F. . S.F. • . S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F. U] ZiUrf^ .... ID ^c.,s^ B X 100 - /./? % 7 L, . ' - /./O V Ff F: L'-- HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'^75-250^ 250-500' 500-1000' 3^ Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House LENGTH _22 27.4 B. Garage c. Driveway D.. SlPEWALX _ X. u-->lk E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN UY , . PLASTIC SHEETING 70 WIDTH X ?r* 2l'f . X /o - X . X 21 10 _ X X X X X G. O ther _ X Total H ardcover in Zone ■/I/3 ?9) 1^0 7Vr I/O /DO .F, ... (!) S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, (j) S.F^ S.F.(^ S.F. S.F. S,F. S.F. S.F. S ...6) ___________ S.F. ^1. 3-0 S.F. Total Property Area in Zone C22A B 21. la, X100 - J2‘9i2 —% cr>. i j l.i ; f I I (5^. e-3 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET^. E.’at 10/ D eck F. Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 1 Existing Hardcover in Zone • • A. House J-V” ’ X 3-75' 775-251^ 250-500' 500-1000' pGA/y __iV______• ■^^'2- S.F. LENGTH WIDTH • X S.F. X .• • S.F. m • X S.F. _ X SB S.F. B> Garage •7 ^ X 2*1 = rzsr S.F. c. D riveway X S.F. X :3 S.F. D.. Sidewalk X .S.F. X ,S.F. X .S.F. . X . X ...m BY , X PLASTIC SHEETING X « _ S.P, « . S.F. - C22.0 s.F.<S-<^(^i) M «. D thpb X « S.F. V. • • Total Hardcover in Zone ^l^XH S.F. ^ Total Property Area in Zone Zl, IbX. . S.F. |TI s iT 27^-L V inn - 2^.^ '% •p' S.F. S.F. aSim' t>. ■; .T^V-:| • :• • ' *' • * A. V . • > 1 ‘^Vr- ' tf*'*. 1 * * »• • % ’*•• . . . •{ •v^.V'-i*• \r'I r ^ K X ri ^ 2 v: eII ■X I ill 1 « ^ ^:V 1 ^ • '• • i > ♦ 0c r- 1 O u? j.iIQ O' 5 ai e 1 4^ "a i I 1 ■ • -t ■ <rr ^ i & i ■:r j <4 A •IX 4 ri r* T* o 3. <1 U lA « & e^-F-l .*. ‘4r; • -f-'v* • . > .*•• * . • *v*! .1V « • f(fe ••■ •» ✓ - 4* , i-> • ;• 4 I 0 8 Z >iX V. tC f>4 1/' 0a %* 3 3 I Oa 5 wu. •0 > U H ,4 »V M “ - ‘‘ »• “ “ “ I* II s • i ? i I p 1 “3- t\ N 4 < ft I VIr- b I oM 01 Ji r M X X K <(d S o 0 V ^h V? a 4<r ^ r> 4 d5 A •r T- *>. vS>- CD Xr ^ -> vJz .fi ..V'.* ■ . • / -r* • •••^ % • I *• ♦ ■ 1, e><M, r-z. i rr 'ft f A V : ' >4 m :'r^W' r ‘I .» •i ! IS. '. ( • p • « . • ^ # • # f • i-viv K • ! ‘i> •f* • • • ^ * # n.« . k ^ ' , , ’A Y' .Si Iv. ■ ^ lo'2 V.--o /V. ® % • r • « *» X I *• .» ^ . * •» 1 • . .. " ■ 11 I ^ v-j7i.x •I I*• / ' V i »! T) K, A: 3 • ‘I'l1 S=- * ^ •I' r!,»'•»• I ti IK fO ^ Lit - J ^ 4 'o JH 11’'''^ lilHJ—-i* r—“■IM 0.1 ^\w 1 r u 1 •» •* ■w ft '1 H" '•< M 4"^ Al|:: 4 V, « -.^ •».. I ' 2-2.3.' d’? The Muni.ci.paX Code of ^he City of Otono is amended by addino Ordinance No. 29» Second Series; Section I Orono Municipal Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G) is hereby repealed and the following language substituted in its place: U G. i) Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, Including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met.by the guest house. ii) Non-rental Guest Apartments. An apartment within the princip ’il residence structure on a lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. There shall be at least one access door to the apartmc?nv "from within the principal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment. Application for such a guest apartment shall address the concerns of parking, sewage treatment, entryway and interior access method. Such apartments shall not have utilities metered separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a separate street address. tl »• To:Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:May 16, 1990 Subject: #1513 Walter Krahl - 4775 North Shore Drive Variance - Second Review List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Revised Proposal (18" x 24" Plan) Revised Site Plan Revised Structural Hardcover Proposal Staff Review of Revised Hardcover Proposal Notice of Planning Commission Action-4/23/90 Memo Exhibits of 4/12/90 Discussion Applicant has submitted a revised plan which shows a reduction in the scope of the proposed additions. In general, the kitchen and dining room expansions are decreased, the additional half bath is eliminated, and the decks are less extensive. The garage is reduced from 24' x 24' to 20' X 22'. The master bedroom addition on the west end has not changed. The net result is that existing house/breezeway/garage structure (1700 s.f.) increases to 2369 s.f. rather than the 2639 s.f. originally proposed. Similarily, the size of the proposed deck areas has decreased substantially. As discussed at the last meeting, the applicant is not proposing to remove the areas of rock and plastic since those areas function to protect his house from run-off while providing a relatively attractive ground cover where vegetation probably would not thrive. The revised hardcover percentages are as follows: Existing 1st Plan Revised Allowed Plan 75-250'578 s.f. (54.8%) 5384 s.f. (51.0%) 5255 S.f. (49.7%) 2641 s.f. (25.0%) The current plan result*; in a net hardcover decrease of 5% from the existing situation. I I Zoning File #1513 May 16» 1990 Page 2 of 2 The final item to note ‘^at. in^tomparlsoj.^^^^^^ original proposal, ”® . existing residence, although fe'ohric^al\Tn'r “%^.ruScrfr^-L^\\"’^ re,ulnea street setback is still required. Staff RecoBBwndation ^r'o*X"’ «Ta”t°;ine JK*'ft Is PU^nX Commission options are as follows: 1. Approve revised plan as propose!, 75-250* hardcover of 49.7%. 2. Approve revised plan with additional conditions. ^ Table for further reductions. In tnxs event, please give applicant specific direction. 4, Recommend denial. 5. Other lev ♦ If ✓ / / / v/ i , G h. |03 (1, /SO”^ " &. a'S' '■ li.. ' 2-0 " 1 10 " B. " .. . . GUy' 5> id f Z to'*/2-' sia-r' du(a' 30^ 3^3^ &Q zp>iA s?,fr. ■p. 'va f. X.^15 K. 60 L. /ao *70 0/x;// 5q.^. s^.srr. 7x;//J6- s<^.rr. ST4/^to<i\y" i i. i:'i !- f * i: j» i; \ I: It t “STUcT, (i)^/iO Co 06/2. I jE.'Z.^^A*/ f)'^Wl.S ^ C^Afif^e Ck^o '/O^ qy/U C-S2>r^2C^^ /iD^ <s 52<^o/2.» zr /f /O -XfZ-- /20 T //O H •2-0x22-- vyo * 37C> ^'^><is/z.- -72-6^ 2,5^^ , 1 7 /09i^ ! i { I) e c*ii/W A*^*^ ^ I>e F % Y- L ^//s> V^/f Vx// <y X/2- /Kb LfZO /U.^A2AG^^^^ ^/2-9 P4-A^T7C_(/Ji> - ?3 /U0T« ! -r>«S fftS-iAiS /l^vAts^ /W ___ fllWC4<J<«' ^(MAwW-. ^U. I)-'2- '1-i <3 » I V'S'av '3oVd-anc ci'7Jvv» aa"3n i-tipl' ,•<•,• ;r.!(•''; .. W ••I ! t. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONING FILE NO. 1513 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 4/23/90 TO:Walter Krahl 4775 North Shore Mound, MN 55364 Drive COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance DATE OF MEETING: 4/16/90 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Coanission reconnends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below 2\ND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: General apparent concensus was that the proposed addition was "too ambitious ” for the lot, due to the lot constraints of topography and lot area. The high percentage of hardcover was obviously a concern. Rather than recommend denial. Planning Commission tabled the application to allow you time to consider whether you wish to revise your proposal. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission Monday, May 21, 1990; meecing starts at 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 Commission. To: Prom: Date: P2_annin5 Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Adminlstra**or Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Aost Planning & Zoning Administrator April 12, 1990 Subject: #1513 Walter Krahl, 4775 North Shore Drive - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover and street setback variances to construct addition to existing residence. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Application Plat Map Property Owners List n Survey with Existing Site Development Including^ Topography Existing and Proposed Site Plans Plan and Elevation Views of Proposed Addition Applicant's Hardcover Submittal Staff's Hardcover Review Pertinent Pacts - 1.Applicant proposes to construct an addition to his reLdence, which is located on a terrace level above a steep slope down to the lake. 2. All of the proposed construction is in the 75-250' setback zone. 3 The adiacent property to the west is owned by the City of S^onffor laL^ccess lanes, and there is no intent to place a residence on chat property. The air residence to the west in Minnetrista, apears photos to be approximately 70' from the shoreline. From those air photos, staff has determined that the proposed additions will not encroach past the average lakeshore set back line. 4 The aoolicant's property originally extended further J«thtS?d, b" the No?th Shore Drive resulted in loss of some property. 5. The existing house is approximately 22' from the street 1^ line, and the proposed addition at its closest point will be Approximately 23' from the street lot line. This « 12' variance from the 35' required street setback in the LR IB district. 7. Zoning File #1513 April 12, 1990 Page 2 of 3 6. This property is served by a driveway adjacent residence at 4755 North Shore Drive. While t driveway fraction of the hardcover will significantly decrease within applicant's property as a result of the addition, there appears to be adequate backup area available within the neighboring property to handle traffic from this residence. As an aside, note that while driveway the applicant may tend to increase hardcover on the neighbors property above that which would normally be necessary, the overall result is a relatively safe access with adequate parking area and probably less total hardcover than if each residence had its own access to the County Road. Staff has reviewed the hardcover on the property and found substantially mere rock and plastic hardcover applicant's surveyor. By staff calculation, exist nq 75 250 hardcover is 54.6%, and the proposed layout results in a reduction to 51.0%. In the 0-75' and proposed hardcover amounts to approximately 325 3.6%, consisting of stairway sections and a retaining wall. There appears to be substantial rock and plastic hards,over accounted for in staff's calculations that could be further removed without starting to limit the extent of the additions. Discussion - The proposed additions appear to mostly existing grades on the property. The house sits on a relatively flat te^rrace below the County Road, but «^the no work is proposed, slopes average 65», and obviously the existing stairways are needed for this 1°^^^°/®^® J®®®°Xeit access to the lakeshore. The extensive retaining walls southwest of the house are mostly on the City property. Those slopes are also somewhat limiting in that the c-xi^'-ing house generally have to run to the ”®fa rather than lakewerd to keep back from the slope. relatively small overall for this zoning district, being 0.45 acre in the 1 acre zone. The proposed master bedroom addition at the west end bhe house will be approximately 11.5' from the west lot line, meeting the required 10* setback. Zoning File #1513 April 12, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff Reconendation - If Planning Commission finds that the proposed net overall hardcover reduction is appropriate, and finds that the portion of the proposed addition encroaching into the street setback is no more obtrusive than the existing residence encroachment and finds that this lot will not be "overbuilt" with the added structure, then a recommendation for approval of these variances could be considered. Sunary of Variance Request - 1. Street setback of 23' where 35' is required. 2.Hardcover in excess of 25% in 75-250' zone, reduction from 54 8% to 51.0% is proposed. What additional reduction, if any, should be required? /b|3 CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATiq^^^* Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) rr-% '1 PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^ 7 7-^ //-T f r/u S^c^r 7~?y/tyy ■*< CITY OF DTm F INMICE OFFICE ^^^^^ofcEN 175.00 ^WcEIPT^THm^^Oh^ tt172320 cool Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Ol-/l7~<^'^ OOJtS Attach legal description to application if not Included on required survey. APPLICANT Name /.L'i. rT:'%6 Address: ^/yrr' Sr'f.fe Pf/t'£ City: rO/^f YT) Phone (home) _ _ Phone (wor)c)N:^-^ 'CCC^ _ _ Zip; ■ A</- ^(oOl OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home); ^ Name .V;‘ .lFr>l (CA^r Phone (worJc) Address:City:Zips Date Property Acquired /^PR/L (month/year) I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District ^13 Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ //^f^ Describe request in detail: S^ee"/ 2. of 2. VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback Variances ( A_ Peont Hardcover Side _ __ Rear) Other # t BLARX)SHIP ^ 9 ' •kw*A'»Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting'^m strict enforcement of zoning regulations: /nr /f-jrJcpup.r exceed^ doatr. _ DESCRIPTION OP ONDSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: Pn-^por'i ’t/' l^c2~f/no fs ^a~fu)een mne'f.'ifit* ^ C^na/rfr' R4 on v(>t^ j-jiap o'•_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ 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 Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. SJcetches or plans of floor and elevation views. 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. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11" X 17'' OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if_the— <nfonBatlon has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by 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 consultant expenses Incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the informat on supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her Jcnowledge. Applicant's Signature v —/icd/f_____________ Date ------------ OWNERS SIGNATURE ^ The owner hereby aclcowledges 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 v ^aijk'6. _ _ AppIicant’musVhlve all submlttiLls 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 Buxlding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ! /' Tl A__L.—1 *§A 4" A* Aji A ^ I MAR 23 ' 90,08:25 CITI2EN-5ICLL CO. ^T7Al: fltiiKs' P. 1/2 J?/l ..</:rrXj^ -J.i-el_^/i/*frjrarA y4it4‘/ •Su/fi/Ayaal ^4/.St--------------------------- C(jyf!44/r .^/rr/f JryhiiD. z/'-r^-rdAfr /.od y/( % * < •••..SueA CAf/^fro a/ Acer's cr ^ o/ /^relcoutr ca/cofd-//dO ‘ ^ -^/OO =r /o^ ■ /^CPOS£D /^XD Cdl/y/? ^ of ^sriit'^couBr c.a fco/ai’/c'i • 3tJf% yeAfTlfO*/S oswr/oMs : i ,4 - / 'x //^ -IZT- o?j - /97.S' 3 - y' < -y jrwt flro/i JiAPUAJAY - /o g C - /ft /oy.^ (g' ^ X ^ TM ¥' Kf' ^ Jd. D- /9't //'^/^Af/0 <Ao')(cfy^-- y/c /9‘a 3i/^'-cA ?Y.y B oat Pav /o*x /^*if /66 3- /9'ky'->> .7(p UPl^yuJA Y 'a /(a '- o^-/^^ (J - (p* K r /a //cty. s'^f)’- //- (pU /7' ^/(> JL 99/ (f/)^ a /P'y Papocffay : ogtd. /pt*Koca\/A^ A.Y/d7 f?)*' ^AafaUP SrspcmA/^rj<r (f/)H 3, 9 9J. s' fT/j ^ » BXoPpSffB tPAPDCoYdtP r h r-,••• * - r *f\’* %'•• V • .•^.* i-•••. ••■* • ^ I .M.I£>e',9E S v'.v^.S- -.7 T 6£’92l /xorjdoi IS3M 3HX JO 3Nn 1SV3j / / • • . , ' II O'U I 099 — !ik 4|//i rr^/z ; I. If "A s A\'W' lilljly'. '''I'll/I I ’. r*. I •«r •*. / i<-.. Z/JL\ 'T- $ Kj / 1 I !h%\ / ///;; / ,//;< ii11'ml '-.ji I •*.'/ h I 'll! \ I III H I I II \ / I I I I I iKJ I I hSLi / / / \ ‘II'I / •% / J5 /''I'l'iK.i • I i \ o. r> . { ■*' ■ * . I r..Ei^cnsTnxiii-Ci i 'lii ('f. t\.'- ■ % Mm * k ?•t !)• ________I n.I r y \ ■ U 5- .-r,::T - V» t- «- fj ^lArcrg ••• : ;.! 3 • I 5^:k.?{»;; M/p:**;* -i- rn"-' trr* . :?• - ■ / . * i i$^:. ' '• i- I i. TTr • >*■. • • .* »- • • * •* • -■** ! - • . ' V - i i • . •» •• ; M ■ • j>>‘«l ^ * I • • f I .. i *:• 1 *;• . T .7l:?*f, w.* : ^' 1 ••:;f 1 '.i Si T‘v' . • *• •• »i * • ^ u •'•- ‘ r-' \ ■■ ^ ^ :vif ^ ^ K ■» i ru;ii ^ 0T r ^ , -2: .ii 11'* i »• , *4^ ■~‘ o'’inrPlInniM*ComisSon’'Mei«bers ?I?;°Mi!nls??ator Bernhardson «««t Planning s zoning Administrator Michael P. oafiron. Asst planning 16 X9 9 0Date. "«y i"' „,,alle - 2505 Dunwoody Avenue - *. 11522 James and JoAnn Nordlie subject. . publio Hearing ,.^„tial, . district - I.H-1C. Single iamily laKeshore residential. Zonin'^ District 1/2 acre, sewered „,^iance to construct room , R.ouest for hardcover variance *‘’*’^Vd*dition’to existing residence List of Exhibits iS i ■- SS--" Acknowledgement Forms SS i: iEB«etr= Pertinent Facts - ^ entryway 1- ->■^»■>^““r^ki^crn'txranrirnrrl ’ds Ve ovlV etrsfint uTlT To-TbI) increase in hardcover. Hardcover is as follows. ProposedExisting Allowed 0-75' T47~.20.74t)* 75-250’ 8328 ®, c *554%) No Change 250-500' 1U4 s.f.( • varies slightly from .Staff calculation of bardcover_tra. nardcover Increase appear applicants calculation. to be 147 B.f. o . pertinent setback 3. The proposed addition meets all P requirements. n Zoning File #1522 May 16, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Discussion Please review the applicants Letter of Request. They are rolueltinra hardcover variance to construct a minor to the residence. Hardcover is proposeo to increase slightly after removals of excess sidewalk area. With all setback and "lot coverage by requirements being met, the issue whether additio^^ hardcover removals should occur to result in no net ip£^^ s Set decrease in hardcover on the property. “ appeaFThat the—ost likely candidate ;?