The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-15-1990 Planning Packetf e PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OP ORONO FLAMHH16 COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1990 1275 BROUN ROAD SOOTH - : IH TING 7:00 P.M. NCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Barbara Peterson ATTENDANCE M: IH 111 LED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 p.m. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 3 ACTION ITEMS 2. #1470 3. #1579 4. #1584 5. #1591 6. #1592 7. #1593 8. #1594 9. #1595 10. #1596 11. #1597 12. #1598 Bill Knapp/Dan Parten - 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Referred back to Planning Commission for further review by Council. Garry & Marie Everson - 4655 North Shore Drive - After-the-Fact Variance - Referred back to Planning Commission for further review by Council - Revised Proposal Robert Radunz - 1066 Loma Linda Avenue - After-the-Fact Variance - Public Hearing Orville Fisher - 3300 Fox Street - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Smith Bay Marina & Yacht Club, Inc. - 1955 Shoreline Drive “ Renewal Variances - Public Hearing Philip Kaley - 1395 Brown Road South - Variances - Public Hearing Duane Luke - 2465 North Shore Drive - Variances - Public Hearing John and Marla Merideth - 3685 Watertown Road Variance - Public Hearing Daryle L. Uphoff - 2699 Kelly Avenue - Variance - Public Hearing Ralph D. Burgess, Jr. - 2610 West Lafayette Road Variance - Public Hearing Irwin Jacobs - 1700 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing SKETCH PL2UI REVIEW 13. #1599 Dave Eiss - 1635 Corcordia St. Sketch Plan Review ADDITIOHAL ITEMS 14. 15. 16. 17. ADJODRNNENT 1991 Calender - Schedule Meetings Comments of Planning Commission representative at Council meeting of October 8, 1990.■1 Planning Commission approval of the minutes of September 17, 1990 meeting. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the November 13, 1990 meeting (Tuesday). To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson /. FrcMB Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:October 11, 1990 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Amendment #3 List of Exhibits ~ Exhibit A - Systems Statement - Orono Exhibit B - MUSA Line per Metropolitan Council Exhibit C - MUSA Line per City's Records Exhibit D - Bernhardson's Memo 9/14/90 In 1989, the City received a systems statement from the Metropolitan Council providing updates on systems within four areas: sewers, transportation, parks and open space, and airports. The City was to review the statements to see if their current comprehensive plans and codes were consistent with the Metropolitan Council's findings. The systems statement is enclosed for your review and consideration. After several months and a formal request for delay of the Metropolitan Council, as the City was obliged to submit a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in October of 1989, the City asked for an extension to October 1990. At the September 24th meeting of the Council, it was decided that the City would proceed with a minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment readjusting the MUSA line to include areas already sewered but not included within the MUSA boundaries and to provide a supplemental memo updating certain population forecasts, etc. As the City Administrator's memo of September 14th advises (Exhibit D), in reviewing the status of the Highway 12 corridor planning, it would be premature to develope any extensive transportation plan or make any changes to the original plan approved in 1980 until the corridor is defined. Upon resolve of the location of the corridor, the City would proceed with a major Comprehensive Plan Amendment. At that time it is hoped that the City may consider goals and policy changes regarding public vs. private roads in the City. The Planning Commission is asked to review and act on the proposed MUSA line realignment incorporating properties already approved and served by sewer and not included within the M.U.S.A. as defined by the Metropolitan Council in their current systems statement. Please review Exhibits B and C, the current MUSA boundaries nand the map drafted by staff. Note the following sewered properties will now be included within the MUSA boundary: J Comprehensive Plan Amendment #3 October 11, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Hackberry Hill (property sewered since early 1970s and somehow excluded from MUSA) Properties on east and west side of County Road 64 or Old Crystal Bay Road Properties along North Shore Drive East of Noerenberg Park through Scotch Pine Lane The Art Center of Minnesota 650 North Brown Road. CITY OF ORONO NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 1275 South Brown Road on Monday, October 15, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of reviewing the City of Orono's Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Per the 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act (Minnesota Statute 473.856), the City is required to respond to the Council's Metropolitan Systems ?tatement. In response to the Metropolitan Systems Statement, the City of brono proposes the realignment of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area line to include the following described properties that have been approved and served by municipal sewer: I. All in 09-117-23 22 Suffix 13 0004 13 0006 13 0007 14 0001 14 0006 24 0001* 24 0002 41 0002 41 0003 41 0004 42 0001 42 0002 42 0003 42 0004 42 0005 42 0007 44 0001 44 0002 44 0004 44 0005 44 0006 44 0007 • Except those portions iying -he northeast quarter in the nortn i/2 of the southwest; quarter of II. P.I.D. #34-118-23 12 0004 (o50 Norh Brown Road) All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. The meeting starts at 7:00 PM. Written comments are solicited. Plans are available for review in the City offices by appointment. City of Orono 3y: Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator To be published the week of October 1, 1990. / 'i88 Systems Information Statement Orono III. METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK (MOIF) A. Geographic Policy Areas The MOIF established policies for different geographic areas within the metropolitan urban and rural service areas. These geographic policy areas are the setting in which the Council and local governments prepare and carry out their plans. Part of Orono is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and part of it is located in a rural service area. The urban and rural service areas in Orono are separated by a MUSA line. A map of the MUSA in Orono is found in Section 0. Orono should refer to the policies in the MOIF for the MUSA and for the Rural Service Area as it prepares plan amendments in response to this systems statement. The MUSA is defined as that part of the region in which urban~scale development and investment should be located. It is that area where the Council ha$; made a commitment to providing metropolitan system service capacity, in accordance with the regional system plans and with local comprehensive plans that are mutually consistent. B. Forecasts of Population, Household and Employment The Council has prepared forecasts of year 2000 population, households and employment for each county, city and township in the region. The forecast data for Orono is listed on a data sheet that is contained in this part of the system info'"nation statement. It is important that you review the year 2000 forecasts for Orono, since the local comprehensive plan forecasts need to be consistent with Council forecasts. You should contact Council staff in the Comprehensive Planning Division if your community's plan anticipates a higher level of year 2000 population, households or employment than current Council forecasts. The Council uses the year 2000 forecasts as an indication of where growth is likely to occur, and thus where metropolitan system services will be needed. The forecasts are also used when the Council reviews a community's request to change its MUSA boundary and extend metropolitan services to new areas of development. The 2000 forecasts are reviewed when local development trends are found to vary substantially from Council forecasts, when unanticipated development is proposed, or as part of amending the local comprehensive plan. The Council revises its local forecasts every five years, using U.S. Census data as a base. The next revision of the forecasts will be made in 1992. At that time, the forecasts will be extended to the year 2010, and new estimates of local land supply and land demand relative to the MUSA wil! be prepared for each community and county in the region. I 11 - 1 1988 Systems Information Statement Orono Data Sheet for Orono 1. Forecasts of Population, Households and Employment PoDulation Households Emoloyment 1980 1980 Z.2P>1980 *JTO 1990 I.ViO 1990 ^.,'TCO 1990 2000 2000 Z-.QCO 2000 Cjco 201c*2010*Z.TjCO 2010*nco *Note:The 2010 forecasts are used for system sizing purposes only. 2. Estimates of MUSA (a) Land Demand Residential Land Demand and Land Commercial Industrial Supply, 1980-2000 Streets Pub lie Alleys Parks -1990 I5C 0 0 5 -2000 c 5 C Total 1980-1990 Land Demand: Total + 1991"2000 Land Demand: Total I9SO-2OOO Land Demand: acres cgQ acres Residential density ■■ dwelling units/acre acres 1980-2000 Land Demand with five-year overage*: ZJtC acres *The Council believes that the uroan service area should contain at least a five-year oversupply of urban land within each community. (b) Land Supply 1980-2000: ZZ£> acres Current supply: \JA acres The land supply figure reflects the net developable area inside the local comprehensive plan/urban service line—excluding water, wetlands, bedrock, floodplains and any covenanted agricultural preserve lands. The Council's land supply figure includes platted but undeveloped lots as of 1980. Ill - 3 kpl117/PHENVl»@6 01.31.89 1988 Systems Information Statement Orono For purposes of sizing metropolitan system facilities, the Council has prepared forecasts of local population, households and employment for the year 2010. A primary reason for making these forecasts is the long lead time involved for the planning and investment decisions that are required to ensure system capacity to serve the anticipated growth. C. Data Sheet for Orono The data sheet is included on a separate page. D. MUSA Mao A map for Orono is included on a separate page. E. Plan Amendment Process The Council has adopted guidelines for the plan amendment review process. These guidelines and process apply to all local plan amendments. A copy of the guidelines document. Metropolitan Council Guidelines for Reviewing Local Comprehensive Plan Amendments, is attached as an appendix to this systems statement. Council staff in the Division of Comprehensive Planning and Local Assistance are available to assist you. if you have any questions about the process. Communities are encouraged to discuss plan amendments with us before they are formally submitted for Council review and comment. Ill - 2 1988 Systems Information Statement Orono II. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Orono (Developing Community with Metro Service) A. Policy Plan Revisions And System Information Information in this section is based upon the revised Water Resources Management. Part 1. Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan. September, 1988 (copy enclosed). The Policy Plan should be consulted by Orono In preparing an amendment to the sewer element (sewer policy plan) of Its comprehensive plan. Of particular Importance to Orono will be the policies related to water quality and sanitary sewer services, and the "Content Requirements for Local Sewer Plans," (see Section C below). 1. Metropolitan Service (Developing Area) The forecasts of population, households, employment, and wastewater flows for Orono as contained In the adopted Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan are listed below. These forecasts are for sewered development. The sewered housing forecasts were calculated by multiplying the Council's household forecasts for each year by the vacancy ratio for each community. The community's projected total population, households, and employment fo 1990 and 2000, as Indicated later in Part III, could be somewhat different due to the development served by on^slte sewage disposal systems or private treatment plants. Sewered Population Sewered Housing Sewered Employment Wastewater Flows (mgy)* im 2m 2m 4,700 5,000 5,800 1,800 2,000 2,400 600 600 700 204-217 223-237 259-284 ^million gallons per year The flow projections represent the Council's commitment to a level of service, assuming the Council's underlying demographic forecasts are maintained. As stated In the MDIF, the Council will vary local flow projections besed on verified growth as well as the lack of growth. As stated in the revised policy plan, flow projections do not represent an allocation of Interceptor capacity except In the event a temporary system constraint occurs. II-l I I aa ns 1988 Systems Information Statement Orono At a minimum, the Council and Commission will reevaluate flow projections every five years in conjunction with the Council's review of the municipal forecasts. However, the Council and Commission will also monitor individual local governments' flows annually for significant changes. The Council and the Commission will use these population and wastewater flow forecasts to plan all future interceptors and treatment plants needed to serve your municipality. Orono, through its comprehensive planning process, must decide the location and staging of development, and then plan and design its local wastewater collection system to serve this development. If you plan a total wastewater flow from your municipality in excess of the Council's forecasts, your assumptions will be analyzed by the Council for their possible adverse effects upon the capacity of the metropolitan system. When developing your plan, you should not exceed the projected flow for your community or the capacity of a metropolitan facility without first discussing the need for this with the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission staff. If necessary, detailed information regarding metropolitan facilities is available from the Commission. Contact the Municipal Services Section at 222-8423 for this information. Map II-A shows the location of metropolitan facilities serving your municipality. Existing or planned metropolitan facilities serving your community are as follows: 6-OR-641 MWCC 7113 MWCC 85-67 Lift Station 49 Lift Station 46 Lift Station 45 Lift Station 44 Lift Station 43 Lift Station 42 2. On-site Sewage Disposal Systems Management The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act requires the sewer element (sewer policy plan) of local comprehensive plans to describe the standards and conditions under which the installation of private sewer systems will be permitted and to the extent practicable, the area not suitable for public or private systems. Ihe revised policy plan states that on-site sewege disposal systems are appropriate to serve single-family residences at development densities of 4 units per 40 acres or less if local governments adopt a management and control system consistent with federal and state laws and Council guidelines (Policy 2). It is the Council's position that all municipalities and counties allowing on site systems incorporate HPCA regulations (Minn. Rules Chapter 7080) as part * program for managing on-site systems in the sewer element of their local comprehensive plan, and implement the standards in issuing permits. The program should include the keeping of permit records, licensing, correction of II-2 ' j » i; Figure H-A METROPOLITAN SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES NORTH MINNETONKA AREA (INCLUDING THE CITIES OF LONG LAKE. MAPLE PLAIN. MINNETONKA BEACH. ORONO. WAYZATA AND WOODLAND) % J f.^w= I _v M^\VCC-83-52-i4^I ■k::^s3 i^NG LAKE *«iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii pnfij ORONO ri'^va urirvc^j, <3r m lsM a^73cROPOS^& X r \ I im.l IMPROVEMEN -. (T ti I Vn WAYZAfe 4-M0-65( ,-44 ,L-43 .. t L-43 MSB-7018-^ rzz -e 6-0R-S4I V WOODLANW />6MS8-:TO73 j46 MINNETONKA^^i—^.L-zr L-49 L-39^6-M0-65I •«MS8-:J073 IS^■'i. MSP.7n;f:3jl'S8-f073 REVISED. MSa;7073^ crTT^ ■ WaatB water traatmani plant «■ Existing intarceotor ■i ■ Proposed Interceptor O Lift station III! Force main —«- Community boundary MMaa Map souroe; Metropolitan Waste Control Commission L988 Systems Information Statement Orono existing system problems and training of personnel. Where comprehensive plans permit densities in excess of 4 »inits per 40 acres, local governments should also incorporate an on*going inspection and maintenance element as part of their on-site system management controls (Policy 2 and Content Requirements for Local Sewer Plans). See Policy Plan Table 8. It is the Council's position that group on-site sewage disposal systems, such as communal drainfialds are acceptable to abate pollution problems caused by existing urban concentrations not designated as rural centers (Policy 11). The content requirements for local sewer plans address local planning for these systems. 3. Management of Private Wastewater Treatment Plants Small private treatment plants are located throughout the Metropolitan Area serving such developments as individual industries, mobile home parks, and ocher urban-type uses located in the urban and rural service areas. The Council is concerned that these facilities encourage urban development in the rural service area or become the responsibility of the Council or Commission due to permit violations or death or bankruptcy of the owner-operator. The revised Policy Plan states that private treatment facilities should be permitted only if they are provided for in Council-approved comprehensive plans and are in full accord with the local comprehensive plan (Policy 12). Orono should include in the sewer alement (sewer policy plan) of its local comprehensive plan the conditions under which private treatment plants would be allowed, including the location (map), capacity and flows to existing facilities, declare that under no circumstances will private wastewater treatment plants be acceptable. If there is a later change in the conssunity's position or policy, a plan amendment should be submitted for Council approval. B• Determining Whether m. pXflB It may not be necessary for Orono to prepare an amendment to the sewer element (sewer policy plan) in its cvirrent comprehensive plan. If Orono's plan or expectations for development meet the following conditions, the community may choose not to prepare an amendment to the sewer element of its comprehensive plan. The community should submit instead a statement to the Council certifying that the community's plan or expectations for future development meet all of these conditions. If the conditions change, an amendment should be filed at that time. Soom of the conditions listed may not be applicable to your community. 1. the coonunity agrees with the Council's population, household and employment forecasts for 1990 and 2000, 2. the community is in agreement with the Council's forecasts for sewered population, housing, employmf.nt and wastewater flows for 1990, 2000 and 2010, 3. no increase is planned in the community's projected wastewater flows for each metropolitan Interceptor from those stated in the community's current Council-approved sewer elerient, II-3 1988 Systems Information Statement Orono 4. the community’s current comprehensive plan is consistent with Council policies for rural area density, and the management and control of individual on-site sewage disposal systems as follows (See Policy Plan, Table 8): a) all local governments allowing on-site systems incorporate MPCA regulations (Minn. Rules Chapter 7080), keeping of permit records, licensing, correction of existing system problems and training of personnel. b) local govemmants allowing densities in excess of 4 units per 40 acres also incorporate post-installation inspection and maintenance element as part of their on-site system management controls. 5. the sever element of the comprehensive plan is consistent with Council policies for the management and control of private wastewater treatment plants, 6. no change in the MUSA is expected or planned at the current time, and, 7. no new or expanded municipal treatment plants are planned at the current time. 8. a communal drainfield has been constructed or expanded since the community or county last submitted its comprehensive plan or an amendment to the Council for review. C. Format And Content Of Plan Amendmenrg The revised policy plan clarifies the concent and format requirements for both Che sewer element (sewer policy plan) of a local comprehensive plan and the local comprehensive sewer plan (see Content Requirements for Local Sever Plans). It may be necessary for a local government to prepare amendments to one or both of these plans. In formulating proposed amendments local governments should follow these guidelines. The policy plan establishes a two-tier system for the preparation and review of local sewer plans and amendments. Tier I information, which constitutes the sewer element or sewer policy plan requirements, will be reviewed by the Council and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Tier II information, which constitutes the comprehensive sewer plan requirements, will be reviewed only by the Commission. Tier II should be submitted to th* Cnmw^|only after the Council completes its review of Tier I and the local yovemmanc adooea the amendment. Advisories This information does not require immediate action on the part of local governments, but it may affect local sewer planning in the future. • Preliminary Advisory to all Communities with Metropolitan Service Regarding I/I Abatement The revised policy plan states that excessive infiltration of groundwater and inflow of surface water (I/I) to local sewer systems has a significant impact on the capacity and operation of the metropolitan system and that local units of government should review their respective I/I problems and prepare II-4 I 1988 Systems Information Statement Orono (JoaJy ’^r'' ^irSSJc^JlU^pJepirl^t^nrllT'rthe Council In December 1990 assesaln* l? t-w ®^*®hnlcal reports, due to the metropolitan system Impacts and 2) the f"II* community and •nc.ur.g, l.e.1 goi.r™.iS“o ‘"“"tlv.. to after 1990 If they need to address will be notified will be required to submit an amendment to th affected local governments co.pr.h.n.tv. pu„ .ddr.