°"itkina area ?he fairly substantial blacktop driveway and are^ The major portions of driveway are within the 75 250 Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should consider whether J; hardcover removals are necessary in any recommendation for approval. Options are as follows; “tr^SaiUoial removals to yield no 3. SeLJISenrappro5al®*ba®sed on reduction of hardcover to 4. Recommend^denial, list specific reasons. 5. Other Isv i i I I I CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) 9m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mmt mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ^m mm mm mm mm mm PROPERTY LOCATION Sit:e Address i* ^ O /w /O CITY CF DRW OFFICE1 » mcror, »'pt)rts iTvw'v wv 7:24 04/12/90 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) zo-n'»-t.**> z.i-ooi'j Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Phone (home)APPLICANT Name UotMLn.____________ Phone (wor)c) S:n-Z*)S‘i Address:____2.54^5* AotuuL. City; /^tauo________ zip; £7335/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Neune ^S.«A«ie—. Phone (home) Phone (wor)c) Address;_ City;Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT DSE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property S mJOtXjr/'A/in,'/Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 1 z,OCO. Descrioe request in detail; VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area Setbac)c Variances ( Other Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) I I HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP ONOSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ . 2. 3. 4. REQOIRED 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). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existin'^ and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are propos»^d. SJcetches or plans of floor and elevation views. 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. 5. 6. 7. 8. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (ll" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above infonaation has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Appl i i complete Initialed by Clerical Staff:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator/ agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application/ and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date H 10 OWNBRS SIGNATORB 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 UL Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held cm the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled jfeview 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. hhk -wT*’' ^•SUOTC^':- I i i in4 M KEN ROELOFS CONSTRUCTION INC. 1650SHADYWOOD ROAD / WAYZATA.MN55391 / PHONE: 471*8390 PROJECT SUMMARY for Jim and JoAnn Nor 2S0S Dunwoody Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 O ci r-W /S^’4 The design problem In this project Is to eliminate confusion and Improve the sense of arrival for the Nordlle home. Two doors In the same elevation, with two large concrete stairways provide the public face for the home. The design solution Is an addition within the existing footprint of the building providing a single entry that will serve both family and guests. The addition provides for much-needed foyer space and entry closet storage. The primary entry area Is approximately 24 laches lower than the existing main floor to lessen the massive concrete stairway while maintaining the existing roof j_ine. Some sidewalk revision will be made to accommodate the new entry. Unnecessary pavers and concrete will be removed yielding as much green area as is possible. This request is for an increase In the hard cover allowance in the 75» _ 250' zone. Although the addition has about 320 sq. ft. of floor space and 100 sq. ft. of concr-te step, existing hard cover in the area of the addition and proposec' sidewalk revisions yield a net Increase of hard cover In the amount of approximately 105 sq. ft. Based upon survey data, this would Increase the hard cover in the zone from the existing 8328 sq. ft. (38.07*/.) to 8457 sq. ft. (38.55%). We would further request that this matter be considered at the earliest possible date by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Contracts and Specifications were drawn and work was proposed to begin on or about A,il 1, 1990 without the knowledge that this process needed to be workfcu through. Several specaal oj.der Items are in process and will need to be warehoused at some expense as this process unfolds. Timely consideration and action that would grant a start date one or two weeks earlier would be a great help. Mr. and Mrs. Nordlle and our firm are ready to do whatever we can to this end. Thank you for your consideration on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Nordlle. Sincerely, Gerald L. Roelofs KEN ROELOFS CONSTRUCTION, INC. GLR/mr I VI r* 9 9 J1 Adjacent Property Owners* Aticnowl^dgeBentr' I (we) (\TMg/ [print name'(s)r [print address] / have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at I.SQT' flUN U)OC>dV. also referred to as Land Use Application No. _____. I (we) understand that in executing this ac)cnowled9ement, I (we) am (are) not as)ced to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. Date7/ If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. I (we)m\es> -it /f jXL __/ / iuljacttst Property Owner** ^cluai^adgtMif't J 6tJ ht name (an have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at Application No. _ _ _. 7 I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. i %. os ♦ Ma. s| i z UJ V) s M V- (/) M UJna ui & S 5 Q. M St lit O Ns _ o > <3 ^ X X p Ifj «G lu UJ _ < Kl X 2: No z Z ^p o 9 ^ < Kl O ^ «J CM Z ? SqS3r o > 0• ^ ^ ^ Jjo o o cu t o s u < A ^ ^ lA Nslis^i lls rM UJ UJ <^ CM > ^ > lA < lA lA>fA _•M X A «I z <K S «• UJ i-l _ •-• « _ i 2*S2 ~!Q-'£«2 <r S*aS| lA O -) -> CM I CA (/I 3 < O Oh* CM lA (A (AO UJ UI to N flO (tj § ^ S < »A O n “> CM Z S.^IS A CM 9 j lA O CM z UJ «« z a o 3 X o O Z UJ < < > N Oooo Aoo Xi sh* 2-; X < Ml|lia O h- « l->.X < X UJ X ^ UJ X Hu a.ui a tL.M X o o t<Sfk fs f .. * 4 ‘ • . • *, ’ '■ . :‘-r* , •.r, 'i. ( ■ f I * 1. i-.: > * ,« * It. .|t. : •■ I • I vr t i' '' ;*!■!t • 1:. -t* • ■ i ft s •*■ .N \ X .;?•'/■ 'i- i Si„ !Vi V-■V • I ’■' wi’ Hi- .?».V' ‘V- r/M/s;*-■m ■:i'-y .I* ‘-•A •;v io / V ti.h V y A n*. ^ . -. r»‘ ri !'ft^" ■!!t/.M A .r ,M j ! -J*'! ■■ >%u^ cs:e®s u4-^ujx: 3 V)t— c7)c — H ooo > u-oa: ♦-» o ae c ai wo D iic-wc Co - u . »• I'liti. ' • •*! » ' •*. ?s^' ;’■; ,.. i-irCfeisiiw• I a2>;: ww 3 CO *ls <! i !i^ 4. 01 (D > %-J • , U C OJ 1^ - W— C O "?r‘r- > .' i r O ' p—•>cnw.5°: 5/j ass i >N OJ'gw o ^il ■m * *i}(\J in in , * • '!< kSllfiS ®°; *' i is tJli'iiS ^'1 'SS fes Sii owej M Tl {' . t i« 1': • I ' 1i ; I .1. !. ‘-V. li V‘IP». if:! ' t *|* V ‘‘I I t i!lu-.,il ‘ • »;>'• 1 I* ;♦ 11 ll ■ • ':|!,f g: A ; ••:•: ’ > i -if * */. r ' ■ t '.V i U ii' IMS!lli ■'I •I •l‘l‘v’ •. P*^ ; tni :m t'• !■ I ifii• f !-‘5i r * ’{ .^,- tv 'i:-iv u)f- irf ■'Mm • *::•' .*t. V v:^ I. ?•ik ■s*M ;•• IKK- »f i?-?! ilfeiwf*!*! , ^ *!; r3v|^« m f rJ>!^^;ilr|} /iiiiSli:; t. |. i* ^ ■ V® k ‘ ; I « :|i- Si .f*' v*.i-:ii.; M VJ.'- >■ dlLiliJt&iML • • I #1 t !»1*l lii;m - f ii 'm.. \ -•‘M 'T?i‘ •' r- f MrHVi ■i li!i ' :4v;'-* m i )!i: f >m _ 7S^iSO/oc ^ se/^*ct w riiiilfilfj ■ ffi I i:'f;!:5kiir A 4-1^ ffi • s • > ■ 'I • i -• ••*'P \^A\rr:t A. . ' I?, .;: >, r ■/c. m • ^ H.f W7r:r777777777 V ZJk.V ^ if' Viv ;,• ;S 'Wi' V ‘V' // • f V*./ vV.i i: !i‘<:. J. ;:■«•' /7i.». > ^TT. v.»'V-.-^.' v-iv»V ^’«-^- ? X:'-. li III r> UJ^ 'n i>' -*t, ••V j L/;*; 1 i» •jr •' *» * • •-VC- . .. . ..- . •. . -v "**■ • • •• ^ .“*’ IL.o .-•»*• I . . “• «/C.1 • ~*n • “• K - -* • .. . . • ’ ___________ i' •^aV vii^ -•• Oi r — *0 -.t • *. / ) .'tf‘lit’ ‘ - ••• ^ Ml v« ■•’ " ■'* •.'»•• • •• "*• ••••••• TV* tr'K’.'.i-'trtR'il'KRr • *«'' *■* ^ • ' Vm ^ k ♦ .{!.■ J^ r-,..^{ . . !.;h "t-.v)[r;|r IIzd;|iI i^x «*«-•»> 'PPnpfPiklMi fi,*mm •••••• • i I' i, } . HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK zone: (CIRCLE’ONE) 0-75' 75-250' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. ■ House B. Garage . c. Driveway E. Patio/ Deck ' F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY t PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other LENGTH WIDTH ' X _ _ _ _ 0.. Sidewalk • X X X t 4>b(> ------1 X X X X X X X X Total H ardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone ____•= 50-500') 500-1000' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. s!f. S.F. 1_ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ______________S.F. S.F.B B X 100 1 *». .• ••• ••mm mm • V mm m^mm mmm» • • HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE'ONE) 0-75' ^75-250^ 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. ' House LENGTH A /•7 '//.s B. Garage it-o.z i40 c. Driveway D.. Sidewalk • S-Z E. Patio/ Deck ^•3 .. ^ F.LAUDCGAfiE TC,Q,ri<t, AREA* 10 WDEBUVfN •B¥. , . SHSETItIG /.Z on f. G. Other X X X - X X X X X X X X 3Z.^ WIDTH /?. r"s_ /sta.s s.fTA^ I — I7o.o .. io.2. 2SZ.9 S.F. s.F. )>■ 2SZS I I S.F. 49^,4- 2 4-.Z /<?5 _ S.Fj, l£____ S.F_^ /^^«f X _s.F. _______ S.F. 32. S s.F. • s.F. 3.^M.7 s.F. ^4*/ ZI.U L.fi 7^9.4 LP. 93 . ... ^S4--3 N < /4.7> S.F.J ’^*^'^'^ 32.4_________ s.F. 3$.3> s.F. . s.F S.F. S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone 12 32 if s.F. S.F.B S32^ - m z\tl^X 100 3S.07 % /?DI>JT70 a /A<- /y/»«epa>i/rfa_ - }0^sf. ^3.384 ^ • • •••• » • V UT S, 7V/!uiK/‘/rf Uuatju CALCULATION HORKSHEET. ■ * SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE' ONE) T5-: Existing H ardcover in Zone /^O^COFf A. ’ H ouse LENGTH 1 X _ X B. Garage . c. Driveway D.. Sidewalk i E. Patio / .Deck • ^ ••• • *• TiTZf IC5 0 »ICCT»t» 12ipeap ^e*!* walls G. Other ___________X 7 . K •v^ X WIDTH - X _ - X _ - X _ _ X _ - X _ - X _ - X _ _ X _ « _ X _ F.Landscape x — AREAS UMP6BUW • ----------------------A |Z^ ■0.6 Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone 20 500-1000' « • S.F. S.F. • • S.F.jT :7- • S.F.1 .1 S.F, • ... % '-.j: S.F. ■•«- .'..S' 0 » ■y; \ . S.F. • m • S.F. • • • S.F,' •• 1 • S.F. * ^ • • • • « S.F. « • S.F. •• S.F. S.F. ft • • * • * • • S.F. • */ar c»u*^TfO ) S.F. AS ii-23 23(5 S.F. S.F. S.Fb (230 ^ — [j1 - X 100 « ■ ^ ^o. mm »m •••• t • V i p ? II ' I 2 Ji w 7. -4 f J yuJ 2 5; C A o O 1 Ej«H>s/^i*rnosA ____ 'ilM'O ,-■ I \^I T^ -r^tr IL // TO:Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Conunission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator May 16, 1990 Subject: #1523 Rolla Martin Variance - Public Hearing - 2675 Shadywood Road - Request to Table f^® selling his house, and requests tabling of h_s request until his future plans are confirmed. Isv L To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson )0- Prom: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 17, 1990 Subject: #1524 Trinity Lutheran Church, 2060 6th Avenue North- Conditional Use Permit -- Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.28, Subdivision 3 - Conditional use permit required for pre-school use within Trinity Lutheran Church. 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 Site Plan Floor Plan Applicant's Statement Regarding Use of Playground Area Background on Applicant Information on Trinity Preschool Operation Review of Application - The applicant. Trinity Preschool, represented by its director, Wesley Ann Hallquist, seeks a conditional use permit for a preschool program consisting of 30 pre-schoolers and 5 staff members, consisting of the director, teacher, assistant teacher, and 2 aides. The preschool will operate Monday through Friday mornings from 9:15 a.m. to 11:45 a.m., offering 2 p-*ograms of schedules (2 day and 3 day). The preschool will be located in approximately 1,057 s.T. of classroom area within the Trinity Lutheran Church comple If Members have not been out to the church site since all of the improvements have been installed, we recommend a visit to this site. The only area not completed as of this date is the former playground area to the rear of the church. This area will serve as the playground area for the preschool and should be ready by the September opening. Please review Exhibit F, staff has asked Mrs. Hallquist to provj de further information regarding use of the playground area. If you will remember during the early review of the church conditional use permit, staff called attention to the fact that the area was not fenced. The specific ordinances sections states only that a play area must bo fenced if it is within 15' of a street area (review Exhibit D). This sped lie playground area is located to the rear of the property. ms Mrs. Hallquist's comments note, there will be 2 adult supervisors out at one time to supervise 15 preschoolers. Zoning File #1524 May 17, 1990 Page 2 of 2 There is clearly adequate parking space, school room space and space in play area to support the current preschool. In fact, it is staff's recommendation that this conditional use permit be Issued based on a preschool program for either a hair day or full day schedule. If there is an expansion to day care or a latch key program connected with the Orono schools, staff would ask that a new conditional use permit be required. The applicant has submitted a conprehensive package on the preschool operation. Mrs. Hallquist welcomes any questions members may have concerning the operation. Staff Recoofliendation - To grant approval of a conditional use permit for Trinity Preschool to be located at the Trinity Lutheran Church located at 2060 Sixth Avenue North, finding all pertinents sections of the code have been satisfied by the applicant. Such approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This application is approved for a preschool use either for half day or full day schedules. Any expansion into day care or a latch key type program connected to the local school district would be subject to approval of a new conditional use permit. 2. As outdoor play area is not fenced, the City must ask that a 2-staff/15-student ratio be m«intained during outdoor play/recreation sessions. ■ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2060 6th Avenue N», Long Lake, MN ff CITY OP ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATIO^LU ^ rijy nrMm ir- - - - -Iw Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ?8 27-118-23 ?1 OOP^^jotBy^ ft A iVvi ^ 4 Cr * ■ VI)‘>/24/9u Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ikPPT.T Phone (home)AJrir X Name Trinity Preschool Phone (work) Address 20^0 6th Avenue N.Citv r.pnp- T«Ve Zio OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Trlnltv Luthern ChiiT^rh Phone (home) Phone Address 2060 6th Avenue N.Citv Lonpc Lake Zio Date Prooertv Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL DSE 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 X $150.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _ _ _ _ $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _ _ _ _ $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _ _ _ _ $25u.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _ _ _ _ $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain -------- Grading and filling - 101 c- yd. or more , ^ ^ ^ "" Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore _ _ _ PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS _ _ _ _ $200.0 $250.00 $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation $175.00 casement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $250.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule OSS OP .. ’’resent Mstrlct ’’resent Ose of ^^operty “SSC ript ;"----^-----------------_ other ^®scribe ^ -’etsii. ®?f ’'’entlal Applicant-e ,i„„ Signature ' _______ f^®nts, "°’"i«d9es and ------ ^nvestlo*Js®®"*is8ion" ®^try on*-o to thY<» ^«tlon and veri' an5® Property h.f application ®*'”®r ’s sv_ i®3tion of thf ®taff further ------------f5"”“rec:^/7 -. . requesi. """’“ers f or ' f”"®"’tent!f 9o e # 3 ’ I J 1 1 B \/ / I ^ ^ ^... T- • j I I 11 "■"'—T—:1 r i *I 1 1 i 1 I m II Sii •4JSj • ti I i M i£ ?S .;: w *-=^S'5 3SI ill s Hj-nu 3 «s ^•2■ t *0 i««2 « oC M ■ Ul t’SST# ^ .f___« #15^4 e There are no plans at this tine for a fornal outdoor play area to be established at Trirdty Preschool, The Tepartaent of Hunan 'Services licensing Hequirenents for Child Car« centers section 9503,0155 subp, 7 does not require programs operating for less than three hours to provide an outdoor activity area, "e are offering a hour program. The preschool will be open from nid-Oeptenber through nid-*'ay. This really gives us very little tine for good outdoor play v/eatl’.er for the preschool age child, '..'e will tal<e the children outj weather pemittingj to the area located Just behind the church (northwest area). Trinity Church sets back from the road and our outdoor area is privately secluded behind tlia church. There will be only fifteen children outdoors at any one tine. There will be two staff nenbers superviving at all tines, (The state requires a ratio of 2:20, ’.'e will aaintain a ratio ox' 2:15,' -he safety a.nd well being of t:'.e children is our ton priority. TRINITY M S' PRESCHOOL My objective at Trinity Preschool it to provide the preschool &fte child a variety of opportunities to explore, learn, and create in a warm and se%‘:ure atmosphere which will lay the foundation for c. life time of learnlnp;. My quallflcatl.ons meet the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Human Services Licensing Requirements for Child Care Centers sect. 9503»0031 and 9503*0032. My educational background is a B.S. degree in Home Economics with an area of concentration in Child Development and Family Living. I completed a minimum of 15 hours per year of workshops and/or seminars in the field of Early Childhood Education in 1987, 1988, and 1989. Briefly, my background experience Includea- -Worklng with young children in Georgetown, Ky., in the mountains of Appalachia, Ky., on the Seminole Indian Reservation, in Palatine, II., and in Barrington, II. -Preschool teacher -Conducted workshops in the field of Early Childhood Development -Preschool board member -Summer camp coordinator -A number of volunteer positions in both public and private schools I'hen Trinity Preschool has a full licensed capacity enrollment the at-.ff will Include the director, a teacher, an assistant teacher, and two aides. All Jtaff members will meet state requirements for their position as found in the Minnesota Department of Human Services Licensing Requirements for Child Care Centers sect. 95^3*0031. 9503*0032, 9503*0033* or 9503*0034. SJ Ticerely, Wesle^ Ann Kallquist Director i rtf ’ 1 r . f • '' INFORMATXON Trinity Preschool will serve 30 preschoolers per session. A preschooler is a child who is at least 33 months of age, but who ha?» not yet attended the first day of kindergarten. The child must be toilet trained to enter the program. We offer 2 - day and 3 - day programs, Monday through Friday morning from 9tl5 am to lli45 am. Trinity Preschool is a non-profit, non-denominational preschool. We provide a variety of opportunities to explore, grow, learn, and create. It is our intention to provide a warm, secure atmosphere for each child to participate in activities whi-’h will help him develop as an individual and to relate to other children within his peer group. Parents may review the Trinity Preschool Child Care Program Plan at any time. A request to do so should be directed to the director of the program. QRIENTATIOH - A special orientation day is planned for children and parents before the first day of school. Children, parents, and teachers will meet to get acquainted, become familiar with the classrooms and participate in a mini-day together. CONFETENCES - Parent conferences at regularly scheduled in the fall and i77rr“g to discuss a child's intellectual, physical, social, and emotional development. A conference may be arranged at any time during the school year. IWSUP.\NCE - The school is covered by a comprehensive general liability insurance through Atlantic Mutual. HEALTH RECORDS - A health care summary and an immunization record must be submitted to v.he school prior to the child starting in our program. SICK CHILDREN - To ensur.4 the health of all our children, we ask you to keep your child home if he or rhe exhibits any of the followlngi coughlng, running nose, vomiting, or any infectious conditions. A child who has been sick should be free of fever for 24 hours before returning to school. If a child becomes ill while at school, the child iRe other children. A parent, or parent cannot be reached, will be ''ok v41 ^ hechild. A staff member will remain with the sick child until he is picked up. All cases of communicable illness, lice, scabies, impetigo, ringworm, or chicken pox are to be reported to the school within 24 hours of the onset of the illness. Notices will be Issued to all parents regarding the communicable illness, date of exposure, signs of illness to watch for, and precautions. EMERGENCIES - Up to date emergency information will be required of all parents throughout the school year. This includes phone numbers of both parents, doctors, and emergency friends. For minor injuries, a staff person will provide first aid and the parent will be notified. For a more than minor incident, a staff person will provide first aid, 911 will be called and the child's parents will be contacted. Emergency numbers are posted above the preschool phone in the preschool office. liiiTrLnecessary. A first aid kit and manual are kept in the preschool office. MEDICATION - We do not administer any oral or surface medications. A minor wound will be cleaned with water and bandaged. a;.\“'s"Vr.7 to rhrir'chUd?“s"vr:;'’o°/Vpe;ac" Jiu llTu-Vn only under the direction of the Poison Control Center. ;a/cYn«Von"“/ field trip must be signed by the parent and ^ , before the child can be allowed to participate in the field r p. RESEARCH. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES, PUBLIC RELATIO^ ‘ arantiM provided for parents to sign and return to the school granting permission for research, experimental procedures, or public relation activity involving a child. SNACKS - The Children will be provided with a Snacks will be provided by the school or by a Snack Mom. Any snack or t^iJ from home must be commercially prepared. Birthday treats are 1111,,,. %. SJJcoura,. such a, candy, ,u., c.k.3, and cupcakaa. r t i fETS - He do not keep pets at echool. He nay have a pet visit (rom tine to tine. oaqpMTS VISITATION - Parents of enrolled children may yislt Trinity HMChool t^e dutin, the hours of operation. If there la a ar-rieular activity or event which you are interested in cbserving, you «U the scSool and oheok to see -hen you should visit. Please ch^::k in with the director when you arrive. nop<?.<?TNr. POR SCHOOL - Both creative art and large “Otor activities are ~Z—intearal cart o£ our daily sessions. Children should come dressed In wrshable play clothes that can be worn without fear of being stained Purina art experiences. The school provides smocks and teachers are watchful, but paint sometimes, somehow finds its way to clothing during enthusiastic creative art. Shoes with soles fj; good traction are recommended for school, because o- the dai y >- y involving climbing, jumping, and use of stairs. PPGISTRATION - Registration is done on a first come, first serve basis. ^eturl?ng-^ildren are given first opportunity for J 525.00 non-refundable registration fee must accompany the application form. TUITION - Tuition Is dlvld.d into eight (8) equal ^ “e tS; 15th of each .onth. He do not give refunds for Illness, vacations, or withdrawal. Tuition for 2 days/week is S Tuition for 3 days/week is S per month. jper month. -ITHDk.HkL -^T-o^ He^ejt !u!. s To: FroiLt Date: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator May 15, 1990 Subject: 11525 William and Joan Wroblewskl - 630 Park Lane Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover variance to construct concrete slab porch 1* above grade Iiist of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Pertinent Facts - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Letter of Request Construction Plans Photographs Hardship/Unusual Property Conditions Applicants Haidcover Calculation Staff Hardcover Calculation and Sketch 1. Hardcover is as follows: (All 75-250' Zone) Existing: 4897 s.f. (49%) Proposed: 4561 s.f. (45.6%) Allowed: 2500 s.f. (25%) 2. The proposed grade level concrete patio Is considered a non-encroachment in the front yard, and does not need to meet the normal 35* setback for the LR-IB Zone. The applicants indicate that there will be no structure above the concrete slab. No railing is proposed. 3. The proposed slab is above an area of existing rock and plastic hardcover and existing sidewalk, hence the porch slab will not increase hardcover on the property, although it is a change in nature oi haic.cover on the property. lote that the applicant proposes to remove 336 s.f. of hardcover west of the garage, resulting in a net decrease of hardcover on the property. Zoning File #1525 May 15, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Discussion Please review the applicants photographs and statement of hardship and unusual property conditions. This is an extremely small lot. The proposed porch slab in conjunction with removal of other hardcover on the property, would appear to yield a positive result and a decrease in hardcover on the property. It would seem possible that there are other areas of roch and plastic that could similarily be removed. Other than the rock and plastic areas, the only other areas of hardcover which could be removed fairly easily are the brick sidewalks. However, the sidewalks appear to be necessary and would not reduce hardcover significantly if they were narrowed from 4' to 3'. Staff Recomendation - If Planning Commission feels that the proposed hardcover reduction and the small size of the lot justify the hardcover variance to allow addition of a permanent concrete slab porch, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Isv CITY OP OROHO - VARIANCE APPLICAT;i Initial Application Fee $175 ($50.00 per each additional Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address (^30 PAi'^k' Lfiine. 1cmW ORi^ OFFICE idZV2VVViM Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0^*~ \ 4'^ OO/^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT = MlNam Phone (home) ‘^T3-3/9.Z OcAAi M» Phone (woric) ^2. U Address; LCity; Zip; OWNER (if different than applicant) Neune _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City;Zip: Date Property Acquired \-JudC. . _ _ _ _ _ I (do) C^o not^ also own the adjacent parcels of land PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY (month/year) VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other _ _ Lot Width Front X Hardcover Side Rear) HARDSHIPDescribe undue hardship or practical diffic^ty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations:__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _. — DBSCRIPTIOH OP DNUSOAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements r_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _— — REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1.^ Completed Application Form ^ ui. • 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.' Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). IT Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. 5^ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6., SJcetches or plans of floor and elevation views. 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. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR_ _ A WORKING COPY (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) POR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete—if—the— Information has not been included. __ Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by Clerical Staff_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE , The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additiona- fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the his/her Jcnowledge. Applicant's Signature - - - - - - - Date -— OWNERS SIGNATURE j The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this f, authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes o.. investiga tion and verification of this re^Mt. owner's Signature _ _ Date _ _ __ __ _mm mm mm mm •• mm mm ^m mm mm mm mm mm ^m mm ^m 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. V Lt. t (15) «** (90) :*1 (92) a "a'* • 5 a- '« -r.Q * f (97) a ’ '” t>^ si^ *” »71 OAK ST ^ K 10'. ife\1 .\' B .'II9.M / fc : '* (96)* '‘s** 125 n : 130.9e •14 S «ia, * \ r ■w. ■% "I / \ / / \ • y • m L I I Ui >0 ui U1 i^£ rH 2 O P Kl - i-t a X X uj V >>MJS vO UJ UI < -J o 1-4 -I (k O Z Z Q ^ <t < r4 ^ P O h- H O O to O P P 'O ^ <ooo r-l K» M K M •H O %M V} o»o o p o Kl O oc ac u' y i -i O£Si S5 X X < < X X M r4 45 p ‘s !s ►- Xo M ^ Xm Z;sg P •j ~J U) o < O X H O UJo < XXX eg §;s -J K»o in X p ?Siii£ K M UJ UJ K r-l X X X UJ UJ X XI -O o P P Z ia iii p o ^ ^ N1 O “7 “> 'O I! iniHoo SS£2 M U. U. Z P o ^ O Kc g> p oP o ps X z p p p 85 X < X •a p p X S X X u M X X p p p p p mJ p < -J si p -I ppo 0 r-l PVg K < iH X »H 1 Po P o P o h- X p Q °5 §g<^ u. O p I- > < I- ►- M P U s M< X p po p p p p nvi p I- p p \ p p X eg >-• \ p p iH Oo .J p M X I X f". < »H a iH Po o p p P o P o i p -i mS i!iiago p p p p -<5 £ P P n £ S S < < •J «a M X ^ O p -j o z M P O Z Z P -i Surve' ci>3o Lillie, /-0/U(S /»f j rof s Hinn«tonka Hlchlands Sstutea Honnepin County, Minnesota Curtiflratd of Survey: T hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: ^ That part of Cutlot 3| Minnetonka Highlands EstatesJ lying within the follovring-described tract: That party of Govermuant Lot 1, Section 6, Tounship 117 tiorth, Range 2? West of tl»o 5th Principal Meridian, describe' as follows: Cocraencing at a point in the Easterly lino of Park Avenue as platted in "Hinnetonita Sucndt Park" distant 63 feet Southeasterly, measiurod alon^ said Line, from the Southwest corner of Lot 12, Block 9, said Addition, which point is marked by a judicial landmark; thence East 59.2 feet on a line at right angles with the Sast line of said Lot 1 to a point marked by judicial land mark; thence South at right angles 142.9 feet to a point mrked by judicial landmark; thence South 72®32' V/est a distance of 4.38 feet to a point marked by judicial lundrrark; thence deflecting to the right 46°43' a distance of 98 feet to a point In the Easterly line of said street, which point is marknd by judicial landmark; thence de flecting to the right 78°3C along the Easterly line of said Park Avenue a distance of IGl feet to the point of beginning, which point is marked by judicial landmark; ^ That part of Outlet 3, Minnetonka Highlands Estates, lying within the following described tract: That part of Government Lot 1, ! Section 6, Township 117, Range 23, descril^ed as commencing at a point on the East line of said Govemiaent Lot 1, distant 1312 feet South from tne Northeast comer of said Covernnunt Lot 1; thence West, at right angles to said East line, 611 feet to the East erly line of Park Avenue, as said avenue is showT. on the plat of "Mlnnetonica Summit Park"; thence Southwesterly alcng the Easterly line of said Park Avenue a distance of 63 feet to the actual point of beg5jir.lntf, which ooint is narked by u Judicial Landautrk sec pursuant to Torrens Case No. 11977; thence East along a line perpendicular to the East line of said Government Lot 1 a distanco of 59.2 feet, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 11977; thence North at a fight angle 10 feet; thence West at a right angle to the Easterlv line of said Park Avenue; thence Southwesterlv along said Saaterly line to the point of beginning. And the location of all existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to show other improvements or encroachments. Scale: 1** = 40» Date : 8-1C--76 o : Iron marker O : Judicial landmark G^on R. Coffin 6064 Land Surveyor and Planner Lonj Lake, Minnesota #1 L‘ - N /\fnl Z^,/99o 0^.^, oj/x>lJejt/^^i^' • ' G3o <prtr< 1a) n.^ LaJ^e^ VW 0 PXt> CG-117-7,3oo di,^ ef Oro^o (/t€, CurreAT por<jA A I 3y2.Pt->tZ3ff- 60e a. »■* ft*-'' {jje%if dVi ^'{j«5i«X)/f "6? ^ i t IT O -/ Zvaojie CL—J Cnui».iii imf">f -fe c^e<So/-'po rc/i ^v-'knor TV* ~f,^ •^« ’• , „W ,n»i. ti ~aa +k. ^<-a p°'^ '“'■ ejoi /.'Xi-y ^ tu>««). r-A aXlU. r-^' r-Cb-loTe Iwvti co«^ OAfiA •< S3.6 a^ j' uje. ga^Ta^ "fr a. fUoJer-/of^ c^^f f ^A^iele. u)e_ <0Jtl )as >^ y ^Io^sa I eov/er- OreA [&^ fhA^ 4ooo ^ ff> ri :l A • •W LO'^O V\o' \iouSC^ F PovoIa ^ccl .1 rmiiifianifitffifnfiiimmmnffniinimnifnnrififniijiinfiiinifufa •r forch i m I A. i. L. i i,I I__i_ I r 1 i f_ I I L I K . i —J. V * • «• • - .. *r**i V. i, *.’ - • ■. ‘ 1 xrz: '•« ♦ - - *v . - ... - - # -i m - .. -- ..................... ••• «- f .. . . * ^ ,«vtJ 6(7. U^no^fejO«/‘ * ^ o«. •« «'•*«• <X-^ r^\eljU vd\h\ ■ *••-«■«<••• •» i • •• •^-,- 1 r ; ur, v/ ____P __o$, I f: 1 i ! 1 - (y C'- - CL'- ?cfoix C w-/ /-4 A t ^ :- % . *- / ''Vi ' ' 1 -a^’- ri v >44> r^'- •-•■•i •’ i' ••• ;/ 1^.ifeci^.cci^ ->'*'• (TM . 'fc »;r n ■ •! . l I I , . ..^ / .f '• A. y « • i ^ « •. I- ^,''-C' >r‘ >-*^T . ''' .-'•^.'A .‘. .-i .»-yrV;^ V-. 'J 0.«£-^ u.Vtf.A »Y C j U/ <irf <v ('-(.j,_.-K'' c J Jcd\j vCi« •^4^'=...r V^‘ • 4 '• w' ■ ■ V>A VVw4l4L ■ .'c"r "sC^SL , mvsa^ 41-t'^‘iSffe* • r-'-:- •‘:- ■ ^' " •. - h' ' • ., I (lMrrtH~t~ ii\C^A Ck.<^tr/^k^> rtf> U»<>vr/ fq-Jc*- ^ t>^ ^ ^ p I r. ■tr ' “^rj/Jl.i ,-^V ■• •. * 1 A t-' / r'^ I f.' - ^ fVrtlsiopX0/\u^<laL CO. 630 rpij) e>^ • H ^Is c^ Ou-r- Y-fi.<^o^scf "fvvC, ifX^ir(Lcca ^^j” \fOLf^eUA£e^ toe U)CO-U a^ffAeucSt dc^^^iUrai'j; <Vf Uf> a) /) s/tioo/ {o'!" ^ -foixl area. ^ af(roi.>r^^aULj h) TW. ey^'s^K.^ aAiowiuf CJ ^ tolyin fw. 1^03^ (JJ03. »w Jt/ice 1969 OUJL o^ U>€. Woc«-(ti €JcW^ 4i<2Sff ‘ *(“ co-l\ lc»e I 1^4- ^Lfoje. gra>/e ^ hori- Certr *fc (< i'\or'<l doN/®/" dXn£4.. cue u>'li r^ploa^ e>-,':sU'i^ i * I 1 J i) HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHE£I SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-71 Existing Hardcover in Zone '.i/. 63o LAfJc SHEtl-----^ 4vQa ?G i-At<e^ (7^2^ 250-500' 500-1000' H ouse B. Garage c. Driveway 0. Sidewalk 24 LENGTH |4 24 .2.3 43 X WIDTH X ^ 3-^ 739^ 2^30 // oG-117-23^^ oo 624 s.p. S.F. S.P. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. A i)3 01 E. Patio / Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , , PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other 14 X X X X S.F. _ X 24 30 Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone ____________ S.F. ____________ S.F. ___________ S.F. S.P. S.P. 4207 S.F. I AI iSS24_s.F. [II 4-707 J-Q] asq4 X 100 - 4^? -'% f 0 • e?