«i^J S! '".It ■oneh. of roeolvlng eh.tr 1992 .v.?!! ■>« I/I »tthtn 9 for Ueal s.«.r Pl.n.) .or ch. Infomelon to II-5 i I. TRANSPORTATION A. Introduction The Metropolitan Council has revised the Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan . Orono needs to determine whether a local comprehensive plan amendment is necessary to demonstrate consistency with the revised transportation policy plan. Orono should consult the full text of the Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan in preparing any amendments to its local plan. B. Significant Policy Changes Significant transportation Issues will affect this region over the next 20 years. These issues Include: growing commuter traffic on the region's highways; the need for expensive replacement and Improvement of much of the region's highway and transit infrastructure; and the inadequacy of transportation funding to accomplish these Improvements. Because it is impossible for the region to build its way out of congestiont the revised Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan is based on a "constrained-demand" approach. One of the plan's main premises is that careful management of the regional transportation system can help maintain the good access to regional opportunities that exists today, despite the large growth in travel demand expected in the future. Orono needs to determine if comprehensive plan amendments are needed to address highway, transit and land-use issues. Actions that Orono may need to implement are Indented and set off with a o . 1. Highways The 2010 metropolitan highway system is shown in Figure 1, and a description of system roadways within the city of Orono is Included in Section IC. Orono should expect increased traffic levels through 2010 both on the metropolitan highway system and on local arterlals and collectors. The new Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan recommends a mixture of capacity Improvements and traffic management strategies to address those future traffic problems. State and local units of government are expected to provide a minor arterial system that is adequate to accommodate shorter trips (less than five miles), eliminating these trips from the metropolitan highway system (see policy plan Appendix P). The city's comprehensive plan should contain a street and highway component that includes a minor arterial and collector system adequate to handle local traffic. This system should take short trips off the metropolitan highway system and provide continuous travel through adjacent communities. , T-.*.- - -*-i —If"'- -i.rrrr-• t*-— i—nr tr - 2. Transit The revised policy plan (which defines transit as all forms of riding together) makes a significant commitment to reverse the trends of declining transit ridership and auto occupancy. Contributing to this increased transit use will be expanded employer rideshare programs, reverse commute transit to serve suburban employers, circulators within regional business concentrations. Increased transit for elderly and disabled people, and upgrading of existing regular-route services, including implementation of light rail transit (LRT). The transit system is shown in Figure 2. The policy plan advocates direct involvement by cities and major employers in transit by creating a physical environment that encourages transit use. Council Policy 5, identifies appropriate transit services within Orono. o Orono should work with the Regional Transit Board (RTB) in identifying transit needs and coordinating special transportation and rideshare services. Orono's comprehensive plan should reflect its transit needs and plans. The policy plan for the first time advocates development of light rail transit (LRT) in this region and identifies six priority corridors where LRT could be cost-effective by the year 2010. No corridors in the plan are proposed to directly serve your community, although communities without direct LRT service may still benefit from new or redirected bus service connecting with nearby LRT lines. The County Regional Railroad Authority, which is currently responsible for LRT implementation within the county, has prepared, or will be preparing, a comprehensive LRT plan to further explore LRT potential that may affect your community. It is Important that all affected municipalities participate in planning studies related to LRT implementation. The Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan advocates preserving linear rights-of-way, such as abandoned railroad lines and surplus roadway rights-of-way, for future public use, including LRT. Orono should aejiress these aspects in a comprehensive plan amendment, if appropriate. C. Metropolitan Highway System Facilities The information in this section is derived from the revised policy plan^ from Interagency corridor studies, and information from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. This section of the systems statement identifies the metropolitan highway system facilities within Orono, summarizes current and anticipated 2010 roadway characteristics, and indicates programmed and planned improvements that are consistent with the Council's policy plan. Orono's comprehensive plan transportation element should address the Information contained here. The metropolitan highway system is shown in Figure 1. Appendix F of the Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan describes the functional classification of these roadways. Interstate freeways and other principal arterlals, as well as local highways and roads. The following portions of the metropolitan highway system lie within Orono: 1 Metro Highway TH 12 from Indeoendence Approx. Old Crystal to Bay Road Number Through Lanesy Excluding HOV lanes: ^OV lanes: Access: Level of Congestion: Other Comments: DPF105 Existing (1986-88) Conditions Programmed Conditions (TIP) Planned Conditions (2010) 2 Same Same None Same Same At Grade Same Same Minor/Moderate Severe Metro Highway TH 12 from Old Crystal Bay to CR 15 t’xisting (1986-88) Programmed Planned Conditions Conditions (TIP) Conditions (2010) Number Through Lanes, Excluding HOV lanes: Same Same DPF105 HOV lanes:None Access:At grade Level of Congestion: Moderate Severe Other Comments: METROPOLITAN HIGHWAY SYSTEM CONGESTION LEVELS (Vehicles Per Lane) LEVEL METERED FREEWAY UNMETERED FREEWAY EXPRESSWAY ARTERI, MINOR < 17200 < 14000 <9600 < 7000 MODERATE < 19350 < 15750 <10800 < 7875 MAJOR < 21500 < 17500 <12000 < 8750 SEVERE > 21500 > 17500 >12000 > 8750 Source:^ta/D0T Testimony on Transportation Policy Plan DPF107/PHTRN2e5 .1 I ' D. Transit Services and Fadliries 1. Introduction The information contained in this section is derived from the revised policy plan and from the Regional Transit Board's (RTB) Transit Service Needs Assessment and other studies. This section identifies the existing metropolitan transit services and facilities, and identities appropriate improvements to the system. The City of Orono should work with the RTB in amending its comprehensive plan transit element The Council would like to emphasize the importance of the city's role in planning and development of effective transit services. While it is important that the city prepare an adequate transit component of the comprehensive plan, it is even more essential that each city create an environment that encourages ridesharing and transit use. Examples of development site designs and street improvements that foster transit, including ridesharing, are found in the "Handbook on TraCBc Mitigation". This handbook also includes examples of city ordinances that encourage employer and developer commitment to transit, ndesharing and other travel demand management efforts. 2. Existing Transit Services Existing transit services in Orono are outlined below. For more detail on transit services, see Attachment E: RTB's Transit Service Needs Assessment Subarea Market Analysis. (a) Existing Regular Route Services Service is operated in the City of Orono by the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC). The MTC operates one local route, route 51. and one express route, route 75. through Orono. More detailed information is included in the attached Transit Service Needs Assessment (TSNA) Subarea Analysis. (b) Existing Ridesharing and Travel Demand Management (TDNfi Efforts Mirmesota Rideshare provides rideshate services to employers, communities, and individuals in the Twin Cities Metropditan Area. Mirmesota Rideshare provides pool matching services to individuals, localized and regional marketing, and technical assistance to employers and others in developing rideshare programs at the work site. (c) Existing Park-and-Ride Lots The City of Ororv) has one park-and-ride lot with a capacity of 25 parking spaces for poolers and bus riders. This lot is described in mote detail in the RTB's Transit Service Needs Assessment Subarea Analysis located in Attachment E (d) Existing Elderly and Disabled Services Special tr^portation for elderly and disabled persons is provided in Orono by Metro Mobility service. 3. Transit Service and Facility Needs The following needs and strategies have been identified to improve transit service in the City of Orono. (a) Regular Route Scrv’ice Needs Transit needs for the City of Orono arc detailed in the attached TSNA Subarea Analysis, Generally, this includes implementation of the 1-394 timed-transfer recommendations. (b) Ridesharing and Travel Demand Management (TDM) Needs Communities, employers and developers should play a greater role in promoting ridesharing and creating a favorable environment for iL (c) Transit Facility Needs The City’s plan should include uansit stops and shelters at major activity centers and new developments. In new developments, passenger waiting areas, bus pull-ins and bus turn arounds should be considered. Additionally, sidewalks should be placed along major routes to encourage bus usage. (d) Elderly and Disabled Service Needs The City of Orono should work with the Regional Transit Board and providers within the city in plaiming elderly and disabled services. (e) Light Rail Transit Service .Needs The City of Orono should coordinate with the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRAi on the development of an LRT plan for the county. 4. Implementing Transit Services and Facilities The Regional Transit Board can provide technical assistance in examining or implementing these identified services and facilities. City staff must be actively involved in this process of evaluation, implementation and monitoring. For assistance in preparing the transit element or your comprehensive plan, contact RTB Planning staff at 292-8789. E. Land Use and SoGlo-economic Fcrecaat Relationships As part of responding to new directives in the policy plan, Orono will need to demonstrate that its land use plan is related to its forecasts for households and employment at the Traffic Assignment Zone (TAZ) level. This section provides 2010 population, household and employment forecasts for each TAZ located within Orono. 1980 Census data is provided at the TAZ level for comparison. Orono should review the TAZ level forecasts in Table 1 and, if necessary, submit suggested revisions by June 1, 1989. Any redistribution at the TAZ level should be consistent with the 2010 municipal totals for population, households and employment. By Oct. 1, 1989, Council staff will finalize the 2010 forecasts based upon the oouBBunlty's input and negotiations with city staff, if necessary, and will determine whether those changes will further affect the metropolitan highway system. In addition to the TAZ forecasts, information is provided in this section regarding conversion factors by land use type that will allow calculation of theoretical levels of population and employment at maximum development. The city should compile the land use data for each TAZ in Orono, using the land use categories and conversion factors found in Table 2. The city should also differentiate between existing development and additional development anticipated by 2010. If either the categories or the conversion factors are not applicable or woricable in Orono, please contact the Council so we can resolve this issue prior to the completion of a plan amendment. The city will note that several commonly used land use categories are not listed in the table. These include public and semi- public uses and vacant and agricultural land. These categories were not included because they tend not to contribute to peak hour traffic. 0ROM0/PHTRN1§5 1 At^l 1 1 .1 U ti.UNilMli IOKLi.A^).>OY lAZ 1«. . i>5 Wi I«NI. 50Air .IIOKOAi^i .2. rJ8 I 1^9 OkOi IO • - ♦ ous lAZ lOiroiMi 11)1 1 ion 108 I0III02 1 lOI IM(*8 lOI IM)«2 1 Ut 18 Ut 12 1 708 7b 1 955 1 144 425 58/25 37 4 6 709 752 1691 2029 525 723 35 53 14 2 1 710 753 1717 3057 561 775 63 95 0 0 711 754 7 17 859 2 17 340 40 60 14 2 1 7 12 V.35 386 462 1 12 156 55 82 5 8 7 13 756 1376 1649 451 619 252 373 38 56 CITYNAME 6845 8200 2291 3200 470 700 75 1 13 I (11 HOP <■ 11’I At IMIinn A I ION IQIlMt‘‘lUI At. LMI’lUiMLNI IH( It SllMM HIM MS If) I'JUO lUllUt-'101 At HOllStMOl Ob kCI-KLiAII tMI'lOVMlOl lilt 2 1 SOI f I » HI H kb 10 2010 TABLE 2 LAND USE CONVERSION FACTORS RESIDENTIAL* Very low density** Low density** Medium low density Medium high density High density Very high density Less than one unit/acre 1-3 units/acre 4-6 units/acre 7-12 units/acre 13-24 units/acre Over 24 units/acre * Communities may collapse the number of discrete categories as appropriate to their individual circumstances. **Very low and low densit;, will be calculated on a gross density basis (including streets» open space^ etc). Multi-family categories will be calculated on a net basis. NON-RESIDENTIAL Office Retail Industrial Warehouse 3.3 employees/1000 square feet* 2 employees/I000 square feat* 2 employees/1000 square feet* 1.3 employees/1000 square feet* Mixed u.v,' Public >£d semi-public Local determination Local determination * Communities may use another value if they adequately document the reasons for differing with this value. These values are baaed on rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers and actual measured rates in the Twin Cities. JM3243 Figure 1 RECOMME.NDED METROPOLITAN HIGHWAY SYSTEM, 2010 Additional Highway Sagmenta 91490.5 TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat September 14, 1990 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Responses / • ISSUE - Present to Council proposed changes in response to Metro Council's transportation and sewer chapters. INTRODUCTION - At the beginning the City had explored possible changes including those related to public and private streets and what changes, if any, might be to areas for possible sewering, such as Stubbs Bay that are currently not sewered. Transportation - Given the current highway corridor study it is recommended that the response to Metro Council indicate such and that once complete the City will develop any amendments that may be needed to its comprehensive plan. As you are well aware, the Highway 12 corridor study could have a substantial impact on the transportation facilities in the community and it would be prudent to await the outcome of the study of the corridor. That may have the most substantial change on the transportation in the community. Sewering - Apart from incorporating areas that have been sewered in the past that are currently not included in the comprehensive plans, and possible minor changes to the code in order to comply with the on-site treatment requirements, no other changes are recommended in response to sewer at this time. ACTION ALTERNATIVES - 1. Determine what changes should be brought forth for Planning Commission consideration. 2. Table. 3. Take no action. POLICY - 1. Undertake a minimal response including the comprehensive plan update to the MUSA line in the community based on areas already sewered. 2. Undertake substantial modifications in response to these plans. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that a minimal response throu^ a minor comprehensive plan be processed through Planning Commission and Council for submission to Met Council. At this time the City does not have sufficient data to amend any } of the data absent the census data that is still in a preliminary form. As such only minor recommendations for amending the forecasts are proposed as a commentary. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by only minor amendments at this time. Ayes / Council recommends Nays To;Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson 4 Prom: Michael P. Gaffron^ Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: October 11/ 1990 #1470 Bill Knapp/Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Read - Preliminary Subdivision, Planned Residential Development - Referral to Planning Commission from Council List of Exhibit Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Discussion *■ Council Action Notice 9/26/90 Revised Preliminary Plat Drawings Memo & Exhibits of 9/18/90 Bill Knapp has purchased this property from Dan Parten and has taken over the subdivision application where Parten left off. A new proposal for a three lot PRD has been submitted. Please review carefully the memo of September 18, 1990. The additional exhibits are included to provide a perspective on past Planning Commission and Council action on the various proposals Parten had submitted. Staff Recommendation *< Planning CummisJixon is requested to carefully review the proposed 3-lot PRD, and make recommendations on not only the proposal as presented, but consider also the issues noted on Page 4 of the September 18, 1990 memo. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 55323 APPLICATION NO. 14/0 NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 9/26/90 TO:Bill Knapp COPIES: Dan Parten 13809 Industrial Park Blvd.1015 Tonkawa Rd. Plymouth, MN 55441 Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivi<:lon DATE OF :ih:ITIN6: September 24,VOTE: 4 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Council referred the application to the Planning Commission for r review. This item will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on Monday, October 15, 1990. Meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. Isv ] To: Prom: Date: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator September 18, 1990 Subject: #1470 Bill Knapp/Dan Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Planned Residential Development Zoning District - RR-lA, Rural residential, 5 acre Application - 3 Lot Planned Residential Development - Preliminary Plat Note: Bill Knapp has purchased this property from Dan Parten and has taken over the subdivision application where Parten left off. A new proposal for a 3-lot PRD has been submitted. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Preliminary Plat Drawing Exhibit B - Notice of Council Action 3/15/90 Exhibit C - Council Minutes 3/12/90 Exhibit D - Previous Memos, Minutes and Notices r i t. '<■ c l}' O Pertinent Facts - 1. 2. 3. Total Property area: Area Lot 1 Block 1: Area Lot 1 Block 2: Area Lot 1 Block 3t Outlet A (open space): Outlet B (open space): Outlet C (private road): Outlet D (pi..-ate driveway): 17.06 acres 3.3 acres 3.0 acres 2.7 acres 1.6 acres + 4.5 acres + 1.2 acres + 0.8 acres + Each of the building lots exceeds 2 acres, and each has tested suitable primary and alternate drainfield sites. The shape of Lot 1, Block 1 is of necessity contrived in order to place the alternate drainfield site within that lot. The applicant proposes to construct a private road to City standards within Outlot C, with a loop rather than a full cul-de-sac. The intent of the loop is to save as many trees as possible on a center island, therefore being functional for traffic purposes while not appearing to be a broad expanse of bituminous in the middle of a woods. A driveway outlot (Outlot D) is proposed to continue past the loop turnaround, to serve 3 residences. Staff has discussed with the applicant the possibilities for placing the cul-de-sac further east so that the McCloud property woul'^ abut the cul-de-sac rather than the driveway Zoning Pile #1470 September 18, 1990 Page 2 outlet. While Outlet D has been widened at the southeast corner, the topography at that location is relatively steep (14-16% slopes) and would not allow development of a full cul-de-sac without major excavation and tree removal. With respect to the cul-de-sac location, two houses will use a single 800' long driveway for access, while the McCloud property will share as a third user of that driveway for the first 100', then split off directly east towards his property. It would seem that the topography of the site might be considered as sufficient justification to allow construction of the loop as proposed, allowing the driveway configuration proposed to serve 3 houses for a short distance. 4. The City Engineer has reviewed the plat and has recommended that a drainage easement be taken over the portion of Outlot B which separates Lots 1 and 2; and an additional drainage easement 30' in width over the drainage way running from south to north within Lot 1, Block 1. 5. Outlets A and B are intended as open space outlets, and the applicant intends to provide covenants for the ownership and use of those outlets by a homeowner's association. The homeowner's association will also be responsible for maintaining Outlets C and D. The road and driveway outlets were separately designated not only for the purpose of defining what is private road and what is private driveway, but to aid in drafting maintenance agreements for the various segments. 