^ -S V. ■ CO\Ji?{Z^ /2€5V/fc?vO —^30 iLAAJff' - L^'T~ /I /aJ " 4^7 “ /<ve<fA fer^ srr79^^ < ^y<fsr7^c» ' /^T^ur^ /7» 3 - fo/2~ (£) /sr-r^y = 7or -f) ^^S- ></i^.3 • 2S3 (D 6f >< z 12. i) 2 Cm 7 ‘ZH* 2-* © T>^€^ [j(^At*i Szy: sr'. //SS" (£> = / BO ® c! yzCm = /^>y 0 U ^ H " 4>(o {0 l^jixJ^*fusnc. /yx^v'- 'S34, 0 r ® (p ^so - 3e>e> ® ^2>‘^1/yo.oot - /4t>^CMi^ wsrv-^t. - 33C» s^. j^ac^-«-Pt/»cnc ” A^CT /2€SKUT^ • J-^57 ~ •« 32LU^ _^Sle>/ ^£. .* « » • - ,1 I , e^&77AiCk Cm /o •r •V mt6m ■* . • ' I TOS Mayor Grabek fi Orono Council Members rf .ers ^ City Administrator Bernhardson Ttcmx Dates Subjects Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building ( Zoning Administrator May 17, 1990 #1527 Lyndon S. Bill Stubbs, 2555 Fox Street - variance - B Hearing Zoning District - RR-IB Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) rural property - Lot area required for Required - 87,120 47,908 s.f. or 1.10 sores Vel S.“st‘Lo%’ Jine'of rorwood s Forwood Addn* - Varia“;':%5;l«L^:1r“!iracres applicant has commenced torrens action to claim undefined property to north and west.-- - - - - - - - section 10.85, Subdivision 18 (AHl)^ 'eiVasmiraV floSS Intersects dry buildable en designated wetlands plain, nor defined ‘?fon of cod* applicable. {,?alirgery"«ea"iill'be%rbt‘racted from total dry buildable area. List of Bschibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit B Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Application Addendum Property Owners List Plat Map Peterson's Letter Wetlands Map Septic/House - Site Plan Survey I Zoning File #1527 May 17, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Review of Application - As applicant's addendum notes, Mr. & Mrs. Stubbs have owned Lots 9 and 10, Auditors Subdivision #229 for over 20 years and applied for a lot area variance to allow the property to be offered for public sale. With this lot area variance application, there is no definite house plan to review. Applicant has submitted a tentative site plan with septic design information. Gaffron has worked with the on-site evaluator, Mr. Schirmers, and both confirm there is adequate emd suitable area for a standard trench system within the higher elevations of the western portions of the property. Note that the house location meets the required 50' street setback, and 26' setback from the designated wetland below the 932* elevation (setbacks based on land acquisitions). There are 2 drainageways that intersect the property from the north side of Fox Street. The most eastern culvert drains to the wetlands. The most western culvert intersects the building envelope. It would be staff's recommendation to allow alterations that would define the drainageway at a deeper depth. Upon inspection after 3 or 4 rainy days, the drainageway appears to fan out within the building envelope. The drainageway must be maintained but it should be redefined to allow proper use of the dry bulldable lands. Staff would recommend that upon development of this site for residential use, the future land owner provide land alteration plans to alter drainageway so as not to impact the limited area of the lower dry bulldable portion of property. Such alterations must be revised by the City Engineer with the building permit application. Area of this drainageway should be defined at a minimum of 15'; 7 1/2' from the center of the drainageway. As noted above in the factual findings, there is an unclaimed/unknown corridor of land to the west and north of Lots 9 and 10, Auditors Subdivision #229. Both affected property owners, Dave Peterson to the immediate west (refer to Exhibit H), and the City of Orono have no interest in the land corridor and would make no claim to it. Mr. Stubbs was advised to proceed with a torrens action to lay legal claim to the 1/3 acre of dry bulldable land. Options of Action Available - A) OR Denial. If denied, please refer to the necessary flndi.ngs in the variance section of the zoning code; Approval. To approve the lot area variance of Lyndon S. Bill Stubbs requiring approval of a 23,522 s.f. or .53 acre variance based on one or more of the findings noted below: h- Zoning File #1527 May 17, 1990 Page 3 of 3 OR C) 1. There is no additional dry buildable land adjacent to the property to increase building envelope. 2. Adequate and suitable area for on-site septic development has been found in the upper elevations of the property. 3. A house can be located on this site meeting all required setbacks from wetlands and street. The location of the house will provide minimal impact on existing residential development to the west. Approval would be subject to the following conditions* On—site septic areas to be protected during construction as this may be the only suitable area on this property for septic development. ^ 2. Upon application for a building permit, developer shall provide a grading plan altering drainageway. Such plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 3, Variance application shall not be scheduled for formal action by the Council until torrens action is finalized by courts. Table. Planning Commission requests the tabling of the I^Iication until the registration action is completed by the Courts. n 1 ; rrmiftai CITY OP OROHO - VARIANCE APPLICATION dn Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) 27 PROPERTY LOCATIOT^^^ Site Address ^frL cm OF Dim nmcF Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) Name q{1 /SlIP __Phone (vr>-.<) --------- Address; / S ^ City; _ Zip: ONNER (if different than applicant) Name >S Phone (home) Phone (wor)c) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land PRESENT OSE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Pfe - ! & Present Use of Property_ _ _ _ _ _i Residential Other (specify) _ DESCRIPTION OF RBQOEST Estimated Construction Cost $. Describe request in detail:- - - - - - -" VARIANCES REQUIRED \j^Lot Area Lot Width Setbac)c Variances (Front _ _ Hardcover Side _ _ __ Rear) Other . i • j I j — H Mirra Mil i % •v> :# irr A ^«*• ^ % •*.1 • ' '* <‘J! » «- . J r• • ..- ^» ••. • -*». *,V' .'.■•••■-■: .'■ ;■'j • iV*“ ‘A • *itV.-i.'itAi Vi;:. > •t ' .. •>.. i'; * • * V * I *. •• • • •/‘V'C-/- K'*' •■•'•* V • .• -■. • • • t-.** . . ■• •. •■I * • # • k .,,*».•♦ . . ‘t•. • . . • ^ hv'-v-'-j . •• . • . T ■*, - * i . * • *■ • i ^ *• ■'• *. , / . • • < :*v O- * *. • • - ^»• ••• \ ' .• • •♦ * *;»*•'* < ... ■ y-v .^v -r.v - ■ • • ••«*.;. . -. f • •■.'•» AM ------------ ^ M # * . • '*;■* ,A ’ *■'* V4K * / V»^ 1.*^ «?rr r»** 9o #1 i*; \ Si^‘1'^ ■ / 4 ^ /O ■ £.'1./ ✓ // ^ J 1, T^ C t;^c- V- V .V ■ r /'\/2' ^/C,L-r-<- r/: / /I • ' J :r>7 L ^ / V 7 . d-j- '1 > Vue. T, /, • f ’ J/ / 7 (✓ ^ I ^ zt'*nc.-' ____ 'tG^ t^rA • •. i rMt if if; f lV)v V ^ 'W:: AV ^i\ll' I i»' iC^i %* *ti , Vu^\ r.. -.•''I i T-ii •' •* h; \i •!. ' • I m 'f ■ .-••'il' M lif .. . ; rjKih:* ‘•I ' rv i. . i 'M ‘ ■ ■ : . 1: ii:l .'•‘■ts ; V-f 'K= JV{ ,, '*. .ivJ ,• ^ trMi ■* I '* I -‘i*t$W•fei;i: fj Klim r. .4il'al .4 1#* *^ Ti- f' .r f-- r.s ',', .- f. y- L-'r^iL'>V R^^^SSr**' ♦<~kiL^‘ A " H 'W’^Sm SSsBBSr' -•' iiiwimiilr ' Ak 1:! [31' - ! • S.J ‘Ji?iSfii ■ Hi'- ii'. ' !.,i ;1 ■■i« ill ■■liHJ rl Itr i :! .S ’*. . .*• - < g f 1 - ’*• '■I i-'A HH;n; r lA ^lli ■Atii *n<j»:m >o' i ; '■ \ ■:1’ • I I AvAJ.j ( •: l Uj j t «V , - • ' r] . ! ' i i’ .•■!'.'4 ■ 1 ;..' ■.' ■•l-.Vi j i ' ':' ;i ^l:i k 'V‘t:’.‘ ^ ^ *■ :-w;i ^ V ;(. ':ir * 'a .V • ««.■'! IK ’^1 '■ 'i kkillii'^t M I * f' 1 •* ^ I K*' »^'-* ; 4^SpjASE^A- feSfA* ' JA- '-f AiSi ,T ^ ■'*. fS; fni ■• HiAa’ii"', rti-'l « ^ 1 **^ * •’• ’!/*•#• . r (• k* • « • • :. |: ■>,••« I*. A »f,t *^« . t». , fi'iv > ■;.I r> , - §■ .)• jA,t.''i > -f m>M m i-r- r^'<.MM. k. •'•V- if I t M liHi . A ; V ■vf'^A'feiKA m mi I t :■; ifft I #1*'/ vVl -»——N-1 ^1^ .—;,/ ■ ■ WNh«P>*#«0 v», tfj /«# I N j y / »/»i %\4<^t V^?*/92r £ K'XW \ V ^'\'-'^o'^''' ' *!»'/ J \'V', \ ' « /ill '/' ' 'i J / / J / ' •' • //// ! ////' jy / /' W//y:^-- Qo V> ✓ Xo ■ -V- ■.•.;•%k' -y ^:^". I\\j ^rmaer^^ hf*t boS€J vpon Un4*^ Itaal a€9cr»pttoft - * - j0,/0»^/m4 * -••4^ ’»Mf 3 \ \ \ 'v s\ ^90t4t^i^ \ 400*^9 4S*4tm \ \ #• \ r>?\ N 1/ 0*»*I^ tO't X y 7 o'3?. ■#ist " '■» • * ^ Scale :1 Inch • 50 FAi»i Date 3-20-90, 0 :Iron marker found Datum tIGVO ^f94 — :EAlUlng contour i * * I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that ■ am a duly registered Civil Engineer and LandSurveyor under the laws of the Stale of Minnesota. COFFIN ft “ COFFIN ft liROMBERG. INC, * Enyin^erk, l«nd Surv^yorv 4nd PlftftitCTl Long LakN, Hinnftsola GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg MN. lie. No. '2755 • • '■ : T-. /5 1 Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrate.. Dates Subjects May 15, 1990 #1529 John Thiesse, 3845 Bayside Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District -* LR-IA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unsewered I I Application - Request for side setback, street setback, and hardcover variance for construction of an attached 2-car garage. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit C D E F G H I J Application Letter of Request Letter from Adjacent Property Owner Plat Map Property Owners List Survey & Existing Site Plan Proposed Site Plan 1989 Air Photo Hardcover Calculations Staff Review of Alternatives ♦ - Pertinent Facts - 1.This house was constructed in 1958, prior to the current zoning standards. The property has never contained a garage. The lot is about 8,000 s.f. in total area (0.18 acre). 2.A^ter consultation with staff, applicant has proposed an attached 20'x24* garage, located so as to take maximum advantage of the extremely limited lot area available. Setbacks are as follows: Proposed Setback South Side Lot Line West (Road) Lot Line Traveled Pavement North Site Lot Line 9.3' 6.7' 28'“36 24' Required 3IP 50' 3. Hardcover is as follows: 0-75' Zone 75-250' Zone Existing Cf? 1,951 s.f. (44%) Proposed Allowed—u%— 2,230 s.f. (50.4%) 1,107 s.f. (25%) Zoning File #1529 May 15, 1990 Page 2 of 3 4.The proposed garage leaves an average driveway depth from the paved portion of Bayside Road, of 34', ample depth to park 2 cars side-by-side without affecting traffic. Note that any functional backup apron would likely be mostly in the County right-of-way. The County Highway Department in the past has indicated they would prefer that extremely wide, undefined driveway entrances such as on applicant's property and the neighboring Peterson property, be reduced in width. The applicant's 20' width driveway will reduce by almost half the existing access width. Staff would recommend that the applicant check with Hennepin County as to whether they have other specific conditions. Certainly, the County would have to approve a backup apron within their right-of-way. On the "proposed" drawing, staff has skstched nn expanded parking area should Planning Commission wish to consider allowing for additional parking within the property boundaries. 5.The proposed garage maintains more than 20' neighboring residence structure to the south. to the 6.It appears t.hat 2 of the 3 large pine trees in the front yard probably will have to be removed in order to accommodate this garage. A decreased south side lot line setback might allow for a second pine tree to be saved. Discussion - This lot is extremely limited, although the existing house and deck are outside the 75' lakeshore protected area. The remainder of the property is so small that the hardcover allotment is eaten up merely by the house and deck, before side walks, driveway and garage are considered. The neighboring p’'operty I'wner to the south, who is most affected, has indicated approval of che proposal. Staff would note that this neighbor's detached garage is approximately as close to the traveled roadway as applicant's attached garage will be. Applicant's residence has entry doors on either side, and it would seem that the northerly door may have much less use than 1:h6 southerly door. Applicant should Indicate what sidewalks if any could be reduced or eliminated, and should ind..cate where doorways are intended for this garage. Will there be direct access to the house from inside the garage, and will there be 2 outside access doors? Zoning Pile #1529 May 15, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff has sketched some alternate configurations, including a side-loading attached garage with doors facing north. Such a plan would require removal of all the pine trees while making that garage much harder to enter and exit. Staff sees no benefit in such a plan. A similar layout but with southerly facing doors, would similarly wipe out all the trees, could not be as large, and would have poor accessibility. Staff feels that the only way a side-loading attached garage might be feasible on this lot is if it had north facing doors and was allowed to be within 5* of the south side lot line. Given the adequate sight distance at this location, and the lack of ability to create a backup apron with any of the potential alternate configurations, it would seem that applicant's proposal may be the best solution. Staff Reconnendation Planning Commission should review the proposal in the context of its impact on the neighborhood, and the impact of the increased hardcover and minimal side and street setbacks. The applicant has noted past problems with security of his vehicles, and construction of a garage should help to eliminate break-ins. Planning Commission's options would be as follows: 1. Recommend approval as proposed, granting variances for street setback, side setbacks, and hardcover. 2. Recommend conditional approval, subject to specified conditions. 3. Ask for a revised proposal, applicant to meet. indicate criteria for 4. Recommend denial. 5. Other. CITY OP ORONO - VARIAMCB APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 • • ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address #1 I c/ry OF Ohm hECElPT-TPMK YOU HI 75SOO LOOl /WJ Property Identification Number (P.I.P.)-3^ (0^'-//7‘23- ^3 Attach legal description to application if not Included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Phone (home) <i7v*T~ Phone (work) ~00/ Cd Address . City: . Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land _ __ mm mm mm ^m mm mm ^m mm mm mm mm mm ^m ^m <^m 9m « PRESENT DSE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other _ _ _ _ _ Lot Width ^ Hardcover / Front /_ Side - - - Rear) mUtDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: A/ot' -m OBSCRIPTIOH OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual pr^erty conditions preventing compliance with Zonlna Code Requirements:yr>o s>T7. ici~. 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). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to Include hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. AAi> <y//yv<i^cS ^ S)cetches or plans of floor and elevation views. As an addendum to this applicationr 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11” X 17* OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your yerianffe application is not coMplcte if the above infomation has not been includ^. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by 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 consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date 90 ONNBRS 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 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. May 10,1990 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: LAND USE APPUCATION NO. 1529 Dear City Planners: Because I believe it veiy necessary that my property have a garage, and because there are quite a number of extenuating circumstances, I am compelled to write you a brief history of my pursuit of this variance and why I believe it should be granted. My wite, Sherri, and I purchased 3845 Baysidc Road in June of 1988. It was only after much discussion that we placed lakeshore ownership above a garage on our list of priorities. After the first winter, the priority list quicldy changed. In June of 1989, 1 first approached the city staff about a variance application. The original proposal was for a garage in front of and aligned with the house. During the first discussions, it was suggested that I try to purchase some of Outlot A next door and put the garage on the side of the house. I talked to the developer, Paul Swanson, and sent letters to the owners of Outlot A that summer. I got no response from Evan Austin. Lee Harren seemed receptive, but had several conditions to the sale. One of those conditions was that the house on the Austin lot be staked. This lot is now up for resale which makes the conditions impossible to meet. In October, while our car and truck were parked in front of the house, vandals broke into both vehicles. We reported this to the Orono police on October 13, 1989. We have now lived through a second winter and we have determined that a garage is a necessity for us. It has also become evident that attaching the garage to the side of the house on Outlot A would encroach the 75 foot setback area. After a second discussion with the city staff, I have submitted a survey with the proposed garage located in front of the house, but offset to allow for additional parking on the property. I have reduced the size of the garage to minimize hardcover. For that same reason I have not requested a turn around in the driveway. I have discussed the garage with the most immediate neighbor, Mrs. Peggy Peterson, and she has written a letter of approval. I understand your concerns for maintaining the hardcover standard as set forth, but I believe that there is substantial hardship that can be demonstrated and that I am not asking for more than is typical on other properties. Thank you for considering this proposal. Sincerely, John B. Thiesse Enclosure April 24, 1990 John Tht*««« 3S49 Bays14* Rd. Lons Laks, NN S93S4 Daar John: Thank you for ravlsMlns th* proposed saraso plans and location Mith us. Wo havo no problMS Mlth tho propoBOd six# or location that mo talkod about. lost WiShOB, I \f I V 9 t Bossy Potorson 3B99 Baysido Rd. Lons LakOf MN 99396 .J UfJD Dot reel. 55 pe5 I oo\ I CSI O I 1 oo 00ooo m CM CO CM I ino 00 CO ooo iO CM CO CM I S 2 z § «c in COmm Imo o Mcn 5 CQ §§ M td PL4 ^ 00 CO inm 00 CO S 6o o CU Cd pL4 Cd Q Min 5 OQ mm 00 CO 2s vOooo # 1 529 COo Cd td o VJ w J in in ful f*l CAtu U M M < < \0 m CO uo <r CO o o CO 505 > g“ - M Cd OH in M d) S Cd g- (d 2 CM CO CM 2 2 5 9 in M « ma Q , I Iino a di ^ os 00 (O 05 td < <4 MO 5 CM C in 3 sigg li^iQ H SS §= CdI fcV *. rrt-grr- • .I-' —'.^••*... W.T^rr-.rH^** *-•» •• •• •.--! /. . . • .•• r*. j mm-i ■ ■ ■ • * • 'j ^ t \4 .' ? ■ • t . VM r rr. ^ ^.i-‘ •*. / . ’.vv^ , .*v * 4 ** . • •■ jj 4 I ^ ■■ !**• ' ’w’*' • - ’ » . V. •’*;. ^ . / > i:. ' i .i 'V. '..i^. ' ( - >• i 06 I" ;'Jr' # •'g ■It-im mmA Jsi 'Mm :'t vinl^^gm .i»1HriU(i&]'.lssNig:i.'’it''? JSs-a'-,-,1V / V*', ^.1 rT^^ V ■■'.■:• '.rs v' >•:• ; ^ l»V V \ 1*^ fr»^ •V . V ; -t. U f r. •••f-m m'-TMSe <■ fi>.'? ; ' V' .--Jf, #•' ■•:, 4'-?‘ ii^jy-" !.M. >■ <• .ft->i >.i : w,> •.A :f^ •..-•iV'^r- ..aL1^ r, ■■' rsx-^, l^23S»i I H I" . *. ■tf I f* I ^ 4 *. i ! ! I * I . I •• • • f * •1 { ) •I :) ■i ■•..1 4\ r •> ■ t .2 • •. •'• s ‘•■•i % *1 1. •IS ’•‘I ■ill ■'is ■m' . r i. ‘ ' ^ Vi • -‘Ml ! •M V . I •J ; I* . t 4 t r;-‘ . i 14^. >> O k i % I fi 10 4 in 4SiX <sQ I, > <0 o) I 4 i I 1 I CO >. (vj > l> « h )i ^ 0 Q 0^ 05 f- > ^ »3 0 CO C n ) ^ o > >n N oa oJ ^ ^ X X > O ^W 04 ^ vS X 3, N <r ^ \ ^ a (Vi > I <0 INi X flO 1 . <• iIi \ i X • I • I X o20o 5 > • I » f •I Mi IN I t O «o ^ /O :r CO k I H > \l S 5 $ S > •M X /?I V 1 2<S ' O O >£, oD i:?^ 5 X.j4:t- • I n ii 1 I I • “3- r- cv) u* 0 2c: 5 4ft •i< cr Oft I I £u. 4^; f *. I • * I » I •j * ♦ ; i 1 \ t t \ ■ I r% .* h I i I V • •; «. Ii. ;l I M < J ’ A. t , ;i r. t: ■1I • • E: !•» ^fr* t « » *ir r • Mv * J. Vi i: ' r‘- i: ^ • t ii - :*» ( '•: ( i r ;• • 11 m. Si;i'U) K»- I ^ f‘f. j .• ^ Ir^ ; .. !l:i .-I J! ■ii: HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0~75* C^-2^ 250-500' 500-1000 Existing H ardcover in Zone A. H ouse X = *SiF. length • •WIDTH X • • S.F. X S.F. •X • S.F. • X • S.F. 8. Oarage ‘X • S.F. C. nptVFWAV X »S.F. X • • S.F. • • _ n. Sidewalk 7^9 "VX1 1. • 3/6.S.F. X s S.F. X .S.F. e. Jatio /D eck ^ ^X o<f<S.F. * <• F. Landscape X •S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY yt S.F. PLASTIC • • SHEETING X . S.F. • X • S.F. G. Other ^ • X S.F. • Total H ardcover in Zone - 1 Total Property Area in Zone /924 / 29 • S.F, S.F. [3 [T /924 4 jTj <44Z9 xIOO- ^3 % ^snsaill C 1 DO HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK zone: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 250-500' 500-1000' OmsTiwc Hardcover in Zone A. House B. Garage . c. D riveway E. Patio / D eck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other S4 LENGTH ^ K 0. Sidewalk x X X WIDTH 20 2^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. - S• Ff ^20 S.F. S.F. _________ S.F. R3<c'> S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Total H ardcover in Zone - Total Property A rea in Zone 2I9^ 4 [T] >^4e9 X100 2! 92. j.F. IAI ^4z ‘=> ..F, rii 49 *» ^.' ^ *“ ’***T —* . - : ■ * V '"> . n--rS.' .. ;•V ; • .* <c *^s> •••• -r ♦ * I- ■»*-» * • rr — • '•* * ■ * • .T Trfi^ •yy>4u/^»^ - w;^ t ^ ________________ .i,iZ- V, A U_. -r^ ’••••* '^t:r:!rrjT:i«rrr;T^ ^ X r\^ ■ •—-- I ... %’ •-•-• • 'r.. ^Sr*-^.*.. ----------. -<'**.' • _••- ^«< .5=^ •«• * *r” V /4 To:Planning Conunlsslon Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator May 16, 1990 Subject: #1534 Roland Amundson — 3133 Casco Circle ~ Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IC, Single family lakeshore residential, 1/2 acre, sewered Application - Request for fence height variance to construct enclosure for 2 dogs List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C “ Property Owners List Exhibit D - Applicants Letter of Request Dated 4/19/90 Exhibit E - Staff Letter Dated 5/4/90 Exhibit F - Letter From Neighboring Property Owner Mary Butler Exhibit G - Sketch Received From applicant 5/16/90 Pertinent Ordinances - 1. Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 - "Non-encroachments allows a maximum fence height of 3-1/2' (42") in the street yard of a lakeshore lot which does not abut a major thoroughfare. On Casco Point Road in the LR-lC Zone, no fence higher than 42" is allowed within 30' of the road right-of-way. 2. Section 5.36 - "Kennels", regulates commercial and residential kennels and kennel structures. Specific pertinent code requirements include: A. The definition of kennel structure includes fenced- in yard areas that contain less than 600 s.f. per dog. B. A residential kennel license is required if a kennel structure is located in a "side or rear yard" and is less than 30' away from any property line. From the sketch submitted, it is unknown where the property line is in relation to the fence. [• ¥ Zoning File #1534 May 16, 1990 Page 2 Discussion been submitted. The fenced area would appear to ^ 13'^f/om the and vlrify that I'm: . .ennex license. Staff RecoBstendation Absent the ^''HSlot ^Vke“a“?MSOnsble ?e%'orera.t?o"n“aSf«^°uXa re,ues^ ^ ru:i\nio1Jt\":n%‘t^* p-“a%Taf aays^tior to the Planning Commission meeting. Isv 1] CITY OP OROHO - VARIAHCB APPLICA Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Pees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3135 Casco Circle_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 20-117-23-43 on2q CITY, FmJ5020 Dim OFFICE 7S940 cool CITY OF Ofm 01 CBl 125.00 cm 7L 125.00 RECEIPT-Tim YOU umiio cool ROl^T^^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Roland C. Amundson Phone (home) _ _ Phone (work) Address:1005 ^ti Curvo City I Minneapolis— Zip; 55403 ONNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired October. 1QR4 (month/year) I (kEO^ (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT DSE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost Describe request in detail!^_Construct five foot chain link fence on interior of forested area immediately abutting my garage. VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances ( x Front Side Rear)• ; The closest part of the fence will be twelve feet from Casco Other Circle Road. The entire fence will nearly be covered by trees and other existing bush HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict y enforcement of zoning regulations? Thofo ie wfi vny_to fenoo in—area for my dogs because the garage is surrounded on 2 sides bv the lot line and nt-hpr iide-by-my~drt-veway-and—thrg-r3-~the*~oni7~‘2rvart'abte’~area7~‘~—~*~~*~***~ DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; 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. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Slcetches or plans of floor and elevation views. 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. YOU ARB REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (ll" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your vari*»g* application is not cosg>lete if the above infomation has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by Clerical Staff t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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 origins-^ fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of th-is app2-icaj:ireiv. and certifies that the Information supplied is true and/Correct^Oj,^eIie his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's Signat Date OmnSRS SIGNATURE The owner hereby aclcowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commiss^jwrTnem^rs, an^,-CeaA^iV'members for purposes of investiga tion and ver>^i^tiony<« ^hj/^re^es^y rZ/'rm__Owner's mature *//y/v//(/^yj7&/yyyy^An(^ Date i^>pllcant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled j.^view 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 to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. .r-6>«. £^\\ l|« ;S /:TJ.e80d', \i% -sii^ m-r,"* \'• 1 ' . / (60) • ....... L‘; / V •••• .* 1 >s ■Ar > #/-■• V-. ^^UTZsiiU'iy^ v.% _i_Sb. “t; / 'Oil .VAC OOC NO If ot) (6) _i^^./ IISV^ (7)I* ly ••••...• VV^ l« S ' » -ClS (H) 167.5 '/ X »0 1667579 (6>.iV.'- '•f I7t . ...... i (22) ■B .......... (3I) iv’- ^•i. V. \“5 585- i\e !C8.6l f ■& V(2I) Y ^ 1■ • 1 '60 1 60 1 ••1 1 ?A5 42 7 • A 1•*(30) i *60'• 3 .(22) AO (28) V/' i(23)^ y//. Ci.:'; ■ #1534 St !■«u i K. O O O at ^ M > > U tfl A *f\ o 7« K >ssis il:i < < •A >. M 3 > N t^eoT# « ro O O »A O X X XUi « CVJo O X K> M U »A O K < M U »H I O , CM lA iH CO lA Kl O UI O' -J »A X UI U iA -i X U)< -i X 2t« u. lu p Z ^ -I ^ < UJ UJ U H X 3 lA N U U vj- >• K CMoo X fA M^ u •A CM I K iH rM I O CM (H »A lA <A X lA Ui M X u UI ®5 a- *-a -22 «ooooo *9oo a <<>- g 55SJ O > > M fA MMX O -i -i o ^ •A M (A <A -J KJ“**sa ««SI= -a K ^ U o M*i>lA>- CO lA ^ < M < »A O Z Z >A Z « lA lA O ly X li«ig2»3 X § X < Xlll^1 VI V. U H lA N lA > la X O 3> N X < ly rx (V U X Ui X X M X O O r.v c> c=^ e STATE OF MINNESOTA FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROLAND C. AMUNDSON HCNNCPIN COUNTY GOVCRNMLNT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SBAdT 16121 346-7698 4i- J a i f ' t . r. . »■# IA Oi- w‘»*'- April 19, 1990 iAPR 271• '•'’a Jeanne Mabustn Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono 1335 S Brown Road Orono, MN 55323 Re; 3135 Casco Circle, Orono, Minnesota Dear Ms. Mabusth: Enclosed please find the Application for Variance along with a $50.00 fee. (I paid an initial variance fee several years ago, so I assume a $50.00 fee is the appropriate one here.) I am also enclosing a Certified Property Owners List which I obtained from the County Finance Office along with a plat map. I will be forwarding for your additional consideration photographs of the scene so that you may be assisted in your analysis of my request. If there is anything further I need to include or # • CITY CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66*CrysUl Bay, MinneaoU 55323•Municipal Offices OF ORONO On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka May 4, 1990 Roland C. Amundson 1005 Mount Curve Minneapolisr MN 55403 Dear Mr. Amundson: The Zoning Department is in receipt of application for a front setback variance for a 5 high fence on your property at 3135 Casco Circle. However, additional i^rmation must be"" submitted in order for review of your application to proceed: 1, Certificate of Survey. 2. Site plan indicating proposed fence location. These items must be submitted no later than in order that a staff review can be completed prior to the y 21st Planning Commission meeting. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have any questions. SincereT Michael P. Ga^-^—. , . ^ ^ « Asst Planning « Zoning Administrator cc:^^Jeanne Mabusth, Building Zoning Administrator BUILOING A ZONING • 473-7357 . ASSESSING AOMI.NISTRATION A FINANCE - 473.73SI FAX-473A5I0 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-735F % 5^ •«.CITV Of OPCNr ^atuay MAY 1 6 1990 Orono City Planning Conunission Orono City Council Roland Amundson, my next door neighbor, wishes to build a p for his two Doberman Pinschers. His placement for this chain link enclosure is adjacent to his garage, at the street side iJ hirioI! This area historically (for the 20+ years we have lived here) is covered with underbrush and haa looked rather ratty. Mr. Amundson has greatly improved the appearance and now seeks to put this otherwise unuseable portion of his yard to good use. I will take this opportunity to grant my concurrence with his tS state t"t there »1U be no adverse tapact on our property, and to point out that the area is away from more ^iJed in' areas of our yard. The area Mr. Amundson wishes to utilize is most appropriate for the use suggested.i i Thank you for your attention .incerely. Mary C _________ imms^. •• ^ ' *• ■* •".• .**-«? • )^^»**&* te- » . 4 *.•• ••-.r** rT*:''!!:i:«*-.r.#»r> r..,-;..,*»;x» • xrr.ir.v.* ^ -* -j,.. - . i' ..*.*• *"V •*“•'*• V ,.'*• •»',;» •*’ , i*.v «■•, •• • 1* . :• . ••• , ... ^ •/»:•/•, * • fvVI v--< *• '.•**/'•'•■••■’ * *j «i • - -‘j ’ %r *. '* ■ ■ .• • -V. : ’ ^ 4 .•*•- 1;.• '• —Al»»• . • . • •* uijJH *■ -- ------------------------- PI."liitLMi « •• * • VKVffSW • ?*X. gr<^V ».j*” ? i-'n-'t.-—vav>.»r»*- 4^ • rrTv - v::*- V'-C V«-'^‘^' / :•• V V’' .'A^ **^'?C1*•v^ * ■>T' •.1 r. *.^f>v:v-> iv,-~ vr^. .. . •• . •m’^ ■ •* **. . * ■ • . . v: V' •* -*(• '. : - ':>N • .* 4. ^ TV* I 17. TO: OrSSS banning Coimnission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building t Zoning Administrator Date: May 16, 1990 Pia4- - Reauest to amend Resolution #2652 - subject, sugarwo^o^d^s „ctura I and nonatruotura 1 improvements within Front Street setback area List of Exhibits Exhibit A “ Exhibit B ” Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Memo to Council . ll?rFlan Approved with Building Permit for Lot 2, Block 2 Sugar Woods Plat Itto?ne?*^s L^tter/Sample Turnarounds staff Sketches-Turnaround, Backout Apron ?able of Front Street Setback Areas for 25 Lots within Sugarwoods Resolution #2652 - Condition 1 P The applicant %rTvate^opI^protection area within t p setback areas defined (namely within those areas no futurewithin each building l^=b- "”33 i„ excess of 2" owner will be allowed arading is allowed in diameter at A* hmrr—residential within ^ ♦'Q ~20'~^e leading_ ^lot may include bi~gra3ed and trees .^s^ma^r b/ -:-:f3.‘°a.fre\1.e Vrctec?el rr“s''s1.Vh%^.’"hTsetback area of each lot and the private open space outlets. This specific o*Jh*iS'^Timiti^^ access drives impact on the existing t « 20' The question of to'^one at a i,“.«tiof aro.; at the’time of theinterpretation of this «e a Block 2 to issuance of the Exhibit B). Based on the Steiner and K°PP®i®*" to the Front Street location of backout apron and turnaroundsetback area, portions of the bacKour specific site SSSdi^onrfor'thisTot ®%Siriil"l "c;sS^*o?Vhlr"*lotl^i*^^^^^^^^^^ the desire will be 1 a Sugarwoods Plat May 16, 1990 Page 2 of 4 itiern'tS^^rtopor.piic features.features. In reviewing ‘ 1 vate ;?:v ‘fd*e^d Xnd'ifd^s Hntr’rTe.*"ar?«la t‘o° o‘;?e ‘''ar‘’iv ‘e« y La public made. be discouraged. This approach and loop Gerhardson notes that in lialnance was »PP”/*«, i" since the passagae of that rrdiranc^ 1 mw\nT« considerations:UCi a - ’lassif7e"d! heavuy ml^ficed public roadway, private road. a roadway is ^he driver does not back out intoviolation of State law if the direction of the flow oitne airetuxwi* ---- hr the hpril a,rd »rn ‘d^rurtlefLrcreVUrirtt^^ fh‘e “dVve'llpef* a^d "on'tmtors to a lop Bmndard^a^^or cJ^eria fo? 'h* 'necessary-^encro^^^^^^^^^^ ‘•<=l“‘*‘ifte* improvements within , access from and to thebacking out maneuver and access employed by Please note ^^®®®, reviewing staff when clearly <*®^^”® both developer placement of the house near or :^5menri:^rh: ?