6. The existing 60' "Reiersgord easement" is intended to be released by Mr. McCloud. Discussion Because this application has seen so many revisions and variations, a brief chronology of action to date may be helpful to keep this current proposal in perspective: 1. 9/22/89 - Applicant proposed a 3 lot plat of the 17 acre property. 2. 10/16/89 - Planning Commission tabled the request; applicant advised to consider a PRD; 50' road outlot corridors need to be platted including access corridors to Reiersgord, Asao and Deters properties; Lot 1 to be revised so it contains the alternate drainfield site. Zoning File #1470 Septembeer 18, 1990 Paqe 3 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11/7/89 - Applicant proposed a 3 lot plat addressing concerns of outlots and Lot 1 septic contiguity, requested area variance for Lots 2 and 3 (4.3 and 4.4 acres respectively) and requested that City waive requirement for paving of the private road. Parten also provided a 2 lot concept plan omitting the northerly parcel, and submitted a conceptual PRD plan with reasons why he doesn't prefer the PRD. 11/20/89 “ After much discussion between Planning Commission and Pa-'^en, including discussion about a 2 lot subdivision, application was tabled pending submission of a 2 lot plat of the southerly 12 acres, addressing the issue of site drainage and road easements vs. outlot creation. 1/9/90 - Applicant proposed a 2 lot plat of the entire 17 acres including a 40' "driveway" outlot from Bayside Road to the southeast property boundary, with a 20' driveway outlot to the northerly parcel. 1/16/90 - Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend approval of 2 lot plat with 50' road outlot and 20' driveway corridor; road upgrading to City standards required at the time Lot 1 is further subdivided or when an abutting property using the road outlot for access is developed. 1/22/90 - Pursuant to applicant's 1/19/90 letter to Council regarding private road and driveway standards. CounciImember Callahan suggested that staff comprehensively review the road systems in the area of the Parten and McDowell applications before they are brought to Council. 2/8/90 - Results of that study recommend that a 50' road outlot be extended to the north property line for potential future access to Watertown Road. 2/26/90 - After much discussion. Council tabled application but advised applicant of likelihood that Council will request a 50' outlot heading north along the east property boundary. 3/12/90 - After additional discussion. Council tabled the request until the applicant proposes a revised plan. Zoning File #1470 September 18r 1990 Page 4 No additional information was submitted by Parten. In Summer 1990, he sold the property to the current applicant, who has been working with ' caff to devise a PRD that addresses the issues of concern. The current applicant has acknowledged that a private road will have to be constructed in Outlet C all the way to the loop. Issues previously of concern but not addressed with the proposal include : A.Easement access for the City to Nature Conservancy parcel. B.Continuation of Outlet D for future use by Asao and Deters properties. C.Continuation of Outlet D for future access across Luce Line Trail. Regarding Item A, if the City requests an easement for access to the nature conservancy parcel, that easement would logically be through the neck area of Lot 1, Block 1. The applicant could be requested to provide such an easement, which would have no significant effect on the subdivision. The intent of that easement would be merely for City maintenance of the nature conservancy parcel should the City acquire it, and would not be intended to provide public access to that parcel. Regarding access to Asao and Deters, if an access corridor was dedicated now, such corridor likely being within open space Outlot B, the City would not have to deal with the homeowner's association in the future should such an access become necessary. Asao and Deters have stated they have no need for such an access. Regarding the access to the north, such a concept met with extreme resistance from property owners in the area, and if proposed along the east property line would have a significant effect on septic sites for Lot 1, Block 3 if such a road was ever developed. Council might consider the option of making Outlot D 50* wide, and ending it at the south end of Lot 1, Block 3, with the idea that should a future connection to the north become necessary, there is adequate acreage in Outlot B and in the Reiersgord property to accomodate that. Staff RecoHBendation Because Mr. Parten last appeared before the Council, this application for preliminary plat is brought forth again to the Council. The Planning Commission has not reviewed this specific proposal. Council's options are as follows: i i Zoning File #1470 September 18r 1990 Page 5 1. Refer this PRD proposal to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. 2. Direct applicant to make specific changes to the proposed PRD and bring it back for further review. 3. Direct staff to prepare a preliminary plat approval resolution for your next meeting, incorporating whatever additonal conditions or requirements Council deems necessary. 4. Other. Isv APPLICATION NO. 1470 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION 55323 Date of Notice: 3/15/90 TO: Daniel Parten 1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF :i:4:TING: March 12, 1990 VOTE; 5 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Table until applicant proposes a revised plan If you desire certified copies of the official council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder or City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 12, 1990 ZONING FILE #1452-PEMBERTON CONTINUED March 26, 1990 Council Meeting. #1470 DAN A ROTH PARTEN 4300 BAYSIDE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION ^ ^• Parten was present for the review of this application. City Adfiiinistrator Bernhardson provided a brief explanation and history of this application. Bernhardson said that Parten is asking for a two“lot subdivision and a lot line roarrangenient. Bernhardson noted that the Reiersgord property to the east may have in excess of 6 acren dry buildable land, rather than 4.6 acres originally estimated. Councilmember . Callahan asked Mr. Parten if he had received the most recent information from the City staff. Mr. Parten replied that he had received a mailing from the City. Mr. Parten said that staff is recommending that he proceed with a three-lot PRD, but he is not interested in developing three lots at this time. He said in light of the recent information regarding the size of the Reiersgord property, the north/south outlot could be placed wherever Council feels is best. Mr. Parten said that he is still unclear as to why staff is asking him to provide access to the northern properties. Parten said that he is also concerned about the C.^ty s recuest to construct the north/south outlot at a 50' width. Parten asked for Council direction regarding these three issues. Mayor Grabek felt that it is not the Council's place to instruct an applicant on how to develop his property. Councilmember Nettles said that these three questions were discussed at the last Council Meeting. Councilmember Goetten agreed with Nettles and added that the Council has previously attempted to provide Mr. Parten with direction in achieving the best result. Goetten stated that in her opinion, proceeding with a PRD would be best, however, Mr. Parten does not wish to do that. Mr. Parten stated that the Planning Commission had provided direction which allowed him to develop the plan he is proposing. He said that Council is not looking at that plan, but is suggesting something that he does not wish to do at this time. Councilmember Goetten advised Mr. Parten that he does not have to develop all three lots at this time. The PRD will allow future development of the parcel without the need to go through the subdivision process again. • t - 9 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 12r 1990 ZONING FILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED Mayor Grabek asked for staff input. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that staff has recommended that this be developed as a three- lot PRD. Gaffron said that a twc-lot standard subdivision with extensive, dedicated roadways will leave Mr. Parten with less than a 10 acre parcel. Gaffron said that due to the e^-sting access easement to the Peiersgord property, staff views that road as serving three properties. Thus it is necessary to comply with the City's Code and provide outlets. Grabek asked whether staff has discussed this proposal with Mr. Parten? Gaffron replied, "Yes, several times." Grabek asked whether this proposal was presented to Mr. Parten at the February 26, 1990 Council Meeting? Gaffron replied, "I believe that it was." Grabek said that the next step in this process then would be to have Mr. Parten present his proposal to the Council. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Parten if he was ready to do that this evening. Mr. Parten replied, "I wanted to get Council's direction before another drawing is done." Grabek asked the Council if it is their consensus that Mr. Parten should proceed as staff has recommended? Council indicated that they agree with staff. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to table this application until the applicant notifies staff that he is ready to present his proposal. Motion, Ayes- 5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1468 GEORGE PILLSBURY 1300 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. and Mrs. Pillsbury were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson provided the Council with a brief summary of this application. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, that this application be reconsidered and that Council approve the request fcjr hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances, in addition to the conditional use permit. Councilmember Goetten asked whether there has been any - 10 - \ TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin. DATE:March 1, 1990 SUBJECT: #1470 - Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision List of Exhibits A. Notice of Council Action 2/27/90 B, Memo and Exhibits of 2/22/90 Discussion This item was tabled at your February 26th meeting for further consideration of issues related to road outlets and access. Since that meeting, applicant has discussed his options with staff, and may be submitting a revised proposal for Council fpvipw. No revision has been submitted as of this writing. Some members of Council gave applicant general direction that they would prefer to see a 50' outlet in place of the previously proposed 20"' driveway outlet. However, this direction did not appear to be unanimously held by all Councilmembers present. Staff continues to recommend that this property be divided via a Planned Residential Development. This would give applicant the greatest flexibility and highest possible use of his property under the current RR-IA zoning standards, while still addressing many of the City's concerns about access and further development in this neighborhood. Staff has not drafted a preliminary plat approval resolution pending a determination by the applicant and Council as to whether this will be a standard plat subdivision or a PRD, and dependent upon Council's conditions of approval. A preliminary plat approval resolution will b#» drafted as soon as approval parameters are defined. * . < APPLICATION NO.1470 CITY OP ORONO P.C. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 2/27/90 TO:Daniel Parten 1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OP APPLICATION:Subdivision DATE OP MEETING:2/26/90 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Tabled to March 12th meeting for further consideration of Issues related to road outlots and access. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder or City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. Ipll MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26» 1990 Mr. Bichanich when the contracts will be paid in full? Mr. said that issue has not been addressed. Gaffron suggested that it be indicated that the lot with the principal structure would be assigned a unit, the other lot would not. He said that would be a tool to encourage that the lots be combined. He said, however, if someone attempts to build on the other lot, they should be charged for a sewer unit. CounciImeraber Nettles amended his motion to address that issue in the resolution. Acting Mayor Callahan seconded. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1470 DAN & ROTH PARTBN 4300 BAYSIDE ROAD SUBDIVISION Mr. Parten was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief history and explanation of this apolication. Bernhardson said that h. had met with Me. Pact.n today to discoss and op^^ An issu. that concerns Mr. Parten is the point at whi«i tne •nrivate driveway" would be upgraded with hard surface. He and M^r parten discussed the long fir,, goal being ‘^e possible future need for a north/south road. There could, perhaps be a <3elay of upgrading the private road until such time that a third . to develop or a permanent public road to the south is completed. Mr. Partis his iSdicated that he would like to proceed with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Gaffron reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. Gaffron said that the north/south driveway ^5=^5!, configured as shown :ecause the Planning Commission did not want Lot 2 to be a flag lot. counciimember Goetten asked Gaffron where the 50' road corridor referred co in his memo would be located. Gaffron ? > Id that based on the discussion at the previous Council meet: the City may wish to have a corridor extended further north. Goetten asked whether Mr. Part»n would have for three 5-acre lots if the 50' corridor is included in th plat? raffron r^p'l-d that if both the 50* outlets along the east boundary lid I iJ' outlet along the existing driveway are included it wou3d have an impact r- »-he amount of ry u land available. MIHDTBS OF ORONO COONCIL MEETING OF FEBROART 26, 1990 B<»rnhacdson said that it is because of that possibility that the City is suggesting that Me. Parten proceed with a PRD. Mr Patten advised that he had not received staff’s recent memo pertaining to the 50* corridor along the east property line. Acting Mayor Callahan suggested tabling this application to allow Mr. Parten an opportunity to review the most recent information. Mr. Parten said that he would like the opportunity to address the Council. He pointed out that he is not creating a new lot, he is only proposing a lot line rearrangement. He said that there is only one logical building site on the Reiersgord property to the east. He said that placing the corridor against the east lot line would crowd that building site. He said that moving the outlot over 41' would provide more room. Mr. Parten also said that the topography near the lot line is steep and there are many mature trees existing. Mr. Parten said that it is not his responsibility to provide access to people that already have satisfactory access. Bernhardson noted that the Planning Commission did not recommend that the City take any underlying utility and road easements for the 20' north/south outlot. Acting Mayor Callahan asked why the City is not asking for more of a dedication than 20' and why the normal easements are not being dedicated? Gaffron said that the Planning Commission recommended that a narrow outlot be used to serve Lot 2 because they wanted to avoid creating a flag lot and the need for a lot width variance. Acting Mayor Callahan indicated that it may be more favorable to grant a variance than to have to condemn land at a future date. CounciImember Nettles asked if there wouldn't be a need to upgrade the north/south access once three lots are developed? which beings a third lot into consideration. that City is recommending that Mr. Patten proceed with a 3 lot PRD subdivision with a substantial access to the Mr. Parten has indicated that he would prefer to proceed as the Planning Commission recommended. Acting Mayor Callahan said that because underlying road easements may exist, does not mean that a 50 roa w immediately constructed. MIHUTBS OF ORONO COONCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 1990 these houses on a driveway. Acting Mayor Callahan said that it is likely that at some point in th^e future, the 5-acre zone will be reduced to 2-acre or 1-acre. The City has to look ahead. Mr. Parten said that the future zoning of that ® not concern him and the issues involving access would be dealt with at the time the property is rezoned. Councilraenber Goetten said that the City has just started to consider a transportation plan for that id^hP^nlaced'’*^the City is sure that this is where a road should be placed. Callahan said that the City is not sure ° transportation plan that this is where a should be placed. However there are properties to the north of Mr. Part.n s property and Mr. Parten’s property itself may lubllvlded. Callahan said that due to the ^^^raphy »£ the land, the location being proposed for the road is the b. location. Bernhardson said that Mr. Parten initially proposed a 3-lot subdivision that had a 50' outlot comi.ng ^^^nd °hen proceeding along the south property .line proceeding north and west. Bernhardson sa .d ? uifch Mr Partin r^^Qarding a variation of l.h<* initial p p ^ that would accomplish what Callahan had indicated he would like to achieve. “V ?/d”i"nd“iftiS^thft' tle^^Vid'' no''t"*want°him*to"°p^%' freal Ld reconJended ^that he go back to the beginning J=°"* another proposal. He said that now his proposal only Involv.s lot line rearrangement and he is not creating any new lots. Councilmember Goetten informed Mr. Parten that proceeding with a PRD would allow him more options. Nettles observed that due to the P'°P03-<3 <5 “vew®y being 4V into Mr. Parten's property, the property needed to upgrade the driveway to a public road would come entirely from Mr. Patten 3 property . Mr. Parten said that due to the fact he had recent information from the staff, he would request that th. Council table this matter. Acting Mayor Callahan informed Mr. Parten that «h®n this matte^ U heard^ again that he will recommend that there be a 50 MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 1990 outlet rather than 20' and that there be underlying easements. Councilmember Nettles agreed with Callahan. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table this application to the March 12, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-C, Motion passed. #1486 SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT 3020 FOX STREET PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION # Ms. Nina Wildman was present for this matter, as was Mr. Mark Gronbetg, the Surveyor/Engineer for Ms. Wildman. Bernhardson reviewed the information involved with this application and noted that the Planning Commission had recommended denial. Mabusth briefly noted that there had been opposition to this proposal expressed by the adjacent property owners. Mr. Gronberg said that Lot 7, Block 2 is very conducive to a tennis court because of the shape. He said that there has been much interest in tennis courts expressed by future lot owners. Gronberg said that more than likely a tennis court will be constructed on that lot whether it is done by the developer of the individual that purchases the lot. He said that there would be more control exercised if the developer constructed the court. Mr. Gronberg noted that the tennis court meets all of the required setbacks. He also said that there will be nothing to restrict the construction of tennis courts on other lots, but having this court available to the residents of the subdivision would probably discourage individual courts. Acting Mayor Callahan asked what the use of Lot 7 will be if not used for a tennis court? Ms. Wildman replied that it would available for building. It disturbed Councilmember Goetten that the subdivision had already been approved and this request was being presented after the fact. Goetten believed that it should be the responsibility of individual property owners to build their own tennis courts. She said that it is not in keeping with this area to have a tennis court located at the entrance of the subdivision. Goetten had attended the Planning Commission meeting when this was discussed many of the neighbors were very opposed to this propsal. Ms. Wildman said that the reason she was coming back with this request was because she had been approached by an interest#»d party wishing to buy Lot 7 and install a tennis court. She thought that it may be best to put the tennis court in herself because it is at the entry to the subdivision. She said that she To; ProB Date: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator February 22, 1990 Subject: #1470 Ruth & Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision List of Exhibit Exhibit A - Memo & Exhibits of 2/8/90 Discussion - This item was tabled at the applicants’ request at Council's February 12th meeting. In light of the road discussions at the February 12th meeting, staff would add the following options to th'.<*e indicated in the February 8th memo: 6. Direct applicant to revise his standard plat proposal to include a 50' road corridor along only a portion of the length of the east property line for internal traffic circulation purposes, and not necessarily for the provision of future road connections to Watertown Road, 7. Council could request that applicant revise the proposal to a PRD in order that future concerns about ability to gain a future third lot are eliminated. U'r*o IZ MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP FEBRUARY 12, 1990 CONCEPTUAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONTINUED ^ Council to plan for the future of the entire City. She said that the Council would not do anything without properly notifying those that would be affected. Goetten said the Council appreciates the 5-acre zone and would like to keep it as is. However, the Council cannot prevent people from coming into the City# purchasing and subdividing property. The Council has to plan for that. Goetten said that she welcomed the comments being brought forth this evening. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Nettles, to table this matter and direct staff to notify all affected property owners if there is any further action on the transportation plan. Motion, Ayes-3, Nay-0, Motion passed. #1470 DAM & RUTH PARTLN 4300 BAYSIDB ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION ^ ^ v ,• iIt was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to table application #1470, as requested by Mr. Parten. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1473 JACQUELYNH KELLY ' 2056 SHADYWOOD ROAD AFTER-THB-PACT VARIANCES = Ms. Jacquelynn Kelly, Mr. James Klein, Mr. Stuart Bear, Attorney for the applicant and Mr. Dennis Johnson were present for the review of this application. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief explanation of this request for after-the-fact variances. Mayor Grabek asked the applicant why work had continued after the City had issued a stop work order? Mr. Johnson replied that due to winter coming, work continued so that the lumber would not be laying on the ground. CounciImember Goetten noted that the stop work order was issued in September, which she did not consider to be winter. Mr. Johnson said that his client has complied with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. They the portions of the deck extending into the 0 “75 setbacx area. The neighbors on each side of Ms. Kelly have no objections to the deck as^long as there is nothing built on top of it. said that Mr. Bear would be preparing a document that future land owners on notice that nothing further could be done to the deck. Mr. Johnson noted that the portion of the deck that extends into average lakeshore setback is lower than the pr existing deck. Mr. Bear said that it is the intent of the applicants to bring the deck into conformance with the 10' side setback. w , '2. To: Proa: Date Subject Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson £ L.L, • • r ■ • • ij ^-o Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator February 8, 1990 #1470 Ruth & Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Discussion •* Memo & Applicants’ Letter# 1/19/90 Notice of Planning Commission Action l/-'’/90 Memo & Exhibits of 1/10/90 The applicant is proposing a lot line rearrangement between his 13 acre homestead property and an adjacent 4 acre parcel w’ ich he owns. The 4 acre parcel abuts the Luce Line and was the subject of a lot area variance request in 1988# which was tabled until the applicant could provide legal access. Mr. Parten purchased this property# and proposes to expand it to increase its area to the 5 acre minimum# and provide it legal access to Bayside Road. The application as described above has evolved from Mr. Parten's original request to concurrently also split the homestead parcel into 2 lots. Staff and the Planning Commission have taken the position that the original plan would have required construction of a standard private road# to serve 3 building sites within a subdivision. The applicant subsequently dropped that proposal# not wanting to bear the expense of constructing an extremely long private road. With the current proposal there remains a concern as to the need and timing for private road development# due to the vacant 4-acre Reiersgord property directly to the east# which gains access via an easement through Parten's property. City Engineer Recoanendation - The City Engineer had recommended that a 50' road outlot extending to the northwesterly property boundary be dedicated to provide future access for 2 existing residences south of the Luce Line# which currently use Turnham Pond. Glenn also recommended construction of th;, road now# and further recommended that a 50' drainage easement be dedicated over the ravine traversing the homestead parcel. He further recommended that the applicant agree to grant the City a future access easement to the nature conservancy property. zoning File #1470 February 8, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Planning Conmission Recommendation - The Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 16, 1990 and voted 5-0 to recommend approval subject to the following: 1. 50’ wide outlot from Bayside Road to the east lot line. 2. 20’ wide outlot extending to the northerly parcel. 3. Drainage easement for ravine to be 15' wide. 4. Standard drainage and utility easements to be granted. 5. Standard road and utilities easement to be greeted over the 50’ outlot. .6. At the time that a third residence is developed on this or neighboring properties which uses the existing driveway for access, the shared driveway will have to be upgraded to City private road standards. 7. Applicant to provide a turn-around or back-up apron for each of Lots 1 and 2 for emergency vehicle access. 8. Park fee for Lot 2 to be collected with the building permit. 9. Protect drainfield sites. 10. No requirement for nature conservance property access easement. Northwest Orono Road System Review - At Council's January 22nd meeting. Council reviewed briefly a letter from the applicant regarding road standards, and Council directed staff to do a review of road needs in that general area. Please refer to the road study document in your packet. That study generally suggests that it would be appropriate to plan for a future route to develop a connecting road between Watertown Road and Bayside Road, approximately midway between the Ring Route and Stubb's Bay Road. That study generally recommends that a 50' corridor be provided generally along the property line between the Parten and Relersgord properties. Depending on whether the corridor is taken entirely from the Parten property or shared by Parten and Reiersgord, it would have a distinct effect on both those properties. Zoning File #1470 February 8, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff Recommendation - If the Council wishes to proceed with acquiring dedications for future roadway in this area, that certainly affects the applicants' proposed lot line rearrangement. Council's options are as follows: 1. Approve per the Planning Commission recommendation. 2. Direct applicants to work with staff to revise the proposal to create a 50' corridor along the entire length of the east property line for future road. 3. Refer the application back to Planning Commission for further consideration in light of road study recommendations. Note also that the City might wish to consider updating its Comprehensive Transportation Plan. 4. Table for other reasons. 5. Other. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council 24ark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator^ DATE: January 19/ 1990 SUBJECT: Parten Letter Attached is a letter from Mr. Parten outlin^ his concerns regarding oublic and p;.ivate roads and his development. He has indicated‘a desire to address t.he Council and it has been ijj^icated he could do so during public comments. This letter has been prepared in advance of his appearance. His application was recommended for approval with the road by the Planning Commission at its 1/16/90 meeting and is expected will be presented to the Council for their consideration at its 2/12/90 meeting. To:Planning Coirjnission Chairr.an Kelley Crono Planning Ccrmission Members Citv Administ:rator Eernhardscn Prom: Date JL «Michael ?. Garrrcnr Assr Planning S ^-cning .-icnn—s- January 11, 199C Subject: Code/Comprehensive Plan Canrliens Meecing runura Resolution A. Conflict Between Subdivision Code S Comprehensive Plan The Comorehensive Plan defines a "driveway” as an a_llowable tyre of acoe'ss to serve a r.aninmi or £^£22 to anv oublic easement or access rignt. -- sa.-s „..a- -/e-a w‘d-^h*(i.e. the actual traveled width) will oe regu_atec in cases of more than one user or wnere tnere -s e.<--ss-/e- -/- . length. The Subdivision Code (not the 3cning cede) provides private ■^oad design standards that state for 3 ® res_-enw-a-. richt-of-way width of 50' is requirad, with a minimtim pave-^ wi_ of^24'. The Subdivision Code requires an out-ot ro- a y--. -- road serving 3 or more lots [Section 11.10, Suncivision .... (C)]. Clearly, there is a conflict between these two w-cc*menwS. 3, Conflict Between Zoninc Code i Citv's development -sn_ Both the Subdivision Code and Comprehensive Plan provide for and encourage the development of private roads in the a^ea [Subdivision code S 11.10, Subdivision 21 Section 7-12, Subo. 4 "Rural Transportations Pc-icies). ^.e- whe Citv has interoretad its Zoning Code as stas-ing extracolating of definitions, all newly craatec ''or on a 'public street, therefore new 7° ‘“f” o’^ivata roads recuire a variance (see MPC me.mc o- j/6/ 3b/. .-e definitions for lot standards seem in dire need or ravision. is the City's clear intent that development witn private road appropriate.To do so should not require variances. ZONING FILE NO. 1470 CITY OP OROWO P.0, Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 1/17/90 TO:Daniel Parten 1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES TO: TYPE OP APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OP MEETING:1/16/90 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Conaission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Outlot A shall be 50 feet in width and extend from Bayside Road to the east lot line. 2. The 20' corridor as shown on the proposal shall be platted as Outlot 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. B. 3. The drainage easement traversing Lot 1 to be 15' in width. Granting of standard drainage and utility easements along all lot lines, i.e. 10' along perimeter lot lines, 5' either side of the interior lot line between Lots 1 and 2. Applicants to grant a standard road and utilities easement over Outlot A subject to a private road covenant to be filed in the chain of title in Lots 1 and 2, providing for private ownership and maintenance of Outlot A. The property owners are placed on notice that at some future date that Lot 1 is subdivided to create an additional lot, the City will require upgrading of Outlot A to private road standards. Furthermore, at such time that any other abutting properties are developed that will make a use of Outlot A for access, such development shall trigger the requirement that road be upgraded to City private road standards even if Lot 1 has net been split. A turn-around or back-up apron shall be provided for each of Lots 1 and 2 for emergency vehicle access. If such access is provided by a loop driveway, the minimum center line radius of that driveway loop shall be 50', with a minimum 20' driving surface width. Because this is a lot line rearrangement. Park Fee for Lot 2 need not be paid until such time that a residence is constructed on Lot 2. Drainfield sites have been defined on each of Lots 1 and 2 and the property owners shall protect those sites from any use or disturbance which would render them unusable as sewage treatmient sites. 1 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16r 1990 ZONING FILE #1469~CITY OF ORONO CONTINUED passed. #1470 DAN & RUTH PARTEN 4300 BAYSIDB ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 P.M.'TO 7:55 P.M. Mr. Parten was present for this application review. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron briefly reviewed the information pertaining to this application for a preliminary subdivision. Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that the applicant is now proposing a lot line rearrangement in lieu of a 3 lot subdivision. Mr. Parten said that he is trying to start over due to the frustration experienced in attempting to create the 3-lot subdivision. Mr. Parten felt that a lot of "neighborhood planning" was being included in this and reminded the Planning Commission that this is now a basic lot line rearrangement. Mr. Parten asked the Planning Commission for some guidelines as to what is required with a lot line rearrangement. Kelley explained to Mr. Parten that the objective of the lot line rearrangement is to to provide enough land to m.ake Lot 2 buildable# and to achieve accessr via an easement from Lot 1 to Lot 2. Brown asked whether access would be achieved by way of an outlot or easement? Kelley said that it could be done either way. Gaffron interjected that in order to be consistent with City Codes- it should be an outlot, since it will ultimately serve 3 lots* the 3rd lot being the Reiersgord property which has an easement for access. Kelley asked whether it would be possible for Mr. Parten to grant an easement for Lot 2 without the approval of the City? Planning Commissioner Cohen referred Kelley's question to CounciImember Callahan. Callahan opined that to the best of his knowledge, because Mr. Parten owns both Lots 1 and 2, he could grant an easement to Lot 2 without City approval. Gaffron noted that the City's subdivison regulations technically require thac the creation of an access easement must have City approval. Mr. Gabriel Jabbour, 985 Tonkawa Road, said chat after the last Planning Commission Meeting, Mr. Parten was going to drop his option on this property and he was going to pick it up. He MINUTES OF THB PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16 r 1990 ZONING FILE #1470-PARTEN CONTIN1 said that had he purchased the property from Mr. Parten, Mr. PaiTten could have granted him an easement to access that property without the City's involvement. Kelley noted that the Reiersgord property to the east has a 60' easement and that Outlot A is 40’. Gaffroii said that the prelilminary plat drawings indicate the Reiersgord easement may be extinguished at some time in the future. Mr. Parten said that the future owners of the Reiersgord property would benefit from the vacation of the easement in that it will allow them enlarge their building site and build their residence in the location best suited to do so. Kelley asked Mr. Parten for his opinion regarding the width of the drainage easement, 15' versus 30'. Mr. Parten said that he preferred the 15' and felt that he "was getting the total weight of the municipal government" thrown on him. Parten said that this is just a lot line realignment, not a subdivision. Mr. Phil Asao expressed concern about the previous discussions regarding accessing his property and the Deter property. Ms. Asao said that he had given a letter from his attorney to the staff. He said that his attorney's opinion is that he has legal access all the way to Turnham Road. Kelley informed Mr. Psao that access and his property are no longer an issue with this subdivision. Mr. Parten asked whether the Planning Commission thought that the road configuration set up the possibility of a future exchange that will be mutually beneficial to both property owners ? Kelley replied, "I think you're awfully nice to do this; you don't have to do this. Reiersgord should be here to shake your hand, he's got a lot that he may or may not be able to build on, just like Lot 2." Brown questioned if Mr. Reiersgord was under the 5 acre requirement and that was his benefit for partaking in a future lot line rearrangement? Gaffron said the question is, if there is a future equal trade, then Mr. Reiersgord does not gain anything, except a more useful area, but no more acreage. Gaffron said that Reiersgord s property is between 3 and 5 acres now. Mabusth replied that the lot line rearrangement would open up the obvious buiding site. 8 MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED Brown asked what the pluses and minuses are of easement versus outlot. Gaffron replied that for a subdivision, the code requires that when you are serving 3 or more lots, there must be an outlot, not an easement. Gaffron said that the question here is whether we are serving 2 lots or more than 2. Gaffron said at some point it will be likely that there will be 3 or more. Gaffron questioned whether this is classified as a subdivision, or a lot line rearrangement? He said that because it is a plat, it fits the definition of a subdivision, but in reality, all it does is change the lot line between 2 properties. Brown said that an outlot should not be required. Gaffron said that the City would take underlying utility and road easements for an outlot. Gaffron said that another question to consider is whether the outlot/easement continuing to the north should be subject to a City easement or should it stay as a private driveway without an easement, or should it be a separate outlot? Kelley suggested taking that question one step further and sisKed what would happen if Mr. Parten subdivides Lot 1 into 2 lots. Kelley said Mr. Parten will have to submit an application for a subdivision and the outlot question will have to be raised at tnat time. Kelley said if Reiersgord comes in for a building permit to build a house, he will probably need a variance. Kelley said that due to the existing 60' easement, Reiersgord might get the area variance without anything else to do with the Parten property and have a sufficient access to that property. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission how they would feel about that. She said that issue of a private ^public road is always raised by the Planning Commission. Mahusth advised the Planning Commission that there is no difference between easements for access purposes or outlets ~ the areas of each are excluded from the dry buildable area. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of the lot line rearrangement with the modification that Outlot A be 50' in width to the eastern property line, and Outlot A (extending north) be at a width of 20'. Gaffron asked whether the Planning Commission wished to keep Outlot A a single outlot or split it into two. Brown asked what the advantage of having two outlots would be. Gaffron said that from a legal description standpoint, if a homeowners' association is to take care of Outlot A, what does that mean? Kelley said that there should be two outlots and Outlot A shouxd extend to east property line and the northern extension could remain a driveway, designated as Outlot B. Kelley further recommended approval of a 15' drainage MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED easement through the middle of the lot. Brown asked if the 10.6 acres included the 60' easement? Gaffron presumed that the 10.6 acre figure was exclusive of the 40' and 20' road outlots and the 15' drainage easement. Gaffron said that there is still adequate area for building since this is approximately 10 acres in a 5-acre zone. Brown said that he is trying to preserve the possibility of having two 5 acre lots. Hanson commented that he was uncomfortable with a 15' easement for the drainageway and prefer to see 30'. Re asked if 30' would have an impact on buildable area. Mr. Parten said that he would prefer to proceed with this as simply as possible. He would basically like a lot line rearrangement and access by an easement. He said that the plan shows a lot more than what is actually required. Parten also said that he heard the Planning Commission make the decision that the Reiersgord lot is buildable and it is being counted as a third lot. Parten said that all that should be taken into consideration are two buildable lots served by a road. Brown asked whether or not the buildability of the Reiersgord property is known. Mabusth replied that it has not been determined whether or not the Reiersgord property is buildable. Parten said that the less the Planning Commission does at this point, the better. He said they should just look at this at face value and forget about the outlot and buildability of Reier-^ord property. KeJ ley said that if an error in planning is made, he would prefer to error on the side that provides for an outlot and easements to two properties. Kelley said that the probability is that Mr. Parten will trade land with the property to the east, and there will be third lot. Gaffron asked Kelley if he wished to include any of staff's recommendations in his motion? Parten requested thac the Planning Commission consider removing the Outlot and jusc leave him the ability to serve Lot 2 with an easement. Kelley read the conditions of approval, 1-7, set forth in G«*ftron's memo dated January 10, 1990. Kelley said that item #7 should not be included. Kelley said that he would amend his f!iotion to include a 50' outlot from Bayside Road to the eastern property line and a 20' outlet, Outlot B, from the southern boundary of Outlot A to the northern location indicated on the map, Cohen seconded. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion carried. NOTICE OF PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION January 17, 1990 Page 2 of 2 10. Planning Conunission recommended against the requirement that a future easement to the Nature Conservancy be committed to. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, February 12, 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. Please contact staff to discuss what (if any) additional exlij.bits may be required for submittal prior to Council's preliminary plat review. i e/'/T r 11190.2HD To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froa:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:January 11, 1990 Subject: Code/Comprehensive Plan Conflicts Needing Future Resolution A. Conflict Between Subdivision Code & Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan defines a "driveway" as an allowable type of access to serve a maximum of three residents, not subject to any public easement or access right. It says that driveway width (i.e. the actual traveled width) will be regulated in cases of more than one user or where there is excessive driveway length. The Subdivision Code (not the Zoning code) provides private road design standards that state for 3 to 6 residential units, a right-of-way width of 50* is required, with a minimum paved width of 24'. The Subdivision Code requires an outlot for a private road serving 3 or more lots (Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 IC)]. Clearly, there is a conflict between these two documents. B. Conflict Between Zoning Code & City's Development Intent Both the Subdivision Code and Comprehensive P.lan provide for and encourage the development of private roads in the rural area [Subdivision Code S 11.10, Subdivision 21 (C); Comprehensive Plan Section 7-12, Subp. 4 "Rural Transportations Policies). Yet the City has interpreted its Zoning Jode as stating that, by extrapolating of definitions, all newly created lots must front on a public street, therefore new lots proposed to front on private roads require a variance (see MPG memo of 3/6/86). The definicions for lot standards seem in dire need of revision. It is the City's clear intent that development with private roads is appropriate,To do so should not require variances. To:Planning Ccimnission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From:Michael P. Gaffrcn, Asst Planning fi Zoning Administrator Date:Januar> 10, 1990 Subject: #1470 Ruth & Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Revised Proposal - Continuation of Public Hearing Application •• Applicant has revised his request to merely a lot line rearrangement to bring the northerly 4.25 acre parcel into lot area conformance while providing access to Bayside Road via an outlot. The remaining 12 acre parcel is not proposed for division at this time. This wi 11 be a plat rather than a metes and bounds rearrangement in order to creata the outlot. Note that applicant now owns th 4.25 acre northerly parcel. List of Exhibits Exhibit A E?.hibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Revised Preliminary Plat Drawings Applicants' Letter of Request 1/9/90 Planning Commission Action Notice 11/22/89 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/89 Memo S Exhibits of 11/14/89 Memo Re: Conflicts/Standards of Zoning/Subdivision Code vs. Comprehensive Plan Discussion - Please review the attached proposed preliminary plat. Briefly, the applicants are proposing a lot line rearrangement between the existing homestead parcel and the 4.25 acre parcel which abuts the Luce Line. That parcel will be increased to include 5 dry buildable acres, and will have approximately 600' of frontage on the 20' wide portion of the proposed driveway outlot. Additionally, applicant is proposing a 40* driveway outlot width extending from Bayside Road to the southeast corner of the 10 acre parcel. Please review applicants' letter of request. Staff finds merit in providing a long narrow portion of Lot 2 to future additional i__ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ useful "trade" acreage for the Reiersgord property in exchange for additional area to the northeast. While such an exchange may or may not occur, the future exchange concept makes sense in view of the topography of the Reiersgord parcel, and does not detract from the buildability of Lot 2. _ .1 Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 2 of 6 Regarding lot width, the City has taken a recent direction to require that the narrow access portion of flag lots should be an outlet, so that the "front lot line" will be defined at the widened portion of the property rather than within the narrow corridor. This way, technically a variance for lot width is avoided. Based on this concept, considering a possible future trade. Planning Commission may wish to recommend that the 20' outlet portion be extended 100' north to abut the widening of proposed Lot 2. Access Issues - Three issues present themselves regarding access for this proposal: I* What should be the width of Outlot A? (Please review also Exhibit F.) Since we know that Reiersgord has a 60' easement over the 40' wide part of Outlot A, we know he is likely to use it for access if his lot ever is granted variances to build. Therefore, this portion of Outlot A will likely ultimately serve at least 3 residences, perhaps a 4th if Lot 1 is further divided. At a level of 4 houses, both Comprehensive Plan and subdivision code standards define the traveled access as a private road rather than a private driveway. Although in the past the City has allowed a few 3 lot developments to use 30' private road outlots (Parten on Tonkawa; Strong/Massopust on South Brown Road), most 3-plus lot developments have been required to provide a 50' outlot, per the subdivision code standard. Because Outlot A abuts the White property to the southeast, there is a potential that the White property would in the future be developed with access via Outlot A. While one could argue that such a development would merely require White to grant an additional 10' to the proposed 40' for Outlot A, the subdivision code Section 11.40, Subdivision 1 states that "street systems in new subdivisions shall be layed out so as to eliminate or avoid new perimeter half streets". This suggests that now is the appropriate time to obtain a total 50' wide outlot from the Parten property. It would seem to be an appropriate City policy that, where additional future development is likely to increase to 3 or more the number of houses being servea by a private outlot/driveway, the City should require dedication of the standard 50' outlot per the standards of the subdivision code when it has the opportunity to do so. Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 3 of 6 If the Reiersgord property develops before a future subdivision of Lot 1, the City will not have the opportunity to expand the outlot to 50' width because Reiersgord will not own Lot 1. The only future opportunity to gain an additional 10' for Outlot A would be when Lot 1 is divided. The northerly 20' wide proposed outlot segment will serve only 1 lot now and perhaps 1 additional future lot. This segment of Outlot A could be considered as merely a private driveway, not necessarily subject to an underlying road and utility easement to the City. Staff would question whether the driveway can be constructed within the 20' corridor provided. If not. Lot 1 could grant a widened easement to Lot 2, or the outlot could be increased in width. Either way, the fire code standards would require that a 20' driving surface with emergency vehicle turn around be provided for this extremely long driveway length. II. ffhat part of Outlot A should be paved now? What part should be paved at future development levels? If it is the City's intent to start requiring that private roads be upgraded as old existing subdivisions reach a certain level of development, that would be a positive change in policy, but with many ramifications for homeowners. Would the trigger level be based on the subdivision code standards? (i.e. 3-6 units requires 24' paving, "more than 7" requires 28' paving, 1, 2 or 7 being undefined.) Does the poor 3rd user who triggers it incur the wrath of the other 2, who will help pay for it? In the Parten proposal, is this a subdivision that should have a trigger at the 3 unit level, or at the 4 unit level, or at any specified level? Is it the intent of the subdivision code to apply road standards to this mere lot line rearrangement with access outlot creation? III. Should the City request a road and utility easement over all, a portion, or none of Outlot A? If Outlot A is created, the City should logically take a road and utilities easement over it, since it will ultimately serve 3 or more lots, to be consistent with subdivision code Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (D). Note that the recently approved ordinance which requires public accessabillty to private roads for which the City has underlying easements, would have to be available for White's future use if he so desired, with no cost-sharing stipulations. I Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 4 of 6 If Outlet A was to exclude the northerly 20’ wide section, making that part Outlet B, the 20' strip might be considered a private driveway serving only 1, possibly 2, houses and serve as merely a private driveway without the strict requirement for underlying road and utility easement. The preliminary plat drawings show that the existing road easement serving Reiersgord's property is "to be released". While this would be a logical proposal, if the easement holder agrees to such a release, no information has been provided to suggest that that property owner is willing to release his 60' easement. Additional Discussion - As noted at your last meeting, the property owners to the north have stated that they do not feel an access to Bayside Road is necessary to serve their properties, and they believe they have legal access across the Luce Line to Turnham Road. The City has no obligation to provide access for these property owners, and the current applicant does not propose to provide them with access. A brief review of the White property to the south suggests that it might be feasible to subdivide that property with probably no more than 3 new 5-acre lots making use of Partens' Outlot A. Of course, there is no guarantee that White would want to develop using Partens' Outlot A. A short cul-de-sac might conceivably be developed to serve White's acreage with its own road system from Bayside Road. The applicants have provided a 15' wide drainage easement over the ravine in Lot 1, since blockage of that ravine could affect drainage of properties to the west. City Engineer's Recommendation - The City Engineer in reviewing this proposal has suggested that under the most comprehensive approach to development in this area, the entire length of Outlot A should be 50' wide, it should be extended to serve the properties to the northwest, and should be totally upgraded to a paved standard either now or when the 3rd housing unit is built (which could be by further subdivision of Lot 1 or by construction on Reiersgord's property) or by construction on White's property. ... 'n 1 ■ ■ ~ ■ II III .a.aL .JL*.'**J Zoning Pile #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 5 of 6 The Engineer recommends a 50' wide drainage easement over the ravine due to its extreme breadth and depth. He states that a 30' easement would be the miminum width drainage easement that would be acceptable. Applicant shows a 15' easement based on discussions with staff prior to the Engineer's input. Remember that the area of the easement will not count as buildable lot area for this or any future division. Also recommended by the Engineer is a provision to give the City access to the Nature Conservancy parcel via a future easement right. Apparently the Nature Conservancy has approached the City to transfer its ownership to the City, with covenants for its preservation as open space. If this occurs, the City would like the abiltiy to acquire a future easement to gain access to the property. Variances Required - While the 40' outlot does not necessarily present itself as a variance to the zoning code, it does not strictly meet the intent of the City's subdivision standards due to the existence of the Relorsgord property and easement. Lot 2 requires a variance for lack of frontage on a public road. Technically, staff would interpret that neither Lots 1 or 2 require a lot width variance, since they both have more than 300' of frontage on a private road or private driveway outlot. Staff Reo tndation - All things considered, the current proposal has merit and solves a number of concerns in this neighborhood: 1. Increases the area of the northerly parcel to a conforming acreage and provides it access via an outlot to Bayside Road. 2. Provides a dedicated access corridor to the Relersgord property to the east which, if some day granted variances, could possibly be developed as a residential lot. The applicants' goal is to merely make the northerly parcel buildable by increasing its area and providing it with legal access to Bayside Road. However, in attempting to accomplish that single reasonable purpose, the City is forced to consider the Impact of this minor development as it affects and is affected by potential development of neighboring properties. The City's long-term goals and the developer's short-term goals do not necessarily match, and the City could potentially place extreme financial burdens on the developer in attempting to accommodate all future area development concerns. Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 6 of 6 Staff therefore is suggesting consideration ofthe followng •’compromise" position: Based upon the above discussions, staff would recommend approval with the following revision: A. Ontlot A f roB Bayside Road to the southeast corner of the 10 acre parcel, be expanded to a 50* outlot width. B. Revise drainage easement over the ravine to 30* width. Staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Granting of standard drainage and utility easements along all lot lines, i.e. 10' along perimeter lot lines, 5' either side of the interior lot line between Lots 1 and 2. 2. Applicants to grant a standard road and utilities easement over Outlot A subject to a private road covenant to be filed in the chain of title in Lots 1 and 2, providing for private ownership and maintenance of Outlot A. 3. The property owners are placed on notice that at some future date that Lot 1 is subdivided to create an additional lot, the City will require upgradina of Outlot A to private road standards. Furthermore, at such time that any other abutting properties are developed that will make a use of Outlot A for access, such development shall trigger the requirement that road be upgraded to City private road standards even if Lot 1 has not been split. 4. A turn-around or back-up apron shall be provided for each of Lots 1 and 2 for emergency vehicle access. If such access is provided by a loop driveway, the minimum center line radius of that driveway loop shall be 50', with a minimum 20' driving surface width. 5. Because this is a lot line rearrangement. Park Fee for Lot 2 need not be paid until such time that a residence is constructed on Lot 2. 6. Dralnfield sites have been defined on each of Lots 1 and 2 and the property owners shall protect those sites from any use or disturbance which would render them unusable as sewage treatment sites. 7. Applicants are to grant City future right of entry to Nature Conservancy property via an easement at future City request. January 9,1989 To: Orono Planning Commission From: Ruth and Daniel Parten Re: Propo£*’d Plat for Bayside Woods Per your suggestion we have prepared a two lot plat for your review. Based upon our discussions with city staff we have attempted to address the current and long term concerns of the city for the development of this area. Perhaps a few comments regarding the configuration of Lot 2 would be helpful in evaluating the proposed plat. The 20 foot wide driveway outlot follows the natural contour of the land in that area. By staying away from the east property line as shown the driveway avoids an area with steeper slope and many mature trees. The proposed location of the driveway minimizes the need for grading, filling and tree removal. In considering how to add area to Lot 2 in order to meet the 5 acre size requirement we visited the site several times and concluded that the most desireable solution would be to enlarge the lot toward the east, but we don’t control that property. However, we do have land adjacent to the only building site on this neighboring parcel, and it seems reasonable that some future owner would be interested in an exchange of property that would be of advantage to both parties. Therefore, the driveway outlot is located away from the east property line, setting up the possibility of an exchange between these adjoining owners. The 40 foot wide driveway outlot covers the existing driveway and provides room for any necessary enlargement. At the suggestion of city staff we have shown a 15 foot wide drainage easement over the seasonal flowage area in the ravine. In preparing this proposal we have attempted to balance good development thinking with a desire to preserve the rural character and sense of privacy experienced in the woods. This proposal is intended to provide for the long term development of this area and we request that you recommend its approval to the Council. ZONING PILE NO. 1470 CITY OP ORONO NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 „ . Crystal Bay. MN 55323 473-7357 Date o^_Noticej^^lx/22/89 ' TO: Daniel Parten COPIES TO: 1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TYPE OP APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OP MEETING: 11/20/89 Vote: 4 For 0 Against Planning Comndssion recoomends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES & SPECIAL CONDITIONS - Tabled pending submittal of revised preliminary 2-lot plat proposal, excluding northerly parcel. Planning Commission generally favored a proposal for a 50 —foot outlet to the east lot line, and ®_25 —30 outlot continuation to Lot 2 (see attached sketch), likely requiring merely a private driveway rather than paved road. This proposal should be submitted at least 10 days prior to the January 16th Planning Commission meeting. A copy of the site topography is being forwarded to the City Engineer for review of the need for drainage easements. Please contact City staff at 473-7357 if you wish to discuss your application further. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning ComlMsion, Tuesday, January 16, 1990; meeting starts as 7:00 p.a. 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. MINUTBS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING FILE #1481-MCCODRTNBY CONTINUED relieve draina9e going into the house? Mr. Wenkus replied that ultimately it would be due to the fact that they were putting in a walkout. He said that he had not applied for the building permit and just assumed that dirt would be excavated away from the foundation and the swale \^ouXd be used for drainage. He said that a reading with a transit indicated the need to cut an additional 6" to 12 nearer the house to enable drainage to occur. It was necessary to take that same additionul cut near the lake. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public heari.ig was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of the after-the-fact conditional use permit, the hardship being the need to relieve runoff concerns on the other side of the house. Chairman Kelley Questioned whether the City should take a drainage easement across this property? Gaffron said that he could look into that aspect. Kelley amended his motion to include direction to staff to look into the dedication of a drainage easement and make a recommendation to the City Council, Hanson seconded. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays»0, Motion passed. 41470 DAN & ROTH PARTEN 4300 BATSIDB ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:55 P.M. TO 9:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Parten were present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief history regarding this application for a 3-lot subdivision. Chairman Kelley questioned whether it would be possible to split Outlot A into two outlots. One portion would end in the northeast corner with a cul-de-sac and Outlot B would serve the two lots in the back. Because Outlot B would serve only two lots, it could remain a dirt road. Kelley said that the issue to him is serving the lots to the east as well. Mr. Parten asked Gaffron to show the Planning Commission the proposal for a 2 —Lot subdivision. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked where the septic system is located for Lot 1? Gaffron indicated that the alternate site is still located in Outlot A and the 60' easement creates a configuration for Lot 1 so that it is not contiguous with Outlot A. MIHOTBS OP THE PLANHING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PIUB #1470—PARTEN CONTINUED Kelley observed that if Outlet A were put in with only a 50 easement, Outlet A and Lot 1 will be contiguous. Gaffron suggested creating a more narrow Outlet A. Hanson noted that such a configuation would create "the ultimate flag lot". Bellows indicated that she did not approve of this configuration. Hanson indicated that the land would lend itself well to development with the adjacent property. Bellows suggested the property be developed as a 3-lot PRD with the houses clustered. She said that what the Partens are proposing more closely resembles a conventional subdivision. Mabusth interjected that the Planning Commission's directive to have the septic systems included in the homestead pad with a PRD proposal inade it very difficult. Bellows indicated that she would not ®?Pthe svstems being located in a commons area. She said that tne septic system location is an item that had to give in order to not have this application be a typical subdivision. Ms. Parten explained that the PRD being proposed is the best that can be done due to the topography of the land. Bellows suggested that perhaps the City has reached a degree of development where a certain amount of acreage no longer g\jarcint06s sl esrtsin ainount of lots. Ms. Parten said that she was frustrated because she could not understand how there could be 50 acres in an area that will not sustain 4 lots. Chairman Kelley asked Bellows for "er opinion regarding the 2-lot subdivision proposal he suggested with the 2 outlets. Bellows replied that she was uncomfortable with shape of the subdivision and the location of the alternate septic site for Lot 2. Planning Commissioner Brown observed that lot area variances would be required for two of the three lots being proposed. Mabusth suggested that it would not be difficult to „aKe unique findings that would still allow ^ ^ ated unique applications seeking lot area variances for ^^^^he lots. Mabusth said that the extension of the road and tne inclusion of the Styles property placed restrictions on the development of the parcel. Mabusth said that an area variance MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE 11470 PARTEN CONTINUED „ u 4-k ^ ^ would not be necessary with the 2-lot subdivision. Mabusth noted that proceeding with the 2-lot subdivision would leave the issue of accessing the northern properties unresolved. Bellows indicated that she would prefer to see a PRD if there is to be a subdivision of this property. She said that the PRD should not resemble a conventional 3-lot subdivision and that it may be impossible to accomplish that. Kelley asked Bellows if she would accept a PRD that would have the 3 pads on Lot 1 and the septic systems on Lot 2? Bellows said yes she would accept that Gaffron advised the Planning Commission that there is an existing drainageway running through the property over which it may be necessary for the City to take an easement. Gaffron said that the area for the drainageway would not have to be excluded from the total area if developed as a PRD. Ms. Farten said that she has tried very hard to meet the intentions and directions of the Planning Commission. She said that there are not any big flat areas for clustering homes/ but rather there are three separate building areas. Bellows said that the Partens may not be able to do all that they want to do with this property. Ms. Parten said that they would be willing to clean up some of the City's problems with access. She noted that when making this application she had felt confident that due to the fact there are 50 acres with the parcel and surrounding property that will yield no more than 4 lots, approval would not be this difficult. Ms. Parten said that it does not make sense that this parcel cannot be subdivided. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if a determination has been made as to whether easements exist for the northwest lots to cross the Luce Line? Mr. Asao said that he and the Dieters have an easement in the form of a right-of-way from the DNR. Planning Commissioner Brown suggested leaving the Styles' property undeveloped. Mr. Asao said that he had looked at the possibility of purchasing the Styles' property which would bring his property up to City standards. Kelley said that would be favorable not only to the City, but it would also require the Partens to put in only a private driveway to serve two houses. Kelley asked for input from the Planning Commission as to the Partens proceeding with a 2-iot 15 MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED subdivision of the 12 acres, subtracting out the acreage dedicated to the 60' easement that runs the whole south lot line. Kelley suggested putting in a 50' outlot that follows the southerly lot line all the way around to the east lot line. Gaffron observed that such a configuration would create two flag lots. Brown said that he would favor the 2-lot subdivision. Mabusth advised that the flag lot would require a width variance. Mabusth suggested putting a 25' outlot the extends up to Lot 1 on the east side. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Chairman Kelley to recommend approval of the preliminary 2-lot subdivision of 12+ acres, less Outlot A which will run 50' from the southerly boundary to the east lot line. Outlot B will run on the eastern boundary commencing at Outlot A to the south up to the lot line of Lot 1 at a width of 25'. It was suggested by the applicant's surveyor that the outlot will need to be wider than 25' to contain a driveway. Kelley said that he did not want to create substandard lots. Mabusth suggested that it may be better to have the property owners work out the details. Kelley suggested tabling the application until further information is available regarding actual lot areas. Bellows said the issue of drainage easements had not yet been addressed. Kelley withdrew his motion. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application pending transmittal of a plan addressing the issue of easement vs. outlot, site drainage and subdivision of the 12+ acres rather than 17+ acres. Mr. Parten asked for clarification of what drainage information they needed to submit? Gaffron explained that the City may require a 20' to 30' drainage easement be taken over the existing drainageway. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1471 DARYLB DPHOPP 2699 KELLY AVENUE CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC BEARING 9:42 P.M. TO 9:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Uphoff was present for this matter Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief review of this application for a conditional use permit to repair a sea wall. Mabusth said that the City Engineer had reviewed the application and found the proposal acceptable and recommended that the ■ ink 1 Aj ^ v&a JMAA A . iMi tMmm HI .iBwi i iir ~ laJH ilri MmHi.^ ii__ TO:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:November 14, 1989 Subject: #1470 Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing Application - 3-lot Plat List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Memo from Applicants Large Size Proposed Plat Drawings Planning Commission Action Notice 10/20/89 Memo 6 Exhibits of 10/10/89 Discussion - The applicants have met with staff and have attempted to address Planning Commission's concerns with their revised proposal, a 3-lot plat. This proposal results in three lots of 4.3, 4.4, and 6.0 acres respectively. They would be served by a 50' private driveway outlot that connects to the Reiersgord property to the east and to the Asao property on the northwest. Each lot would meet the lot width standard as measured at the 50' setback from the road outlot. Lots 2 and 3 would require a lot area variance. The applicants request that they not be required to pave any portion of the road/driveway within the outlot. They propose to construct an 18' wide gravel driveway to the turn-around area (see Sheet 2 of the large scale site plan) and a 14' wide gravel driveway to Lots 2 and 3. Alternatives - Please review the applicants' memo. They have considered two alternatives to the proposal. Their Exhibit A indicates a two lot plat excluding the northernmost parcel from the subdivision, wherein each lot would contain 5 acres, being served by a 50' private driveway outlot. Under this scheme, they would not be required to pave, and this would be considered as merely a shared driveway. Such a proposal does not resolve any of the concerns with surrounding properties and would likely make it harder in the future for those access problems to be resolved either by the City or by the affected property owners. l7 \ r-/ - -/V V ( t V. u/ L • rt c 2 __ _ _J Zoning File #1470 November 14, 1989 Page 2 of 3 The second alternative is shown on applicant's Exhibit B as a PRD layout. The proposal appears somewhat contrived in order to place the alternate drainfield site for Lot 1, within Lot 1. Applicants feel that the PRD concept is not necessarily appropriate since the shared nature of the open space would tend to negate the privacy aspects of the low density development. Applicants further are concerned about the marketability of the PRD as it applies to this specific property. Certainly applicants are correct in that the property does not lend itself to clustering, as was the case in the Luce Line Ridge PRD development just to the west. However, with 3 lots on over 17 acres, as a PRD no lot area variance is necessary since the road outlot can be credited for meeting the density requirement. Issues “ 1. Does the Planning Commission feel comfortable via the proposed standard plat in granting the necessary lot area variances for Lots 2 and 3, to be less than 5.0 acres in the 5 acre zone? If so, the proposed plat would seem to address the general issues outlined by the Planning Commission previously. If not. Planning Commission should consider the PRD alternative, in which the lot area request is no longer a variance. 2. Is the applicants' proposal for an 18' wide gravel road to the cul-de-sac, with an extended 14' gravel driveway to Lots 2 and 3, acceptable to the Planning Commission? If not, what additional standards would Planning Commission recommend? If Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval for lot area variances for the standard proposed three lot plat, there are number of unique findings that might be made that would set this application apart from other future applications requesting lot area variances in the 5 acre zone: 1. In order to provide future access to neighboring land locked parcels, the City is requiring an unusually lengthy outlot road that subtracts from the overall acreage. 2. Due to the extremely hilly topography and "stretched out" nature of the parcels encompassing the property, the length of roadway to serve only three parcels is necessarily of an excessive length. 3. The overall density for the three proposed lots is 5.6 acres per residence, meeting the intent of the 5 acre minimum lot size standard of the RR-IA zoning district. Zoning File #1470 November 14, 1989 Page 3 of 3 If Planning Commission feels that these and other appropriate findings provide a substantial justification to grant the lot area variances requested, such that the precedent-setting aspect would be minimized, then a recommendation for approval of the proposed plat would be appropriate. On the other hand, if Planning Commission feels that granting the lot area variance here will ultimately lead to pressure for lot area variances on less unique properties in the 5 acre zone, then the PRD concept with three distinct building pads and commonly owned open space, could be considered. Staff would also note that if a recommendation for approval be forthcoming, the plat would be subject to the standard drainage and utility easements, a drainage easement over the major drainage ravine, park fees, private road easements and covenants, etc. , f >/. / « ' \r. > • N c' .. » •- V U -O -I * ‘kUUA.V&MW TO; Orono Planning Commission FROM: Dan and Ruth Parten RE; Bayside Woods Subdivision I. Proposal - Three Lot Subdivision We propose a 3 lot subdivision with road outlot, including an 18 foot wide gravel driveway to the turnaround, and a 14 foot wide gravel driveway to Lots 2 and 3. Lot 1 is arranged to incorporate an alternate septic site as shown. Variance Request ^1 - Lot Area Proposed Lots 2 and 3 are 4.3 and 4.4 acres respectively. Lot 1 is 6.0 acres and the proposed road outlot is 2.3 acres. The overall density of this project is 5.6 acres per residence. The unique terrain of the property together with the creation of a 50 foot wide road outlot of 2.3 acres creates a hardship that we feel justifies the granting of a variance. Variance Request #2 - Paving We recognize that at some future date the driveway Outlot could access up to six properties and provide access to three landlocked parcels. The additional cost of bituminous pavino for the 1,250 foot long driveway to the turnaround is approximately $23,000. We feel that if paving is a requirement, those costs should be shared by all benefiting parties. Therefore a variance is being requested to waive, for the present time, paving of the driveway. II. Alternate #1 - Two Lot Subdivision If a variance for paving is out of the question we propose a two lot subdivision, shown as "Exhibit A". The additional expense of paving the driveway and turnaround make a three lot plan economically impractical. This plan produces two 5 acre plus parcels with no variances required. Page 2 - Bayside Woe • icdiV'ljion III. Alternate #2 - PRD Exhibit B is an attempt to create a PRD as requested by the Planning Commission. The intent of a PRD (as explained by staff) is to cluster home sites in one area of development and leave open space for the enjoyment of the residents, maintaining the overall density of the project at 5 acres or more per residence. The topographic features of the property, potential septic sites, and the natural building sites make clustering of homes unfeasible. The use of open space around building sites when the sites are separated as these are, would infringe on the privacy of the residences and therefore make the lots less marketable. •4 • ^ ® - • * i w Jf'V * • . • • •• ‘ *V**- * *'! » j ■ .• ••• ’ * •* .f* • * ** EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B MINDTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1989 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. . ^ w The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley and Planning Commissioners Johnson, Bellows, Cohen, Brown, Hanson and Moos. The following represented the City staff: Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Assistant City Engineer Olson, Lieutenant Cheswick# and City Recorder Scheffler* Council Representative Peterson was also present. #1470 DAM £ RDTH PARTEN 4300 BAYSIDB ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. TO 7:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Parten were present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed the information pertaining to this preliminary subdivision. He said that this property was very unique and linear in configuration with the Luce Line at the north end and Bayside Road at the south end. The applicant is proposing a 3- lot subdivision with each lot approximately 5 acres in size. Gaffron explained the various issues involved with this application including the fact that Lot 3 does not abut a public or private road. Another issue is the fact that an alternate drainfield site was not found within the proposed Lot 1. juj]', Parten said that he did not think that Outlot A fib well with the interior property, but would be better suited for the property to the west. Chairman Kelley questioned whether it wouldn ’t be more practical to have only two lots developed, rather than 3? Mr. Parten replied that his interpretation of the reason for the 5~acre zoning is to control density. He said that intention is being met both with his proposal and the development poflsibilities of the adjacent properties. Mr. Parten also said that the topography and ravine within the property limited the location of building sites. Chairman Kelley questioned whether the applicant had considered proceeding with a PRD? Mr. Parten said that he was somewhat uneasy to proceed in that manner. He questioned how the commons area would be maintained. Kelley cited the French Creek development as an example of a PRD and informed Mr. Parten that agreements are made as to b^e maintenance of the commons area. Kelley said that he had visited MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16^ 1989 the™ite^“d*fVlt™^ was such that in order to achieve 3 lots, the applicant should proceed with a PRD. Planning Commissioner Brown concurred with Kelley. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he too agreed that a PRD would be the best approach and added that it may be necessary to have only a 2**lot subdivision. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked Gaffron to explain the existing 60' road easement. Gaffron explained that the easement was granted to the the 5-acre calculation of acreage. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that this property presented an excellent opportunity for a PRD. She said that too many variances would be required in order to proceed -n any other manner. Bellows indicated that she did not like the proposed location for the alternate drainfield site for Lot 1. if a PRD was pursued. Bellows responded that she would prefer to see the alternate outlets? Mr. Parten questioned the size of the building envelope and how the size is determined? Chairman Kelley informed Mr. Parten that such a decision would be his to make. Mr. Parten asked for direction in this regard. Gaffron indicated that he would like to see the building envelope 3t 3 ininiinuin of two 3cres. Johnson questioned the possibility of creating an access to serve adjacent properties as well. Road be used for access rather than the Luce Line. Mrs. Parten asked what the requirements would be for the J MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1989 ZONING FILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED road if they proceeded with a PRD? Planning Commissioners Cohen and Hanson indicated that they would like to see the road at a 50' width for the entire length. Kelly said that if the applicants proceeded with a PRD, he would like to see the road at a 50 foot width and that access be provided to the northeast corner. Mrs. Parten asked whether the road would be private or public? Kelley indicated that more than likely the road would be private and though the easement would be 50' in width, the road may only be constructed at a 14 or 15 foot width. Mary Petersen asked whether blacktopping of the road would be required? The Planning Commission replied that blacktopping would not be required due to the road having a "private" designation. Ms. Petersen questioned why it was necessary to blacktop the private road constructed within the Foxfyre Subdivision? Gaffron clarified that when a private road serves 3 or more residences, the City has consistently required the road to be paved. Mr. Parten asked if, for economical reasons, he could just divide the 2.5 and 10 acres he currently owns and not go ahead with the purchase of the northerly 4.25 acre parcel from Mrs. Styles. Planning Commissioner Hanson replied that it may be that with the easement, there would not be enough land to create 2 lots. Gaffron suggested that perhaps the Reiersgord easement could be reduced from 60* to 50'. Chairman Kelley pointed out that if Mr. Parten proceeds with a PRD for 3 lots, the lots would all be north of the Reiersgord easement. He said that there would not be enough contiguous land to create 3 lots and the applicant would require approval for non-contiguous acreage. Kelley questioned why the Planning Commission could not recommend approval of a 2-lot PRD with non contiguous acreage? Bellows noted that the 2~lot PRD would leave Mrs. Styles' parcel landlocked. Chairman Kelley questioned whether it was reasonable to expect Mr. Parten to be responsible for the land locked parcel that currently exists as such? MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1989 ZONING FILE «1470>PARTEN CONTINUED Planning Commissioner Hanson again questioned whether it would be possible to create 3 lots of satisfactory characteristics . Mrs. Parten suggested that due to the low density in this area overall, that perhaps the granting of a variance would not be unreasonable. Planning Commissioner Cohen indicated that he would be willing to consider variance approval provided that the applicant purchase Mrs. Styles 4.25 acres and include it in the subdivision. Kelley suggested that in addition to providing access to the 4.25 parcel, that access be given to the other existing land locked parcels in the northeast corner. Mr. Parten questioned whether he would be required to have a paved road? Chairman Kelley suggested that the homeowners currently achieving access via the Luce Line that would benefit from the construction of the road pay a share of the cost. The question arose as to whether those residents actually had an easement from the DNR to cross the Luce Line. Planning Commissioner Cohen suggested that the applicant investigate that further and bring the information back at a later time. Chairman Kelley indicated that he would favor a 3-lot PRD with access to the 4.25 acre lot and the other 2 landlocked properties. Planning Commissioner Johnson said that the issues of concern are the location of the alternate drainfield site for lot 1, access to the remaining parcels and the question of whether a PRD is the best way to proceed. He said that he would be more likely to approve a lot size variance. Planning Commissioner Cohen concurred with Johnson. Planning Commissioner Bellows agreed with Kelley's preference. Planning Commissioner Brown concurred with Xelley and Bellows, and felt it was important to further investigate the easement for crossing of the Luce Line. Planning Commissioner Hanson agreed with Kelley as did Planning Commissioner Moos. Moos added that she too had concern about the location of the alternate drainfield site. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1989 ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED Johnson raised the question of how the Zoning Code addressed j^gquired contiguous land and the exclusion or inclusion of easements for lots containing 2 and 5 acre minimums. He noted that for 2 acre minimum, dry contiguous buildable area, easements and private drives are excluded. He asked whether that held true for 5 acre lots. Gaffron interpreted the Code to say that 5 acre lots must have a minimum of 2 acre, dry, contiguous, buildable land not located within any right-of-way, or other easements. He said that the Code does not specify whether the additional 3 acres are required to be contiguous. Chairman Kelley suggested that the Partens put together a PRD and a lot size variance application. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to table this application. Motion, Ayes-7, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1461 THE REVEREND PAUL W. BERGGREN 585 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOOTH VARIANCE POBLICE HEARING 7:42 P.M. TO 7:43 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Reverend Berggren was present for this application. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that this application involved the need for a side setback variance to construct a porch. Chairman Kelley inquired as to whether the pine trees to the north of the house would remain. Reverend Berggren stated that he did not intend to remove the trees. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if there was any other location for the porch addition? Reverend Berggren said that putting the porch in another location would interfere with the bay window, the septic system or the driveway. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Reverend Berggren said that he had talked with his neighbor on the north side and he indicated that he had no objections to ZONING FILE NO. 1470 OF ORONO NOTICE OF Pr»7HNTNG COMMISSION ACTION Crystal*Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Daniel Parten COPIES TO: 1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 10/16/89 Vote: 7 For 0 Against Planning CoaBid.88ion reconiinend8 the following: Tabled for reasons noted below, NOTES i SPECIAL CONDITIONS - Applicant to submit revised proposal(s) for review. General comments by the Planning Commission: 1. Septic alternate site for Lot 1 (existing house) must be within Lot 1 if a standard plat is proposed. Some flexibility may oe possible if a PRD is proposed. 