^:nrss?e%%''setbact line. 01..J- .fctemoted to control in early f"ont street setback yards by improvements , J„„th (i.e., backout apron from limits on size, f 20'j a turnaround backout »Pf®^aaraae limited to a depth or -iu , « widths, etc.). nm?ted to 15- , also noted that a loop road Refer to Exhibit A and F. that had less than 2C0 of would not be allowed on lot would qualify 7 of the frontage on Sugarwoods Driv ^°^L*Jould 25 lots for concerns that turnarounds wouldpJSerder:irhln ‘Lt,rior of lor. I II Sugarwoods Plat May 16, 1990 Page 3 of 4 As you may recall, development within this project is limited to no more than 80% of the defined building pad being covered with hardcover improvements. The normal lakeshore hardcover regulations do not apply. In review of the most recent application for Lot 2, Block 2, the smallest of the building pads, it would appear that the 80% hardcover allowance is not a problem, that is if additional turnaround improvements were required for this site. There is an additional 3400 s.f. of additional hardcover available for the improvement of Lot 2. In no case can the total improvement of any of the pads within the Sugarwoods plat exceed the 80% allowance. Since the Council meeting of April 23rd, staff held a meeting with consultants, the developer and contractors within the Sugarwoods plat. It became apparent that the first attempt at a control on limiting such improvements to a specific size would not be functional nor realistic. The developer's engineer plans to develop various site plans for specific pads with various alternatives providing interior cul-de-sac turnarounds, turnaround aprons and loop road configurations. It was the consensus of this group that should the need arise that each pad be allowed a percentage of hardcover within the front street setback area to insure minimum encroachment. (Lots 100'-180' allowed 20%, Lots 181'-200' allowed 15%) Staff conceptually developed a table for hardcover allowances by grouping lots based on frontage widths (i.e. 90'-119' allowed 30%, 120'-139' allowed 25%, etc.) and soon realized that this would not be workable. It may be more appropriate to develop a table defining allowed hardcover for each of the 25 lots based on a specific amount of hardcover rather than on a blanket percentage. Review the table of Front Street Setback Areas for each lot. Review of Previous Considerations Staff's first attempt at presenting the issue to Council dealt with setting limitations on backout improvements (turnaround apron, interior cul-de-sac or loop road) and driveway widths within each front street setback area. Since the Council meeting, staff has met with agents of the developer and staff consultants. It was determined that possibly a hardcover limitation would more appropriate as it was obvious you could not set limits on the sizing of turnaround improvements that would respond to each individual lot's final development needs. Sugarwoods Plat May 16r 1990 Page 4 of 4 Staff has explored the idea of limiting such improvements to a specific hardcover percentage based on frontage area of each lot but this method may not provide staff with adequate control. Staff has yet to receive site plans developed by developer's planner providing graphic examples of such improvements to determine if the hardcover control would work. Council has asked for direction from the Planning Commission to determine if members have any comments concerning issues raised by staff and developer. Is hardcover control a valid method? Do Planning Commission members have other suggestions or ideas? in consideration of the extremes in area from the smallest lot frontage at 99' to the largest at 349', staff feels each individual lot should have a specific hardcover allowance if indeed hardcover is the agreed upon method of control. I have created a listing of front setback areas of each of the individual 25 lots in Sugarwoods for your consideration. Please let me know prior to the meeting if you would like other exhibits or information prepared to assist in our discussion. Planning Comission Action To provide further direction to staff on the following issues to assist staff in preparing final amendment for Council's review and action: A. Define site conditions that would suggest need to locate home at front street setback line. Do you agree tree location, topography or other unique physical conditions are acceptable? B. Method(s) to control amount of encroachment 1. A minimum of 10-20' is needed to back out of garage 2. A minimum of 15' is needed for turnaround apron Isv f «( Tot Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom: Datez Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator April 19, 1990 Sobjecbt Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods - Request for Loop Driveway List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Pflaum's Letter Site Plan - Loop Drive Site Plan - Turnaround Site Plan - Backout Apron + Interior Turnaround Cul-de-sac Site Plan Approved by Staff with Issuance of Building Permit Affidavit - Steiner & Koppelman Inc. Hardcover Fact Sheet Area Calculations for Sugar Woods Lots Staff Sketches The developer of Sugar Woods has asked for clarification concerning Condition 1-F of Resolution #2652 (resolution approving conditional use permit for PUD), written as follows: F. The applicant has created a no-grading zone/woodlands protection area within the private open space outlets (namely Outlets A and B), and the setback areas defined within each building lot. Within those areas no future owner will be allowed to remove trees in excess of 2" in diameter at 4' above grade. No grading is a1lowed within the protected area, however, each resHential lot may include one driv eway up to 20' wide leading to the loop road. This driveway may be graded and trees of any size may Be removed to build it. The subdivider's agreement should also define the protected areas such as the setback area of each lot and the private open space outlets. Staff has not researched the minutes nor the staff memos that would confirm the City's Intent regarding this specific directive of that condition. It is the City's position that a single access/curb cut/driveway with a maximum width of 20' was to be installed to serve each residential pad. Such a driveway would cross the 50' wide front street protected area. The single underlying theme of this PUD has been to protect the unique trees within the subdivision. This condition was an attempt by the City to lessen the impact on the tree growth by limiting access drives to one at a maximum width of 20'. It would be the City's position that a loop driveway would be two driveways. It is the developer's position that a looped driveway is one driveway and not prohibited by resolution 12652. Please review Exhibit A, Mr. Pflaum's letter reflects his clients position. : r Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods April 19» 1990 Page 2 of 5 The interpretation question arose at the time of the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, Block 2 to Steiner S Koppelmann (review Exhibits B, C and D). Obviously, there are portions of drive, backout apron and turnaround areas that cannot be classified as a single driveway at a 20* width that encroach the front setback area. This is not just an issue of two drive ways at a 20* width intersecting the front building setback area, but of the other required improvements that would also be placed within the protected setback area (review Exhibits E, F and G). Staff issued a building permit to Steiner & Koppelmann based on a driveway and backout apron designed to limit the encroachment of the front setback area to 1,000 square feet (20* maximum width of drive by 50* depth of front setback area) until Council would approve a greater encroachment. Specific site conditions for thi» lot require that the house be placed right at the 50* setback l:.ne. This will also be the case for other lots within the plaL where the desire is to minimize impact on trees and taking advantage of gentler elevations. In the case where a house is laced right at a 50* setback line, the City must deal with the question of portions of a backout apron and possible turnaround withij. the front street setback area. It would be appropriate to aine.'’d the approval resolution to allow for more than a single 20* wide driveway directly to the street where appropriate for safe Ingress and egress. It is the hope of both the developer and the Cic ^ staff to establish standards/criteria/guidelines for ^ature tuilding permit applications within the Sugar Woods plat so thr , it ..«» not necesuary to come back to Council for every bui Idin*' pe'ini* ti at cannot follow the very general guidelines of the .wu. If you have a cuance to visit this specific site, y*.” ' a11 find that the jgyy^rity of the front street setback area on the portion of the curved lot that extends westward, has few trees. A looped driveway will provide minimal impact on the trees within the protected area. Note the contractor has already screened off the larger trees, in fact, the looped driveway is almost defined by the vacant corridors in the protected area. (As you may recall, development within this project is limited to no more than 80% of the defined building pad being covered with "hardcover" improvements. The normal lakeshore hardcover regulations do not apply.) Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods April 19, 1990 Page 3 of 5 It should also be noted that there is no hardcover probleir. (review Exhibit C), This is the smallest of the building pads and it would appear that we have 3,400 square feet of additional hardcover available for the Improvement of this specific lot. In consideration of the PUD as a whole, hardcover will not place any restrictions on additional turnarounds or looped driveways on a given lot. In reviewing this issue with the Public Works Director, he once again advised that in the recent amendment to Chapter 6 that discussed driveway approaches to both private and public roads, that properties were limited to one driveway approach and that loop roads were to be discouraged. This ordinance was approved in 1988. Gerhardson appreciates the concerns expressed in Pflaum's letter and made the following suggestions for criteria that could be used in determining whether a lot would qualify for a loop road: 1. 200' minimum frontage on Sugarwoods Drive. 2. Heavily treed or unique trees located within front street setback area. As there is no doubt that a loop drive limited to a minimum width of 12* and strategically placed would reduce impact on protected area. It is staff's recommendation that where safety concerns are the real consideration because of placement of lots on curves, that turnarounds on site always be preferred over loop road configuration. Chief Kilbo has advised the City against allowing the site to be developed where only a backing out onto a roadway is permitted. He warns that you are in violation of State law if you don't back out into the direction of the flow of traffic. In the site plan approved by staff, the user of the property would have to back out onto Sugarwoods Drive as no turnaround is General Staff Recomiendatlon ' A. Criteria for Loop Road. The loop road configuration shall be allowed within the Sugar Woods subdivision as long as the following site conditions exits: 1. Hardcover must be maintained at 80%. 2. 200' minimum frontage on Sugarwoods Drive. 3. Heavily treed or placement of unique trees within front protected area in order to reduce Impact on front street setback area. Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods April 19, 1990 Page 4 of 5 nnrtiiona of the front street setback area. Driveway approaches must-be 10' from side lot lines at intersection of private road. ;ynTrund7inteAor apionu K^ated within front street setback area. Encroachment allowed under the following site conditions; 1. House placed at the 50* setback line because of unique site conditions (trees - elevations). a) backout aprons from garage areas shall be limited to a depth of 20'; trees), staff to make final determination. Please review staff sketches, Exhibit I, that graphically depict staff's discussion. in conclusion and in consideration of the conditions that may exist in the Sugar Woods plat, encourage the developer and contractors US6 shsircd dnv6S whGT6 possxblG# ©mpl y turnarounds/interior cul-de-sacs within where there is minimal impact on trees within front ^ we would at last resort, seek the use of loop Public encouraae the developers and contractors to contact ^"® Works Di^rector in the early stages of application for a building Council Action - Direct staff to draft a resolution amending resolution #2652 that ^«ntea conditional usecriteria for permitted improvements encroaching front street setback area. /t I Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods April 19, 1990 Page 5 of 5 Staff Recomendation for Current Request - To approve a loop driveway for Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Hoods limited to a 12' width as it encroaches front setback area providing necessary turnaround and the encroachment of a 20* backout apron within the front setback area based on the following findings: 1. Lot consists of 200'+ of frontage on Sugarwoods. 2. Portions of house placed at 50' front setback. 3. Minimal trees within yard area designated for loop road. 4. No hardcover problem. Subject to the condition that no portions of turnaround - Interior cul-de-sac or turnaround backout apron be allowed to encroach setback area. Proposed Motion: Moved by _ _, seconded by_ _, to adopt staff's recommendation based upon the findings and conditions noted above. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. *iS ; i r» 9f e I r 8 TJ 01u cda 01 h:i ft.fr( O h* CO QC O ti. >• LU >cc h^l >.m i) t v.! -IMJC 1..I I ............. S3M C9 m± .••‘V • /•%•••: i”i •* .•* ? ''J *•». « I ri ,WTi y \ I n./ 7 / ^ - qii:' /' 7 / \ r/ K"- 5j / V. N.izr> 7/>r:\ J \ / ^ V" / > .✓ * ^ y ' '' ✓/ ^ \ iC<C-^.r '• // //"v <“ f \V ^ \ 'vy1 i'my )S,irv^4->vF ^-^_- \/n 'll-Id-'-'' I'l \i \ A' • ' I' il 'j. ^'- i \ \; •a V \ \r . \ ' ■ // ■ I - i I H^'fv' PMP,\' \ V j :^' - rl / If I^7^T:3-i i \ fc —■ A'^ .7 \ ^ \ N \o o ^ V |\ \ \ ' \ l \ » » I 'i \ I J • '/ \K\\\ m^rX' \ liLi-U \ f V ; ‘l-rKi \«* —. c k 11 /V--^n -'./ \ ^/ -i! A \ l' *v \' » ' '>+\A % \ N U X wPill \ \!! 1 A g ! • ii I "III r;Z -! \i.oc I*/ / / yt I X X X % A';. \ ■< r> 1 i'^ I ^^-1.4 / '' )|l /t 1 » » Y-VI -V. / /L-^ ( / ,ii .V \ law orrices LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD •*0«1T LO«M»* HAIKX.0 O nito. JM * ALWCM I tACM* tmomai o rctNBCuo* MORR iI m tMCRMAN* MO«OC ■CILLV* CMAiKCt • OArroM PAVIO M COa* tTERMlR m RTLAUM* CMAAVCl A MATS* COMStLJ M>TCtOOM* OCOUPI r m«OUN*mO«.C. * •tCMAMO O RSRiN. JA r»tO«*C T •OSCNPLATT* STPOM K STAARS* jCMM m mcaman STtVSN O 0«AUTTfA* WAMCS A OOASrr AATMLCCA m oaamam BTKAmCN J OAVIOSOA* STtAMCA A LITmAR* OAVIO C. lALA* KOMAAO M MOCASrCCOCA* AOPCAT kt«nS SAAAOWS* At RT 1 A<MCT PiCHAAOJ WCOCRCA NUOR M MATRAMO* rAtOCAiCKM MOARiS ,X>»*M C AUCNM BAAOICT J OICLAR M>CMACL A RCniCN* MAATMA C PAARO* OAVIO R MAVRCS CAAOCTR CRALMCAt JAMCSV AOTM* AOPCAT L- OCMAT AROCLAM POMMARR AOPCAT A TMAVIS* OAMCPO PULLAAO* ^PCAH M riRLCT* LAtRACRCCJ ’^CtO OAVIO W ACWLCT MAAA P WCm* OAVIO L ULLCMAUO OAVIO AARTOA AROCLAM CMAlSrr MAAM A. LIROOACR *1 ■oriM TT -1 COATOM*<Qa» SUITE 2300 ISO south fifth street MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE I6I2I 335*1500 FACSIMILE I5I2I 335 »65T April 16, 1990 miC ma CL l pcaoc LOMCLL V PTOATl OOUOLAS P OACCRSAAO CLLCRO SAMASOR teAAOAACT M VAR VAkACHPUAP AOPARRC RATMARSOR SMCARI L ARUTM MICMACL 0 TATLOA jOMR M OCTPiROCA Thomas A SAROCAS AOPCAT CCOLOVITC m TIMOTMT WCLCM OACOOAT C PAOMR tUSAA M ROPIRCA OCPAAO STACMLOM rcoca a laasor M<MACL a COMCR RARCT WILTOCR ACIPCAT VIA04RIA P COMC CATMAAIRC POSCRCC MICMCLLC A MILLCA Timotmt a MCTCASOM JCRRiTCA A AAAR PLAAC SmCAAAO. JA WILUAM L CACCRC STtVf PCLTOR AfTCR N PACHMAR MARC 0 SIMASOR Sma UR C MeCLMATTOR JAMCBJ PCATRARO JAMCS A PCMACRPAIRACA MARA m OCLCMARI^ ACTCR C PCMirSAT LAMRCRCC a SCMACrCA RORALOJ SCHULTZ CAROLER V MOtSAI STCVCR J RiROSiO JAMA M ARiZ OCOROC P LCORAROI STC ARTHUR L M STRCm>pTT.iS«4l PCRCO*CT OCiRARO l<••C •l•At• AMOS S OCiRAROl>AM •Mti IRCRC PCorr OARlCL O rOTM OARICL M SATORIUS or COwwMk (612) 335-1546 wniTCR BY MESSENGER Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono 1335 South Brown Road Orono, Minnesota 55323 ReI Sugar Woods Planned Residential Development Our File 18311-2 0»AM MUMSEi crrvOF ORCVOD.______ UUllEIlO^ APR 1 6 1990 Dear Jeanne: This letter is in furtherance of recent discussions you have had with Rick Lang of Steiner & Koppelman and with my partner another curb cut one driveway or two driveways?” I understand that you are taking the position that a looped driveway is two driveways and is prohibited by Paragraph F o City Council Resolution No. 2652, which was intended to protect the^existing trees in the project. We believe that a looped driveway is one driveway and is not prohibited by Resolution No. 2652. However, we do not want to get bogged down about what the City Council meant in passing Resolution 2 , what the developer understood and what city staff understood. Even if the City Council fully intended to prohibit looped driveways, we believe there are good reasons to eliminate tne prohibition at this time. L_ Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth April 16, 1990 Page 2 We are hereby requesting that the Orono City Council formally approve the use of looped drivev/ays in Sugar Woods, because straight driveways are already proving to be impractical and unsafe. Looped driveways are common in Orono and should be allowed in Sugar Woods. If the City Council agrees, it could pass a resolution interpreting Paragraph F of Resolution 2652 as allowing looped driveways or it could pass a resolution amending said Paragraph F. In either case, no driveway should be more than 20 feet wide as it passes through the 50-foot wide front setback area. The question of looped driveways arose recently with the application for a building permit for a house to be built by Steiner & Koppelman on Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods. I understand that several driveway layouts were proposed, namely the following: 1. The builder proposed to build a looped driveway with the enclosed layout ("Choice #1"). It was rejected, because it involved two driveways that cut through the 50-foot area front setback area. 2. The builder proposed an alternate layout consisting of a straight driveway with a turn-around circle (enclosed as "Choice #2"). It was rejected, because portions of the driveway were more than 20 feet wide within the 50—foot front setback. 3. The builder prepared a third layout with a turn-around "Y", which could have been modified to satisfy both the one driveway rule and the 20-foot wide rule (enclosed as "Choice #3"). It was also rejected, because it would occupy more than 1000 square feet (50* x 20') in the front set-back area. 4. You proposed and the builder accepted a fourth layout, consisting of a straight i4-foot wide driveway that widened at the front of the three-car garage (enclosed as "Choice /4”) . If my recitation of the facts is not completely accurate, please forgive me, because most of this is second hand. However, it is clear that on this particular lot a looped driveway would be the safest and most sensible layout, as well as a more aesthetic Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth April 16, 1990 Page 3 solution. Please recall that on this particular lot there are almost no trees within the 50-:*oot front setback area; and that the purpose of Paragrah F of Resolution 2652, as we understand it, was to protect trees 2” or more in diameter. Even if the City elects not to change Resolution 2652, it should permit a looped driveway on Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods. There are many other lots in Sugar Woods where looped driveways would make more sense, even if more trees are taken than with straight driveways. There are four lots on the inside of curves of Sugar Woods Drive and six lots on the outside of curves of Sugar Woods Drive; and straight driveways would result in cars backing into Sugar Woods Drive where it curves. Most of the lots are heavily wooded and backing out of heavily wooded lots into Sugar Woods Drive would be dangerous. Looped driveways encourage off-otreet parking by guests and this is desirable. Sidney Rebers has demonstrated an extraordinary desire to preserve trees on this site. He personally planted many of the trees and he has relocated many trees during construction of Sugar Woods Drive, rather than cut them down. Through his control of the architectural control committee for Sugar Woods, Sioney Rebers will be able to continue his efforts to preserve trees in Sugar Woods. We respectfully request that looped driveways be allowed in Sugar Woods, subject to the site conditions, subject to the approval of the architectural control committee of the homeowners association (which is controlled by Sidney Rebers during the development period), and subject to the limitation that no driveway may be more than 20 feet wide as it passes through the front setback area. We do not think that every request for a looped driveway should need to be brought to the City Council or its staff. We request that this matter be heard and decided at the regular meeting of the City Council scheduled for Monday, April 23, 1990. Sidney Rebers and Rick Lang will attend the meeting and I hope to be there as well. However, I have another governmental hearing scheduled for that afternoon and, if it does not finish on time, I will ask Hugh Maynard to attend in my place. J Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth April 16, 1990 Page 4 Thank you for your understanding and your help on this Koppelman and the other builders by approving looped driveways in Sugar Woods. Very truly yours, LECN STREET AND DEINARD Stephen R. Pflaum HMM:rbb cc: Thomas Barrett, Esq. Mark Bernhardson Sidney Rebers Rick Lang Hugh M. Maynard, Esq. Robert Kost • 0 > o □Ic UJ Vj a o o 5T U <!( O £/) 0) ? JJ s’ o <0 Q O 0 uu OJo 4J o C2>n 061 s 100 ' BSbd I IO0'39Wd CZtlX 06« 6 _jyoynv<) ^ h^OAtf^ _^yo^-p^^ Oi^-nn^y ^-y^ ^ ^ P9^-».ja^>r5 Hoi'o^f^ 0 N^^O N*^ ✓ I J P IO0*39«d CZill 06* B CM I Jj-ay OL. *>Oo,0V.^ ^ -Pr-^i^Y n '■'''Y =«>-^r>T /yo^4^ _/??<? >7y>^ I • CO ^ o ) I a e 111 O Q O O > U U1 & o r 1^/ AVOA^y _po>;,TDy ffu*V' “•“''-O ( J* K...I, o-e ^t>o^ «/ooy T?;/) 0 OVo-y c/^^'y M • » Exhibit G Table of Front Street Setback Areas Frontage Area Lot If Block 1 286 14,300 s.f Lot 2f Block 1 259 12,950 B.f Lot 3f Block 1 246 12,300 S.f Lot 41 Block 1 117 5,850 S.f Lot 5,Block 1 102 5,100 S.f Lot 6,Block 1 175 8,750 S.f Lot If Blcck 2 163 8,150 S.f Lot 2f Block 2 331 16,550 S.f Lot 3f Block 2 173 8,650 S.f Lot 4f Block 2 155 7,750 s.f Lot 5f Block 2 158 7,900 s.f Lot 6f Block 2 327 16,350 s.f Lot If Block 3 324 16,200 s.f Lot 2f Block 3 160 8,000 s.f Lot 3f Block 3 150 7,500 s.f Lot 4f Block 3 155 7,750 s.f Lot 5f Block 3 349 17,450 s.f Lot If Block 4 162 8,100 s.f Lot 2f Block 4 100 5,000 s.f Lot 3f Block 4 120 6,000 s.f Lot 4,Block 4 153 7,650 s.f lot 5,Block 4 155 7,750 s.f Lot 6f Block 4 167 8,350 s.f Lot 7f Block 4 171 8,550 s.f Lot 8f Block 4 194 9,700 s.f To: Fzomt Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 18, 1990 #1526 E.W. Blanch, Jr., 3150 Shadywood Road - Sketch Plan - 10 Lot Subdivision Zoning Districts - B-4 & LR-IB Total Area ■= 31.26 aores Pertinent Ordinance - Please refer to the sketch plan sections within Chapter 11. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D “ Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Application Cook's Report Zoning Map/Municipal Boundaries Legal Description of B-4 Zoning District Resolution #913 Map Locating Area Receiving Fill or Spoils Sketch Plan The 31+ acre property is the remaining undeveloped lands once owned by the Fresh Water Institute and now owned by applicant, E.W. Blanch, Jr. The property is located within both the cities of Minnetonka Beach and Orono. Lot 1, Block 2 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 are located within Minnetonka Beach; Lots 3-9 are located within the City of Orono. Lots 3-7 will achieve access via Old Beach Road; Lots 8 and 9 via Shadywood Road. The City of Orono will work with the City of Minnetonka Beach to complete the comprehensive review. Applicant should advise what the proposed use of Outlots A and B will be and will the use involve the City of Orono lands? Staff has the following comments concerning the proposal within the City of Orono. Lot Configuration - All lots appear to meet the rer/j^re'’ lot width to the rear of the 35* setback. Lot 9 and portions of Lot 8 are within the B—4 commercial zoning district (refer to Exhibit C). The application is presented as a residential subdivision. The City must ask for the rezoning to LR-IB. The lot lines between Lots 6, 7 and 8 should be realigned so that the obvious building site on the hill be contained within the boundaries of 1 residential lot. The wetlands area within the subject property has been designated as an out lot. To bo consistent with Orono's platting regulations, the wetlands area should be incorporated as part of the residential lots and designated as a draina^s easement. Zoning File #1526 May 18, 1990 Page 2 of 4 In preliminary discussion with the City Engineer, typically, when a wetland interacts with the adjacent Jake such as in this case, the wetland is to be designated at the 931.5' elevation (100 year flood elevation of Lake Minnetonka). The preliminary plat survey must confirm that each building site has at a minimum 1/2 acre dry contiguous land. Applicant may seek credit for wetlands areas as property is sewered. Drainageways that drain to the wetlands within the property via the culverts under Old Beach Road, Shadywood Road and Shoreline Drive must be designated as drainage easements as they flow through lots to wetlands to north and eventually to Lake Minnetonka to the northeast. Access - Staff and City Engineer have reviewed the lots for access purposes and find no concern for lots along Old Beach Road. The City will ask that Lots 8 and 9 share access, somewhere in the neighborhood of the shared lot line, probably where partial drive has been created to lift station on Shadywood Road. It is staff's understanding that Lot 9 is to be acquired by the Fresh Water Biological Institute. If this is the case, access will be provided via the adjacent northern property. Applicant should provide further direction as access to Lot 8 must be defined. The Engineer also asked for the upgrading of Old Beach Road. The City of Minnetonka Beach and the City of Orono should work together to determine what standards/criter ja shall be used for the upgrading. The City will ask for the dedication of right-of- way for Old Beach Road as shown on sketch plan. In addition, the County will also review the plat for potential acquisition of right-of-way. Grading/Drainage - The subject property was once used to receive spoils from a suction dredging project within Lafayette Bay. The spoils were not placed within the wetlands but were located in the higher elevations. Based on the map locating that area (Exhibit F), it would appear that more than just Lot 4 was involved with the fill, but appears to involve Lots 3, 4, 5 and possibly parts of 6. Applicant's preliminary plan must locate the fill area. This kind of information will be useful for the building staff xn determining what lots will be required to provide soil borings. The City will also ask that the basement elevation of each residence be located on each lot. Applicant's engineer is advised to review the sewer as-builts within Old Beach Road. Applicant should provide a drainage study/map of the property. The engineer should locate all drainageways that enter the property along the southeast and north sides to determine Impact, if any, upon dry buildable envelopes. Zoning File #1526 May 18, 1990 Page 3 of 4 Rezoning - As already noted, Lot 9 and portions of Lot 8 are zoned B-4, Applicant should advise if the Institute plans to acquire Lot 9. There will be a need to amend the zoning boundaries with the formal subdivision application (please review Exhibits C and D, the legal description and zoning map of the district). Sewer/Water Unit Charges - There will be a unit charge of $897.62 for each sewer unit, and there will be no water unit charges for the 7 lots within Orono. It should be noted that these fees are based on the 1990 Fee Schedule and will be readjusted in 1991 based on an Inflationary rate. As the City of Orono provides sewer and water to this portion of Minnetonka Beach, sewer c»'«rges for the Minnetonka Beach units will be at the same rate v$897.62/unit). There will be charge of $1,691.78 per water unit for lots within Minnetonka Beach. Applicant shall provide the following information upon the filing of the formal preliminary subdivision application: 1. The formal subdivision application must include a rezoning petition. These fees will also include the engineering fees for a public road ($900.00 + .50 per lineal foot for portion of Old Beach Road within the City of Orono ). 2.The preliminary plan should Include the following: A) Wetlands designated at 931.5'. B) At least within the City of Orono portion, wetlands located within Orono must be incorporated within the boundaries of each residential lot and designated as a drainage easement within that lot. C) Applicant's surveyor to confirm dry contiguous buildable land within building envelope of each lot. D) Plan should show the municipal boundaries clearly. E) Designate the legally defined B-4 zoning line. Applicant should confirm if Lot 9 is to remain as B-4. F) Locate all areas that received fill in 1977-78 dredging and filling project. i t 'i Zoning File #1526 May 18, 1990 Page 4 of 4 G) Basement elevation for each residence shall be designated on each lot. H) Drainageways that intersect the property from the adjacent roadways should be shown if there is impact upon dry buildable envelopes. I) Realigned lot lines of Lota 6, 7 and 8 so that building site on hill is contained within the boundaries of 1 residential lot. 3. Other Issues raised by Planning Commission members. CITY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address_ _ _Unassigned Q Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) See attached_ _ _ Please check one - Property x abstract or x torrens? Attach legal description to application. ffD CITY OF ORONO FINANCE OFFICE . I35v20Qm # APPLICANT Name Phone (home) Dennis E. Sandin Phone (work) (612) 591-1329 Landstar, Inc. Address: 6100 Golden Valiev 7^d City: Golden Valiev Zip: 55422 OWNER (if different than applicant) Neune L. W. Blanch, Jr. Phone (home) Phone (work) (612) J,'-3310 Address: 3500 West 80th St._ _ _ _ City: Minneapolis Zip: 55431 (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 6 31.26 Present Use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units _ Other (specify) Vacant Land Present Zoning District_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PROPOSAL _ _ _ _ Division for Tax Purposes . if—X Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) . Existing Units _ New Units Total Units X Units per 1.9+Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) 2. 3. MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Fioperty Owners List of owners within 350* (you must obtain this list from Hennapin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 4. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date 1•. • 2. 3. 4. 5. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 'iltle opinion. Easements, Covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date FEES X Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III} Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I s II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residentlal)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 established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Date Date Applicant must have all submittalsviptq ) 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 authorised agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. iL, ^ I Bonestroo ML m Rosene SRB Anderlik & ^1 Associates Engineers & Architects Obo G Boneufoia. •oDen W Boverv. P£ Jorrp^ C Pf RjcnanJ £ Turner PE 0»yx> PE Gcfvi« CooiL PE Thomjs E Noyei PE toOeft G Sc^urc^L PE Mjrvin L PE Keen A Gordon PE Ricrurd W Foner. PE Oonjid C SipgaicX. PE Jerry A Bourdon. PE Mart A Hjfdon. PE ThJ X PiPXJ. PE Mitnier T Rjocrrxjna PE BbOe^ ff PHe^prte. PE O LosMxa. PE. rrtorrvii W Pptenon, PE. Mcnad C Lyrxn. PE James ft Maiarvl FE icenrw P Andenon. Pt. Mark R RoRl FE ADOert C Russet. AiA Thomas £ Angus PE Howard A SanM. PE Dan«< J Edgerton. PE Mvk A Sen PE. FTvH) J Caswd. P£ Mark D VMftl PE. Thorrvis R Andenon. AlA Gary P Byurxjer PE Mies B jertsen. PE L Prsefcp Grawd ■ PE CharSfS A Enckson Leo M Fs^^rtiky Hartan M Oson Suw> M EOertn. CPA May 1^. 1990 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Ret File No. 139-1526 F.W.B.I. Dear Jeanne, reviewed the proposed residential subdivision on the Fresh Water riolorical The area is served by City sanitary sever and !ater* The developer should be required to upgrade Old Beach Road. There are seven proposed lots in the City of Orono and three lots i» the City i M!„n!rLkr^each Lots 8 and 9 on CSAH 19 should have a joint access Lot : “Sg. .poil so car. in locating the house .111 he necessary. Outlot 'A* be a part of the other lots. Flowage and cLse^IIatlorea««ent8 should be indicated up to the 931^5 elevation. Drain age and utility easements should be required along lot lines. Please call if you have any questions Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK i ASSOCIATES, INC. Glean R. Cook GRC:li 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 i- 5 f«»A-• • »> y4J/fr m i<)/ M %f/•»W/ :• 3f W% . ^ oWfV .»•• • 4 A /# # IV ■>i> \ iH N<5'-r<= Isy ■?o q. 4./ .* *. Ai>*- i .#<• • I » '*> ,N 4 o V 0 /s aji •K.i' / *:‘.*v; *-i ^ V, .O - C.’) S' J*s.l *. I r i 1' ,y ^•n ,-i) i •/ >^"> »■». (»*' rf X. 7: •i ♦. ✓ /•' *w« •W —« n4 ' • • 1• K,. y! «aa/ ••••**' <<M»/I / til /«)•MS'Ti-vt —4? (?»;•..... I A7O f 9» J •«/ A • •• • D The followirg property in Section 20 and 21, Township 117, Range 23: Conunencing at a point in the North line of Section 20 distant 1761.42 feet East from the North 1/4 corner thereof; thence South at right angles to a point in the Southerly line of County Road 15; thence East along said road line 49.53 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 841.51 feet * * *• • • a distance of 265.42 feet; thence South 20 degrees 52 minutes 16 seconds West to the center line of County .Road*No..19 which is the point of beginning; tyj^Ro a __ ;nc@?)^S^^3^egre e i jui t es!^£Isecpod^a I ^ __________ 5bsyi9^feet~a«Aeri^:Sb'uth'lia^'^egreTs.^7^^minute|^^^ •* - - dJ!geSgcelS>£f233 .vfe et ?~x thence^oufeheagfeer^^yaSa^nters^ ee t ."^NorthAakterly^ ^pgyiT^^ggfyhgSnag4nn.»4-AA»-.«SQutAeaste£lvMS5Ssgtt^ cT;i€lL3f4^'<iHS^XNor th- . .•• • •• *• •• •• •/ • •.«• •••• .1* • . •• • • • . Jo?- . • • . f « . «. ^ ' '•. • ■ ».• •* ')C- •r" — • *^;l mi ♦.A..* •/“• :1' M •v> • iu Ai ;»r-:l«<f*i?.<,v.-% Etw »;*•';• ^ f>.j • V ^*r^* • / . • ;‘ V- .* .... «-T •C*\" » '*••' ,.*^ i: V rj'”* *♦.4, r t*»« • ■ -% .»• _-^ W*f—* •*. ^-a„ L^' •' . ■ mm^-;f •r •is ,1« u* ‘iS, k-^fi ii-": ' •*■') &:v ■ g$^>- v y^i kj *i£ ■ *■ *. J RESOLUTION NO. 9/“? A RESOLUTION APPROVING CERTAIN DREDGING AND SPOILS DISPOSAL FOR THE WEST SHORE LAFAYETTE BAY ASSOCIATION WHEREAS, the City of Orono Is a municipal corporation organized and existing mder the laws of the State of Hlnaesota; an WHEREAS, the City Council Is concerned about the problems created by xmregulated dredging In and adjacent to T.