2. Whether a standard plat or PRD is proposed. Planning Commission might consider granting lot area variances, given the overall 3 residence/17 acres density. 3. Planning Commission would prefer that access corridors be provided to the Reiersgord, Asao, and Deters properties, given the access concerns with those properties. 4. 50' outlot corridors would be appropriate throughout the subdivision; paved width of actual road/driveway to be standard 24 li all houses are served, perhaps some flexibility on paving if less houses are served. 5. Applicant advised to propose both a PRD and a standard plat for consideration . Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent additional information. Deadline for the November 20, 1989 meeting is November 10, 1989. In all cases, the application must be continued with the submittal of requested information within 120 days or the City will consider the application as formally withdrawn. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. /. To:Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Conunission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froa:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:October 10, 1989 Subject: #1470 Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-IA, 5 acre, unsewered Application - 3-lot Class III subdivision to create two new 5 acre building lots in addition to existing residence. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List . ^ Exhibit D - Preliminary Plat Drawings(oV^ Exhibit E - Letter from Neighboring Property Owner White Exhibit P - Sketches by Staff Including: 1. Neighboring Property Ownership Acreage Layout Scale Concept Plan Showing Building Sites Existing & Proposed Driveway System Staff Conceptual Sketch A Staff Conceptual Sketch B 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Staff Conceptual Sketch C Exhibit G - Subdivision Code Section 11.10, Subdivision ^ 11-03.2,^ Pertinent Pacts - 1. Proposed lot areas are as follows: Proposed Lot 1 = 5.2 acres (existing house) Proposed Lot 2 = 5.0 acres Proposed Lot 3 = 5.0 acres Outlet A = 1.87 acres Total Acreage * 17.06 acres (per survey - does this figure include 33' of right-of-way for Watertown Road?) 2. r Proposed Lot 1 would not abut a private or public outlet road, but is proposed to be served by an easement driveway, which conflicts with Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (c). Lot 1 contains the existing house and the existing primary drainfield. The site evaluation report on file Indicates there are no suitable alternate drainfield sites within proposed Lot 1 and the only apparent alternate site is within Outlot A. The southerly 60' of Lot 1 contains an existing private "road" easement in favor of the Reiersgord property to the east. Applicant has not excluded this existing road easement from his calculation of lot area as required by the subdivision code. L Zoning File 11470 October 10, 1989 Page 2 of 5 3. Proposed Lot 2 is a "flag" lot which would have 60' of frontage on Bayside Road per the proposal. The flag portion of Lot 2 also is covered by the 60* existing road easement, which again was not excluded from the area calculation by the applicant's surveyor. Primary and alternate drainfield sites for Lot 2 would be located along the northerly lot line of Lot 2. 4. Lot 3 abuts the Luce Line Trail and was the subject of a prior variance application which was never completed. This subdivision proposal increases the area of that parcel to 5.0 acres (including the proposed road easement). One of the issues with that prior variance request was access across the Luce Line Trail, which the applicant could not obtain. The current proposal leaves Lot 3 with no frontage on a public or private outlet road, but gives it about 158' of frontage on a proposed 30* private road easement. 5. Outlet A was proposed for possible sale to the abutting property owner at 4360 Bayside Road. However, since septic testing indicates the only alternate site available for Lot 1 would be within the area of Outlet A this poses a problem. The proposal does not strictly meet the requirements of the septic code, which requires that drainfield sites be within the building lot which they serve. 6. The proposed dividing line between Lots 1 and 2 generally follows a deep ravine. The proposed 30' easement road was located to fit the existing topography. The property contains steep slopes which significantly limit the potential roadway locations. 7. A number of variances would be required in order to approve the plat as proposed: A) Lots 1 it 3 would require a variance for lack of frontage on a public roadway. B) Lots 1, 2 & 3 would require lot width variances. At the 100' setback from Bayside Road, Lot 2 is only 60' wide where 300' in lot width is normally required. Lots 1 & 3 do not front on a public roadway nor a private road outlot, hence they each technically require a 100% variance for defined lot width. C) Section 11.03.24, the definition of "minimum lot area", requires the exclusion of private or public access easements from the calculation of lot area. With this in mind, the actual defined areas of Lots 1 fit 2 are each about 4.0 acres, and that of Lot 3 is 4.95 acres. Each lot would require a lot area variance. Zoning Pile #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 3 of 5 D) Variance to Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (c) to allow 3 lot development without a private road outlot. Discussion - In early discussions with staff, the applicant was advised that complete septic testing would be required for this 5 acre subdivision due to the slope concerns on the property. Additionally, it was suggested to applicant that a Planned Residential Development (PRD) be considered for this property due to its unique natural characteristics and unusual boundary configuration. As of a week before this writing, applicant had been requested by staff to provide a revised proposal showing outlot roads rather than road easements to serve the subdivision. In your discussion of the issues noted previously, staff would suggest reviewing sketches FI through P7. PI notes the neighborhood ownership pattern and the location of neighboring residences to the north. F2 notes the acreages of the three blocks of property within the subdivision. F3 is a reduced version of the applicant's concept plan for two new building sites. F4 indicates the existing and proposed driveway system. Especially note the extreme length of driveway that would serve Lots 2 and 3. Prom Bayside Road, the driveway serving Lot 3 would be about 2,100 feet (or four-tenths of a mile) in length. Sketch F5 is the first of three conceptual layouts provided by staff for discussion purposes. This layout provides a 50* road outlot to the Reiersgord boundary, and uses the applicant's proposed 30' corridor for Lots 2 and 3. The alternate site for Lot 1 is within Lot 1, although the contiguity is merely through a 10' wide neck. With this configuration, there is still an apparent need for an outlot east of the 30' driveway corridor, and this outlot would need to become part of Lot 1 to make up the required 5 acres for Lot 1. This sketch shows Lots 2 and 3 abutting the private road outlot and containing significant frontage on that outlot. The required 50' side and 100' rear setbacks for the existing house would be maintained. Please note that staff is not recommending this configuration, it is only for discussion purposes. Exhibit F6 is staff conceptual sketch B, which shows a typical "block" subdivision configuration that ignores the topography concerns for road construction. Each lot would have the required frontage on a private road and meet the lot width requirements. Also, the Asao property would have frontage and required width on the private road. Zoning File #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 4 of 5 However, the negative aspects outweigh the positives in this layout. The required 5 acre minimums are not met. The road could not feasibly be constructed within the outlet due to the steep slopes which would have to be cut or filled. The road wipes out the only feasible drainfield sites for Lot 2. The alternate site for Lot 1 is ill on a separate outlot not attached to Lot 1. Again, 'v;vt'.;.ptual Sketch B looks good on paper but does not acconin*‘i-5‘^’ the topography or physical characteristics of the proper - ; . Conceptual sketch C, Exhibit F7, suggests a planned residential development (PRD) giving each building site a 2+ acre building envelope, with the remaining subdivision acreage as an open space outlot. Outlots B & C would be private road outlots. Outlot C could conceivably be narrower than the standard 50' private road outlot, since it would serve only two lots. endation -Staff Re Given the information provided by applicant, staff would recommend that the following issues be addressed for the applicant so that he can return with a revised proposal more in keeping with the subdivision requirements while still relating to the natural characteristics of the land: 1. Should this be a normal plat subdivision, or should it be a planned residential development? 2. Is there any justification to grant variances to allow development with easement roads rather than private road outlots? 3. If a private road outlot is required, should it continue to the Reiersgord property? Further, should a private road outlot be continued to the Asao and Deters properties to the north, so that the Luce Line driveway crossing for those two properties might ultimately not be necessary? 4. Will Planning Commission require that the alternate site for Lot 1 be within the boundaries of Lot 1, if this is a plat? or, if this becomes a PRD, will Planning Commission allow the alternate site for Lot 1 to be within the open space outlot? 5. Presuming that whether this is a plat or a PRD, the Planning Commission will not waive the standard requirement that outlot roadways be excluded from lot area, if the remaining acreage after exclusion of roadways is less than 15.0 acres, will Planning Commission consider granting of lot area variances with the subdivision? t-* I . i -Siris-sn ^•1 f s « y;j r ;>nl *t ‘’u CITY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ! Dt , H.^OO S3.,^,-Jr 'S^bJ^ f1apl<^ ^C£ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) „„„ ... -^ Attach legal description to application APPLICANT Name Oan«c Address: Phone (heme) *^7/ ^3/^ ___ Phone (work) ^^/*~73/«^ 0\6 T^nkaoiaEiasf LbL, Zip= V.ri OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) —~7 ^Of'ptJTcfflQ^ ^ Phone (work) .««• //Dl*5 /^^City: N^une Address: /QjLfS (attach list if more than one) Zip: a EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 2 /7 n o /7C. tn_ Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check)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:Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) 3 Units per n Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) i NIllIlfON MATBRIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form SIP srs = ss:: StampedV legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed 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 1-st of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official’s Signature- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2. 3. 4. 5. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Pinal Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II s III) ^ Preliminary Review (Class I s II Subdivision) vx' Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) Final Plat Review (Class III) ♦(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $150.00 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* •The aoolicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or I?"ues” d by the zoning® AdministJator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Plaining Coniiission and Council necessary to Pfooess further agrees to pay all/a^tionalJlees/SBtal?iished by ordinance- Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Date Date nabll to attend a scheduled Leting, please make arrangements to have an uthorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning ffice of this change prior to the meeting. ) t n 11 •i > ^ • »if <^i •*)••a ^<»t 3* 1 ••! ••fil^ai •« ^ * * 1 4 . ^r |4 ”» • \ *ii » 1 1 »• ^...............................>1 i»’ ■ ■ c ’1 nV j RUN DATE 09/08/89 BATCH OOS PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP ADDR OHNER NANE TAXPAYER rWff/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHr^R NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR CHTiER NAHE TAXPAYER rUHE/ADDR HEmEPIf4 COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OIttlERS LIST 38 06-117-23 11 0003 06266 BAYSIDE RD vex CAPITAL INC vex CAPITAL INC PO BOX 375 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 06-117-23 12 0003 06355 BAYSIDE RD VCI CAPITAL INC vex CAPITAL INC PO BOX 375 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 31-118-23 61 0009 06115 HATERTOHN RD H R A H E PLANK MICHAEL R I HARY E PLANK 6165 HATERTOHN RD MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 31-116-23 62 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED Nir4NlFRED H BRYANT HINNXFRED h BRYATfr C/0 MERLE STILES 1801 LAKEVIEN TER LONG LAKE Ft4 55356 38 31-118-23 63 0007 00038 ADDRESS UUSSIG44ED P ASAO I J ASAO PHILLIP ASAO 125 TURNHAH ROAD MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 31-118-23 63 0011 00165 TURNHAH RD KEITH L HOHELL ET AL DAVID A DETERS 165 TURNHAH RD MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 06-117-23 12 0001 06360 BAYSIDE RO J A OLSON APE OLSON JAMES A OLSON 6360 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN It4 55359 38 06-117-23 21 0001 06665 BAYSIDE RD HAP J0HNS0t4 HARK S A PATRICIA P J0Hr4S0H 6665 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN ft4 55359 38 31-118-23 62 0001 06265 CHTPPEHA LA R L S0REr4SFN ETAL ROBERT L SORENSEN 6265 CHIPPEIUV LANE MAPLE PLAIN W 55359 38 31-118-23 63 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED Hir Ail FRED H BRYANT HiriilFRED M BRYAtiT C/0 MERLE STILES 1801 LAKEVIEN TER LOfiG LAKE m 55356 38 31-118-23 65 0008 0h300 BAYSIDE RD SCHUT2-0*NEUL CORPORATIOfi SCHUrZ-0*NEILL CORPORATION 1015 TOfiKAMA RD LONG LAKE Mti 5535b 38 31-118-23 66 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNID STATE OF MliAi STATE OF Hirtti REPORT NO. PI635601 PAGE 6 36 06-117-23 12 0002 06300 BAYSIDE RD SCnUTZ-0*NEILL CORPORATION SCHUTZ-0'NEILL CORPORATION 1015 TONKAHA RD LONG LAKE MT4 55356 38 06-117-23 21 0002 06655 BAYSIDE RD HAP JOTUiSON MARK 5 t PATRICIA P JOHNSON 6655 BAYSIDE RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 62 0003 06355 CHIPPEHA LA FREDERICK E SHEMANEK JR ETAL FRED E SHEMANEK RT 2 BOX 16 MAPLE PLAIt4 MT4 55359 38 31-118-23 63 0006 00125 TURNHAH RD P R ASAO A J A ASAO PHILIP R A JOY A ASAO 125 TURfiHAH RD MAPLE PLAIN MT4 55359 1 38 31-118-23 63 0009 00038 ADDRESS UI1ASSIGE4E0 NATURE C0fiSERVAf4CY 44ATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 316 hPlS F91 55616 38 31-118-23 66 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGTiEO THOMAS E REIERSGORD ETAL THOMAS E REIERSGORD 6500 H 66TH ST MPLS Ft4 55626 . V'-- - VCI capital OCT' w VCI capital,inc. IKl BoxW?* Long Lake, MN S5356 • (612)475'2637 October 3, 1989 JEANNE A. MABUSTH Building & Zoning Administrator CITY OF ORONO Orono Village Hall P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Residential Subdivision 4300 Bayside Road Dear Ms. Mabusth: In conjuncC the Parten application for a proposed three lot re» . -al subdivision of a property located at 4300 Bayside Road, I submit the following information. If blacktopping of the north-south access road from Highway 34 is being considered, the following information may be pertinent. The blue quarter-section map which I have tends to indicate that that road is ^n part on our property. (Our property abuts that road on the east and north of Highway 84.)* I visited briefly on this with Mr. Gronberg, and he indicated that he thought it appeared that way also. When that access road was put in, it was raised above elevation so that drainage on the extreme southwest corner of our property was restricted so that there appears to be about a third of an acre which has now become inadequately drained and uncroppable, particularly in wet years. If a culvert would properly drain that corner before the blacktopping, it obviously would make that partial acre more usable again. If a teJcphone or other visit on any of the above is appropriate, I will be most pleased to be available. Very truly yours, [^eift'^. White CM U s f ^ t A<, \ ^ ' r-v a^/sTif^c. f=fepfoX<^ 41 » aoM 129 29 S ys TT«w I “ « '/ -^oo } •. ) • ?»/.* 148.04 STAVf ji^^krCH *A* ■0 tm l!4 / * I ^’'^O ^N ro'^ VS'i’w 123 2 J ) y o~> :v u*\ wn .T^:c vmM 4% SLori, ^ 2y/fiZi7,eoo%t: ft .-! ' u J vy^,/ S9353 r-A%tmrmr y y / y ^ - ifei ^x«- F-c» 2J^ AC, ?9 ADAA^ N70*395 129.29 I =200 0.1..C '“O 0V «4 COt^Ca ^^eTCH 'c' -Pie.t>- N 70*^9 129 29 L Subd. 21. Special Requirements for Class II and III Subdivisions. A. Improvements. All public and/or private improvements required by the City to be completed by the subdivider prior to Final Plat approval, shall be fully completed and shall have had a certificate* of satisfactory completion issued by the City Engineer prior to endorsement of the Final Plat by the City. All oublic and/or private improvements required by the City to be comp*leted by the subdivider after Final Plat approval shall be fully set forth in a subdivider's agreement to be executed prior to Final Subdivision approval. All local streets in subdivisions where sewer and water are not available shall be private unless otherwise approved by the City at preliminary subdivision approval. The City reserves the right to determine whether a road is to be public or private in all areas of the City. B. Public Roads. Public streets and roads will be required to be platted, constructed and dedicated to the City when required by the Council consistent with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the City staff and the established City practices and design standards. Public roads shall be completed and issued a certificate of satisfactory completion by the City Engineer prior to Final Plat approval or, when specifically authorized by the Council, shall be subject to the conditions of a subdivider's agreement tc be executed prior to Final Plat approval. C. Private Roads. When the Preliminary Plat has been approves* on the basis of a private access road providing the only access to three or more lots, the private road shall be identified on the Final Plat as a separate outlot. The private road shall be identified by name if the road serves four or more lots. Whenever a private road outlot is proposed, the subdivider shall be required to provide for a permanent horaeowner|s association or road maintenance agreement acceptable to the City in order to insure ownership and maintenance of the road outlot. D. Road and Utilities Easements. The Council may, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and/or City staff, require the subdivider to convey to the City certain road and utilities easements permitting public ingress, egress and access over private roads as a condition of Final Subdivision approval. 1. Whenever a private access road is authorized, the required outlot shall be included on and conveyed in a road and utilities easement in the standard City form. 2. Whenever areas of the plat are to be set aside for public or private utility construction and use, said areas shill b<j described and dedicated for public use on the plat. This shall include areas shown on record plat drawings as "drainage and utilities easements". 3. Whenever a road and utilities easement is required, the easement shall be fully executed prior to Final Plat approval using the legal descriptions of the Pinal Plat and shall thereafter be filed in the chain of title of the property concurrent with the filing of the Final Plat. ORONO CC 442 (4-1-84) § 11.03 21. "Improvements, Private" - Any improvement, required by this Chapter, which improvement the City or subdivider shall construct at subdivider's expense and for which the City will not assume any responsibility for its maintenance and operation and which shall not be dedicated to the City. 22. "Improvements, Public" - Any improvement, required by this Chapter, which improvement the City or subdivider shall construct at subdivider's expense and for which the City will ultimately assume the responsibility for its maintenance and opera tion upon issuance of the certificate of satisfactory completion. 23. "Lot" - A tract, plot or portion of a subdivision or other parcel of land intended as a unit for the purpose, whether immediate or future, or transfer of ownership or for building development. Every platted lot shall be a buildable lot or an outlot. 24. "Lot Area, Minimum" - Each lot shall contain the minimum a/^' required for each proposed lot as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of wetlands, public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water or areas at or below the flood plain elevation for a specific property. All rural lots must comply with the City's on-site septic system provisions of the City Code. In urban areas served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dry buildable land equal to the minimum areas as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code or half-acre, whichever is less, (exclusive of public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian ease ments, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water wetlands or areas at or below the flood plain eleva tion for a specific property) and have legal access to the building site without encroachment of a wetland or flood plain area. 25. "Lot, Buildable" - A lot or combination of lots or outlots which meet all of the requirements of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code and this Chapter for the intended purpose. 