*^* Minnetonka, which problems affect the Lake and all the property adjacent thereti. and WHEREAS, the City Council Is concerned that permanent structures and artificial obstructions located in wetlands, lakes, dralnageways, and on property adjacexit thereto may adversely affect the natural resources, open space, drainage patterns and wildlife habitat of the City; and WHEREAS, because of the above noted concerns and for the protection of the health, safety and general welfare of fh^ eicizenx of Orono, the City Council has established and adopted regulations providing for strict control of dredging In and adjacent to the lake and strict control of filling or alteration of wetlands, marsht: dralnageways and land adjacent thereto; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City fionn**<i have reviewed at length an application by the West Shore Lafayette Bay Association for certain maintenance dredging of a channel in Lafayette Bay, Lake Minnetonka, and for placeoient of dredgtid materia upon land occupied by the Fresh Water Biological Institute. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact: 1. The channel dredging Is located In Lafayette Bay, Lake Minnetonk as shown on Exhibit A attached. 2. The channel dredging is required to maintain riparian access to nine residential properties within the City of Orono. 3. The channel to be maintained was previously dredged undgr proper state permits. 4- iv4:JOluClOn No. Pa^e 2 :1 I 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The dredglxig will only remove allt from within the exietlng channel and %d.ll not affect the hard lake bottom. ^ * «• t The dredging will be done according to the condition* o£ the MNDNR permit No. 78*6325 attached hereto aa Exhibit B. * a The dredge apolla will be depoalted on property owned by the Fteeh'^ Water Biological Reaearch Foundatloi aa shown on Exhibit C atteched* The Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District has detexmliiaid.^«^'. that the disposal site la dry land and not wetland or marsh lead/;* . .... . . 4 V The spoils disposal will be a settling basin behind earthen as noted on Exhibit D attached and aa regulated by MPG4 state disposal system permit (application attached as Exhibit E). 9.The effluent from the disposal area will be contained within the large FWBI wetlands and the wetlands water quality, will be dally monitored by FWBI staff as a research experlsmnt as noted on Exhibit F attached. .y y * AND, BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED, that based upon the above noted findings of fact, the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby grant to the West Shore LaFayette Bay Association a Conditional Use Permit for dredging and spoils disposal subject to the following conditions: 1. Dike construction shall be subject to a building permit, which permit may be Issued by staff upon receipt of permits by the MCWD and MPCA and upon payment of the building permit fee. 2. Dike Construction shall be subject to the approval of the City engineer prior to the start of any dredging. 3. The culvert under Old Beach Road (between the FWBI marsh and Lake Minnetonka) shall be sealed to the satisfaction of the City engineer prior to the start of any dredging. 4. Dredging may not begin until receipt by the City of permits from the MNDNR and MCWD and until at least 24-hour notice be given Cb the City inspector. p 0 Reaoluclon No* Page 3 I^Vv . -< ■ # *ri \ inr. * Jtu 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. w Upon construction of the dike, e sign shall be erected at*the applicant's cost on the disposal site, visible fren Old Beach Road and at a location acceptable to the CiQr inspector, irfiieh sign shall be as follows: Size: Material: Legend: 10. no less than 3* hi^ bj 5* long on posts at least 6* hi^. wood or metal with white painted surface and rad, black or blue letters. Vest Shore LaFayatte Bay Aasociatlon Fresh Water Biological ^latitate^ RESEARCH PROJECT (Urger Utters) * Effects of Dredging & Nutrient Release Permits granted by: Minnesota Dept, of Natural Reaourecs . Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minndudia Creek Watershed Diatxiet City of Orono Prior to the start of dredging, the FWBI shall saiq>le the watns .of LaFayette Bay and the FWBI marsh for turbidity and for imtrient levels and shall submit a report of same to the City. During the dredging operation, the FWBI shall daily monitor « turbidity of LaFayette Bay water and shall submit weekly rcpcncts of same to the City. Prior to discharge of marsh water to the lake,' the FWBI shall monitor the concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus and dissolved organic carbon In the FWBI marsh, shall weekly submit reports of same to the City, and shall prohibit discharge of marsh water to LaFayette Bay until concentration levels are ecpial to or lower than LaFayette Bay levels. After completion of the dredging and release of the marsh water to LaFayette Bay, the FWBI .hall prepare a comprehensive report Including conclusions gained from the study and shall submit same to the City, the MNDNR and the MPCA. If, at any time during the dredging operation, the nutrient levels In the marsh water or outlet to IsFayette Bay rise to a point determined by the City to be detrimental to Lake Mixmetonka, the City reserves the right to enforce a stop work order prohibiting further dredging activity until the nutrient levels are reduced. • • <4 • •r • • Resolution No. Page 4 nV-'f ^ “I'-r of th« dredging end releeee or11. Upon conpletlon of tne oreog^ «h*ll be recontoored ««w--Vf s. -u». sirlandeeeped, Incluo^ rowv eroeion end to return the e»*ft-ti-M or .hrob to pr^t ^ ^ ^ .ppllomt'p to o noturol ocoto* irtilch Iw P*o® «*.. viij& •■<*. dtp • lotto eit md for Which thoTWUo«.t .hoU Pgft 'rttn too an , of credit for;»3.000.00 to cncuro porforoenc.. • o •• ... . ,c »». ■* 1^^*. 12. tto w«t «>«•Biological Inctltuto .hall ro^» ^ hola* • - rffS?i:^iSS'.^^»‘-« ^ "^fri^iiment In Se space, provided. AGREED: Earl Sween, Ovalnnan West LaFayette Bay Association A faA hv the city Council of the City of Orono on This Resolution adopted by the C ^ 197^ the DlroBMfh. Biological Inetltute w. Van Meet. Mayor ATTEST: r*!** I' "*- * ,V»w»»yr»'< ZZ . V '• — X* -. J--. 75 ji »’V-- j .... - rS -n To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froa:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: May 11, 1990 #1533 Richard A Julie Marklund - 3415 High Lane Sketch plan of a two-lot residential subdivision Zoning District - RR-IB, Two acre, single family, rural residential, unsewered Application - Sketch plan request for direction for a two-lot residential plat to create one additional building site List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Letter of Request Exhibit C - Survey Exhibit D - Plat Map Exhibit E - Topographic overlay from City files Exhibit F - Topographic enlargement with additional information added by staff Exhibit G - Wetland air photo (1970) Exhibit H - 1989 air photo Exhibit I - City Engineers Recommendation Discussion - The applicants request consideration of a lot split to create a new 3.5 acre lot from the southerly half of their property. They propose to access this lot via an easement driveway fronin Christine Drive rather than by creating a driveway outlet. The driV'ivay would cross proposed Lot 1, over which the Marklund's would grant a driveway easement, but leaving Lot 2 with no actual public or private road frontage. (Exhibit C) This proposal raises numerous questions regarding access, future roads, and viability of the building site: 1. Refer to Exhibit F. Recall that the recent Ducharme subdivision proposal adjacent to the eas*, was recommended for approval with a 25' private road outlot along its west boundary common with the Marklund property. This was intended to provide for future connection between High Lane and Christine Drive with the remaining 25' to come from Marklund's property, for a total 50' width. The Ducharme's have never gone forward to the Council with their subdivision proposal. Zoning File #1533 page 2 ‘SirsSu?/ # . T <-htt citv Engineer is now3. Per Exhibit I, the d recommending that Chr ^ ^nd Ducharme ?rpfa looppakve PV OacHa..e aSnarlclund for this to work. 4. Does the Planning “™^fi°si,on'^withLt an access to approve the plining Commission have any outlot? Further, %uch a Subdivision i"s5i1n":t ‘in," a\° a’lle%°:%o\“/idor to the east via an outlot? . 5. in staffs °Pf"j;®J^ e\tSeSSly^lim^ted°Ss to° house proposed lot line ® _f suitable slopes for the locations, since °i\|SSate site leaves very probable mound sy®^^®® ®"ongtruct a house. My sense is little area be in the area of 6-7% that the pf ^There also may be some concernslopes (See Exhibit F). Tner property about a drainage '^.^y Finally» an alternate ®^^® affecting ®®P'^i^®f®b‘ut s?opes averaging 18% south of Lot 1 must be do'^bt® as to whether this is the house raise some possible. or flag lot? Skere"?"°Doe^th:^oad'hav^ 3. substandard area of Lot 1 based on Enginee proposal? Tot 1? Viable 4. Alternate drainfield site for Lot building site for Lot 2? Ple.se .1.0 review she coe.ents of h- Ciry Engineer, Exhibit !• 1 CITY OP ORONO - SOBDIVISION APP PROPERTY LOCATION mfiBE ams M J \v , I I fV\»\ r—<^'aer/ 150*00Site Address 5S\S L-curv^^^ Lcr^ LaKfc. \m M SS3S(q-------- ‘^Wccwkm^rn ’^Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Q^-lp -XS—OQ17 COOl ROl TWO!- 04/2tm Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application j^PIiICANT Phone (home) M*7 S ***3 ~i(e ^— Name R.vKdn^ (vv^^ Marklut^A Phone (work) Address; ~^<4|g> Lafrxf._________ City; Lnkgx Zip;_5S^Si& OWNER (if different than applicant) Name 5^gL>rv\ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address: (attach list if more than one) _ City;Zip: EXISTING LAND DSE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 5.M<\ Acres Dry Land I .C Acres Wet Land Present Use (check) I ,C fvpydJ^ Acres Wet Land (*.> Acres Total, all parcels X 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: _ O X I 1 Existing Units ^ New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) J_ _ _ Units per Acres A- AjYrtoi Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land X Residential Other (specify) . I r 1. 2. 3. 4. millHUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION nlS»a™on on Certificate of Su^ey. nllZ^fi^APronBrtv Owners List of owners within 350' (you roust obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center A^In^lVdendum 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. Date Zoning Official's Signature,_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ii-rT—__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ I?"‘JI^Iiinrof'fi«'(part ‘f;er’fiung fee, ' 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal pla . 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_ _ _ _ _.— _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & HI) _ _ _ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement 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; ________________________ requested by the Administrate , ^ application and ?i?t“e\"’aq«Ts « pay al l^Tdlt^c^n'feef established by ordinance. P . n 3 Y\ I S y/tc /i $150.00 250.00 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* Applicant's Signature Date ^c> DateOwner's Signature Applicant must have all submittals ^ =t^^n°Mlttlngl^«’'hetl”” Ihl Planning Commission Meeting. must be present at all scheduled bSJi^r.ri?;gVor?be"»bnV/« “Sobibe°d “aVe'nt a\te?d*?n your*pla"c"e a^d to advise the Building a Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. )ticfiarcC G-. flarWuncl S415 Hl^h Lane Long LaHe, ntnnesota 55356 4/26/90 City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 N O O To The Attention Of; Orono Planning Commission Dear Planning Commission Members We are submitting a Sketch Plan Application for your general The address is 3415 High Lane, Long Lake 55356. A Sketch Plan prepared by Mr. Mark S. Gronberg is attached for your review. Our proposed plan is as follows, and the explanations are keyed to the alphabetically or numerically marked items as follow: 1. We would divide our existing acreage into two parcels marked as 1 and 2. Parcel 1 would be two plus acres and remain our primary residence. Parcel 2 of acres would be offered for sale as one parcel / single residence site. 2 We would request that access to parcel 2 be via -OUTLOT A- (marked as "A") which is We Division and currently is connected to ^ would arrange for an appropriate easement from the edge of "OUTLOT A" through ^PP'*®’'B" )’"^We^wou ld"al so^ Mr m Kreb 3445 Hiah Lane ( marked as B ) . we wouia <aibu grant an easement for a private driveway our P'"OP®*‘^y (parcel 1) marked as "C" to provide ^ ^ building site in the general area marked as D . 1 "P" Indicates the property directly to the west which is a residence constructed by Mr. Tom Betz in the Betz Division, and currently for sale. 4 Mr. Steve Schirmers of SP testing has reviewed parcel 2 and believes that soil conditions will be approximately in line with those found in the Betz Division directly adjacent to parcel 2. (t • ^ / /» Tit-iTi-•*^—-^ i« 5. Parcel 2 is mostly fully wooded. We appreciate your consideration of our Sketch Plan and look forward to your comments and recommendations. c;. Richard and Julie Marklund iI % I C Skficfi tor Kicnordti. nurki.inii In iocs } jiNi 50. Aihi. Mill. na. ^5 iieniteiiiii (mwity. hhuiosuij «-ual ilcscription: £m\ 148 feet of the west 1*06 3. Auuiturs. Sutxiivision 203. Inc LOl ____or of record in tne office of rhiiuieoiri County. ^SO rent ut tne Sonin 525.5S led ui accord I ryj lo me uiat inereoi on CCAjnty Recorder in and tor ;;aiu rile -V..' lot 30. Auditor's Subdivision No. 205. iiennciMn County. Hinncsoln. ALSO liidt part of lot 5/. Auditor's Suuuivision no. 205. lyino riortneny oi srhme Htrmesuta Mcsiern KjilHoy.line urnMO uurallcl Mitn jnu distant 45 (cci liortrurasicrly 01 riwiii uiyjies lion tne center line of tiic aoin tracic ol I iicreDy certify tnat this sketch nos nrepored by ec or iNKier ey direct supervision, onu that I au a duly rcoistereu Civil engineer and land Surveyor under ' tne laks of tne State or Hinnesota. CdTFlN t CRONOeRC. INC. E. Hark S. Gronoerg HN. lie. iiu. \27vj Engineers, land Surveyors. Planners long lake. Hinnesota ^aiet 1 m^n ><6^reet Sate : April 28. 19« In'*kr .**• * 2 f o* ae.ftn £m-r M 6 •• ■1 .» f o h'*’'h:!sl>v o 'Si'*: II;;-' & ■■■.• <«<»/» f iK; 0«J^ .t 1- I. • : &■ '■ •pS ■ ••m :. ...ooCti 1 (■ .^/f, finff!!/ .W-l q • /Tk;7 V '^l- l»f, " rA lith’.- 2^iof / V.'a J >■% !^r f.. 0 P3?‘3f||si « k. .,».»• ./ i u ] , • ^.. ;v^\ 4 ^ *VV- • % . ' k. • V V./ VjV ^ REdlSTERED^lJAND ' y' 1. ■■ ^ ■ . .. . j/- . • f f iV^‘' jg, Kr Ml \ ' I'? irnfra-.' M' ^ ^ • ' ikii.82io ‘¥%f *• livIfT ^ 1 • ! f iK '• ' ; '41 *' ^ •'i *k.^^■■, 'jf ■ 1 *i'- .\•<^’■ \ > '.’vT-. 1^49 . - v*^^* Jf*' • riT-'* II MILL V r' V -rROADp j V I 'Z^*i' r* 1^' .' 4 -• , «• .*• ;r rf.. •. ii' ,jJ--*'’ , .' -••j*-# y^Pt'Kks J: te^lV>T y/A*;.-/*- --------------------- t-v-m f pp?s .ur:’ti r i .r rkk4um t'A?>W i. .- m i: V .•'i?y\, r%‘^i ■•v%i I1K» Bk w',' *". .- jBI • . *• :jt >•V T^i ] 1-:^’f^.’B iSi*-‘-:;-''> “«-4 ,.,,3--V'-'y.. ■' *mQ ■1^, ^u;.V-4' > i - f?:.Vi; • ’ * Gv; r r>.,. • - 4^ Vi Vir^'- -£r.\s -is-?;, I ^ ' ■ ^ :W ‘ jKkt ‘*;V rTOWfft^te \V. -?^X r*t; . - '‘•l '? ■S%v- ,**■ w - < r • — :-¥■ V'^.- 5^ r.U‘■tm r. ’. •‘ »-.' w «._^* r* - ■■ ' • i-u’ /’ ^ '. y'V'%?«•■■••? ...; ^i«?.-vas£ /-V %.-,- li. •*-• ^ .A..'V . f ,<|l|* . -rw' k<i' ■•* •'» "•.14 i .W'i' I' f tk .V*';;^‘- v'-r. v>>I I J -»♦- ^ J***•> c;.^* ■' c ■ '«<' ■ -i r f f ; • « t t- «• • .»j Uv'i I■fVV.. . if V.V :•• ;*.u ■; *•• >v /.v-.u V* 0«l 25i m Bones troo Rosene Anderlfk & Associates Otto G Booctffoa PE RotxfX W ftoiene. PE. Jovepn C. AndefiA. PE Ricn^ E Turner. PE. Mmei C Oion, PE Gieno ft Cook. PE Thomas E No>n PE ROOCft G Schuncht. PE Marvin L SorvaU. PE Kerth A OofOon. PE R<na«i Jt/ Toner. PE OorukJ C. BurgaidL P£. Jerry A Bourdon. PE. Mark A Han«)n PE Teo K P«kl PE Michjct T Ratxmarvi. PE Roben R PWTtfie. PE OavxJ Q Loskoca. PC Thomas W Pwerson. PE MkTimi C Lynch. PE. James R Maiand PE iCenneth T Anoersorx PE. Mark R RbRv PE RoOeri C. Russek. AJA Thomas E /viguv PE. Howard A Santord. PE Damd J Edgerton. PC Mark A. SiMi PE Phkip J Ciswef. PE. Mark O WMd PE. Thomas R Anderson. AIA Gary F Rytarxler. PE Mies B Jensea PE L Ph*p Gravef ti. PE Crsanes A. ErKkson Leo M. Paw«<sky Harlan M Ohon Susan M EOerkn. C PA Engineers & Architects May 14, 1990 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Re: File No. 139-1528 Marklund Dear Jeanne, Ve have reviewed the proposed Marklund Subdivision. We would recoounend that a roadway Outlot be taken across the property for the future extension of Christine Drive. This will require cooperation between the Marklunds and the property to the east. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Yours very truly, B0NE3TR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:li 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 iv: ‘• .aioJ \%\xas —