26. "Lot, Outlot" - A lot which is intended only for public or private roadways, open space or other use, which use must be restricted by the appropriate easement and which use must be approved by the City at the time of final plat approval. The use of the outlot will thereafter be restricted by the appropriate restrictive covenant or open space easement. "Lot, Corner" - A lot situated two (2) streets, the interior angle 27. intersection of intersection not exceeding 135 degrees. at the of such ORONO CC 419 (4-1-84) t H • *M ..r ^'/V '-./ -• //:. .v^t^>//; -1*. '^'*.\t •*. ^y ^ 4tk««M dMtlM IlMifll •V. ;<• . '.V.'A.N-/<. i,'- ‘•. A\\'-i| • ♦ .'\v^.. ! . /\ ' ' y sj \ • ^ \V %_\ /% cif •! MiiIm UUS 4t«tllfe«4 : OMMct *4 M •! ••!« • |t••IM •! f 4«|f0t« M f C*««lt l4«4 4 4I•I•••• •! ««•• 4 4l4iaMi< I I I IMtit v«M tM f«l44 •! y'«4o A' I I ^ Hi*r' • ‘‘.i » •) \ i .» •\ ^ \ I \ \ I t. .1 / -»040V // //// / / ‘'X Till sojiHLiNC Of im sci/4 0/ see. Si. flit.ill x:tl4 00 'M //// n't //'■/ -;0!ljk’W•^/^' ''•'V Ha.04^ • - * ili •s N / I^.v vW’. iiif MOAiii mil or iHC III i/i 0# uc i.iiii, mi ' 'i if'W.-'l'k 1 I /Y//yA ■Hi C-i « t • ■i? ^r* * * •'S / r, . • ; \ OTT* SO Ac. L0T<^| 10 6 Ac. OUTLOT A I 4 Ac. OATSioe no \ V... .71 »41I ClMtUKM li70ti»'5a*W \i. ,T. .4 f#- £^\.% #»t» • _ j. __ ' ~-^•’,'T^S? J ! j. I r**:J. ” I \rz%•. \*.rz^. • 4. . *^.'i . .r^i ..* , . y._. • |Tc . . .. ..C « «•••««< ■*• » *4.* *. .>»i^ * •*< _.u ^ 9 m 9 % •/♦•i .t\W I 3 Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: October 10, 1990 #1579 Garry & Marie Everson, 4755 North Shore Drive After-the-fact Variance - Revised Proposal - Referral Back to Planning Commission List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Council Action Notice 10/9/90 Exhibit B - Memo S Exhibits of 10/5/90 Discussion - The City Council at their September 24th meeting voted 4-0 to conceptually deny the after-the-fact variance request, per the Planning Commission recommendation. At the October 8th meeting, the applicants proposed to revise their plans, suggesting a removal of deck back to the 10' side setback line, and removal of 664 s.f. of landscape hardcover north of the house. This would reduce the currently existing 57.3% 75-250' hardcover down to 49.9%, below the pre-existing 54.7%. Council referred this revised proposal to Planning Commission for further review and recommendation. Staff Recoanendation Planning Commission is requested to review the proposal, and make a recommendation to approve, deny, or approve conditioned on additional revisions to be specified. w W I ' W ^ Ld ILVm:*#:in: M9J0¥^ To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From Date Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator October 5, 1990 Subject:#1579 Garry & Marie Everson, 4755 North Shore Drive After-the-fact Variance - Denial Resolution - Revised Proposal List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Survey with Revised Proposal Denial Resolution Notice of Council Action 9/24/90 Memo & Exhibits of 9/17/90 Discussion - At your September 24th meeting. Council voted 4-0 to conceptually deny the after-the-fact variances to allow expansion of the deck on the west end of this property. Council indicated that this coii'^eptual denial would require that the deck be converted back to its original dimensions. Council also indicated to the applicant that because this was a conceptual denial, that applicant would have the ability to present a revised proposal before final action. Applicants are proposing two revisions which they have discussed with staff (see Exhibit A). Applicants would remove all portions of deck located over the property line and less than 10' from the property line. They would also agree to remove approximately 664 s.f. of crushed rock hardcover area between the house and road, replacing this with sod so that it no longer is hardcover. This would leave a deck area of approximately 398 s.f. plus the stairway, and coupled with the 664 s.f. crushed rock conversion to sodded area reduces hardcover to 5,142 s.f. (49.9%) as compared to the currently existing 57.3% or the pre existing 54.7%. As a comparison, Walter Krahl next door, the neighbor who shares the driveway, was allowed 51.6% 75-250' hardcover to construct additions. Staff Recommendation The denial resolution attached requires that the applicants remove all portions of new deck that exceed the pre-existing 13'xl8' deck/stairway, and grants after-the-fact variances to hardcover and average setback to allow replacement in kind of the pre-existing deck and stairway, continuing the hardcover at its pre-exiscing 54.7%. Council has the following options; ' I ■ Zoning File #1579 October 5, 1990 Page 2 of 2 1. Adopt the denial resolution as drafted, which merely grants the necessary variances to replace in kind the pre existing deck and stairway. 2. Conceptually approval applicant's revised proposal, leaving some of the expanded deck areas in place along with partial deck removal and crushed rock hardcover removal for a final hardcover of 49.9%. 3. Some combination of the above. 4. Other. /itvrr ^ A RESOLUTION DENYING APTBR-THE-PACT VARIANCES TO NDNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 & 2 AND SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) PILE fl579 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota? and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statute 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted a community management plan and zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare? and WHEREAS, Garry & Marie Everson (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 4755 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: The southeasterly one-half of Lot 7, and Lots 5 and 6, Bergquist & Wicklunds Par)c, accordirg to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property")? and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono for variances seeking after-the-fact approval for construction of a deck located lakeward of the defined average lakeshore setback line where no such encroachment is normally allowed per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B), such structure being located less than the 10' side yard setback required for such structures per Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B), and such structure increasing hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone in excess of the 25% normally allowed in that zone per Section 10.22, Subdivision 2? and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application? the recommendations of the staff and Planning Commission, and the comments and written statements submitted by the applicants. MOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the after-the-fact application for expansion of the pre-existing deck, as described above based upon one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: Page 1 of 7 FINDINGS 1. The property is located ^ i the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Zoning District, and consists of 20,344 s.f. or 0.47 acres. The Zoning District requires 43,560 s.f. or 1.0 acres ir area. 2. In 1988 the applicants determined that the existing deck at the southwest corner of their residence was in poor condition and they commenced to replace that deck. The original deck of approximately 13' x 18' (234 s.f.) was not only replaced, but was expanded to a deck area of 502 s.f. Construction or reconstruction of decks requires a building permit. The property owners did not apply for nor obtain a building permit prior to deck construction. 3. Subsequent inspection of the property by the building inspector verified in October 1988 that the deck was entirely new construction and not only required a building permit but appeared to be in violation of the hardcover, setback, and average setback ordinances of the City. 4. The property owners were advised of the building permit and zoning code requirements, and after an extended period of time provided sufficient survey and hardcover calculation data confirming that violations of the hardco’^er, average setback, and side yard setback ordinances had occurred. Rather than removing the offending structures, the applicants applied for variances after-the-fact to allow the new deck to remain as constructed. 5. The new deck encroaches 10' past the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed per Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B). The original deck had been apparently constructed prior to adoption of the average setback ordinance, and had encroached 4' past the average lakeshore setback line. 6. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 limits the percentages of hard surface allc« ed in various zones along the lakeshore. In the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone, hardcover is limited to 25% of that zone for residential properties in lakeshore zoning districts. Page 2 of 7 Hardcover existing on the property prior to construction of the new deck was calculated by City staff at 5,638 s.f. or 54.7% of the 75-250' zone, where only 2,577 s.f. or 25% hardcover would normally be allowed. The additional deck area constructed in 1988 increased the 75-250' zone hardcover to 57.3% (5,910 s.f.). Both the pre-existing and post construction hardcover in the 75-250' zone greatly exceeds the hardcover limitations imposed by Section 10.22, Subtu vision 2. 7. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) requires maintenance of a 10' side yard adjacent to another lot. The deck constructed in 1988 is sufficiently elevated above grade so as to require a railing, and therefore that deck is considered an encroachment into the required side yard. In fact, the Certificate of Survey provided by the applicant indicates that the deck is constructed across the lot line onto the neighboring property. 8. At their regular meeting of August 20, 1990, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the request for after-the-fact variances to allow the offending deck structure to remain, and on a vote of 4 in favor, 1 against, recommended denial of variances for hardcover, side setback, and average setback, finding that no hardship was given to justify the excessive hardcover associated with the deck additions, and no reasonable justification was provided for the granting of a side setback variance. The Planning Commission recommended that the decks be cut back to the pre-existing 18' X 13' dimensions. The minority opinion was that required deck removals should not be that extensive. 9. At their regular meeting of September 24, 1990, the City Council of the City of Orono voted 4 in favor, 0 against, to conceptually deny the requested after-the-fact variances per the recommendation of the Planning Commission and directed City staff to prepare a resolution of denial. 10. The City Council finds that the applicant has not demonstrated that strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the Zoning Code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property, as follows: Page 3 of 7 i a) The property in question can be put to a reasonable use under conditions allowed by the Zoning Code. b) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances created by the landowner, i.e. if the property owner had applied for a permit prior to the reconstructxon and expansion of the deck, he would have been advised of the side setback requirements and would have likely avoided the need for a side setback variance. However, replacement of the existing deck in kind would have required a hardcover and average setback variance regardless. c) The special conditions of the Z-oning Code applying to the deck structure and to this property in general are not peculiar to this property but apply to all residential lakeshore properties within the City. d) The granting of the application for the expansion of the deck is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants. Expansion of the deck areas across the property line with a further encroachment into the average lakeshore setback and increased hardcover from the pre-existing situation, place this application in a different ligiit t. an would mere replacement in kind of a pre-existing deck. e) Granting of variances for the deck expansion will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant and are not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty. FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono hereby grants after-the-fact variances for hardcover and average lakeshore setback to allow the reconstruction in kind of the pre-existing 13' x 18' deck plus a maximum 4' wide stairway to grade, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicants shall pay to the City an after-the-fact investigation fee in the amount of $175.00 as provided in City Council Resolution #1306. Page 4 of 7 2. Applicants shall obtain an after-the-fact building permit for the 13' x 18' deck and 4' wide stairway to grade. 3. Applicants shall within 60 days of the date of this resolution remove all portions of deck in excess of the 13' X 18' section plus the 4' stairway, and further, the applicants shall bring the remaining deck into compliance with all building code requirements as may be required by the Orono Building Inspector, 4. Hardcover on the property in the 75-250' zone shall not exceed 54.7% (5,638 s.f.) as shown on the survey and hardcover calculation worksheet on Page 6 of this resolution. The current property owners and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the currently approved level and any proposed improvements of this property -hat will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for ren.cval as a condition of this resolution must bo removed prior to the 60 day deadline imposed by the conditions of this resolution, 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this after-the-fact partial variance approval shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemernor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successor and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 5 of 7 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of October, 1990. ATTEST: Theresa L. Naab Deputy Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr. Acting Mayor Property Owner(sj STATE OF MINNESOTA ) } ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of October, 1990, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Theresa L. Naab, Ac.ing Mayor 6 Deputy Clerk ox the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 6 of 7 APPLICATION NO. 1579 CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION 55323 Date of Notice: 9/26/90 Garry & Marie Everson 4755 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 COPIES: TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE OP MEETING: September 24, 1990 VOTE 4 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Council voted to conceptually deny the request, directing staff to draft a resolution for the next meeting. Council indicated to applicants that if a revised plan is proposed in a timely manner, it could be considered prior to final Council action. Please contact staff at 473-7357 if you wish to discuss your options. Your next Council meeting is scheudled for Monday, October 8, 1990, 7:00 p.m. at the Orono Council Ch£unbers. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. Isv Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:September 17, 1990 Subject: ^1579 Garry & Marie Everson, 4755 North Shore Drive After-the-Fact Variance Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for after-the-fact hardcover and average setback variances for decks constructed without a permit. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Planning Commission Action Notice 8/24/90 Applicants Letter to Council 9/17/90 Memo & Exhibits of 8/17/90 Discussion and thePlease review the memo and exhibits of August 17, 1990, the applxcants letter of September 17, 1990. Briefly applicants are requesting after-the-fact approval for a hare, yer variance and average lakeshore setback variance for decks which were constructed without a permit in 1988. The August 17th memo details the history of this application. Applicants have submitted a chronology from their point of view. The pre-existing deck on the property was 230 s.f. The currently existing deck is 502 s.f. Pre-existing 75-250' hardcover was 54.7% i5638 s.f.). Currently existing 75-250' hardcover is 57.5% (5910 s.f.). If the crushed rock without plastic is excluded per applicants letter, existing and current 75-2 50' hardcover is 497 4* s.f. (48.2%) and 5246 s.f. ^50.9%) respectively. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed the application on August 20, 1990 and voted 4 to 1 to recommend denial for the following reasons: 1. No hardship was found to justify the excessive hardcover associated with the deck additions. 2. No reasonable justification presented for granting a side setback variance, noting that the deck as constructed is over the property line into the neighbor's property. Zoning File 1579 September 17, 1990 Page 2 Planning commission did not consider the average lakeshore setback encroachment a significant issue because no neighboring property owners views of the lake are diminished. Planning Commission recommended that the decks be cut back to the pre existing 18* X 13* dimension. The miniority Planning Commission opinion (Commissioner Rowlette) was that the required deck removals should not be as extensive as recommended by the majority. Note that applicants were scheduled for a court appearance regarding the violation tag, on September 19, 1990. No word on the results has been received as of this writing. Staff Recosniendation Staff would concur with the Planning Commission recommendation. Because the Planning Commission recommendation is essentially for a full denial of the variance request, with restoration, staff has not drafted a resolution pending Council's conceptual action. Council has the following options: 1. Direct staff to draft a resolution for denial, for adoption at your next meeting. 2. Conceptually grant partial approval, directing staff to draft a resolution reflecting your action. 3. Conceptually approve the decks as constructed, directing staff to draft a resolution of approval. 4.Other. Isv CITY OF ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 ZONING FILE 11579 55323 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 08/24/90 TO: Garry & Marie Everson 4755 North Shore Drive Moundr MN 55364 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: August 20, 1990 VOTE: 4 For 1 Against Planning Connisslon recomnends the following: Denial for reasons noted below MOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Ccnunission recommended denial based on finding no hardship to justify the excessive hardcover associated with the deck additions, and no reasonable justification for granting a side setback variance. Average lakesnore setback encroachment was not considered a significant issue in this case relative to any neighbor's views of the lake being diminished. Planning Commission recommended that the decks be cut back to the pre existing 18' X 13' dimension. The minority opinion was that required deck removals should not be that drastic. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Council on Monday, September 24, 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 Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Any additional information you wish to have reviewed by this City Council should be submitted to the attention of Mike Gaffron by September 14, 1990. Isv September 17, 1990 'ifp TO: ORONO CITY COUNCIL is ISSO RE: OBJECTION TO PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 8/24/90 Dear Member.' of the Council: We wish to object to the Planning Commission Action 8/24/90 regarding removal of our deck. Enclcsed is a Chronology of Events which the Planning Commission refused to read because we didn't submit it in advance of the meeting. Our hardcover calculations are misleading. The reason we have such a large driveway is because we must share it with our neighbors to allow them access to their house, and we should not be penalized for this. The 664 square feet area adjacent to the house entitled "crushed rock" should be excluded from hardcover calculation because it no longer has plastic underneath and grows weeds. The length of time taken to resolve this matter has not been entirely our fault as evidenced by the enclosed Chronology. If we are required to reduce deck to original size, we will be required to move steps back to area against house under eve where they will be water and ice covered again, which is the reason why we moved them. The area where the deck extends over the lot line is a joint or common area with our neighbors where we put our garbage cans, and they have no objection to this. Garry & Marie Everson 4755 North Shore Drive Orono, Minnesota 55364 Enclosures: Chronoioay Certificate of Survey cc: Mike Gaffron .1 1 rr. ■ CHRO:;OLOGY OF E^/EMTS - DECK PERMIT Fall 33 10/21/88 10/28/88 10/31/88 11/8/88 ll/ia/33 11/29/38 12/15/33 12/30/88 2/2/89 Fall 39 Feb 90 2/27/90 Started replacing boards on rotten deck. As it progressed, entire deck was done because ail v;ood rotten Letter from City - They want permit by 10/31 Sent letter to City stating we only replaced the existing deck. Letter from City - permit required Called to ask if plans required. They will corr.e out arid do an inspection Mote left by inspector - v;ant pernit Periuit application delivered to City (they claim they didn't get this) Letter from City - v/ant permit Another copy of permit to City (they later claimed at'meeting 3/90 they never got second^ permit application but then found a copy dated 11/29/89 by us and m.ar.ked date rec'd 12/30/33 Letter from City - they now want Certificate of Survey and Hardcover Calculation. Called neighbors who v;ere doing survey next door and they said cost over $2,000 Ticket issued for failure to apply for permit. Went to Ridgedale Court 3 times to tm/ to take care of ticket and were told none on record, assumed matter dropped. Orono Police cam.e to hom.e with arrest warrant for failure to pay ticket. Police officer^ determined the reason Ridgedale couldn't find the ticket was because City spelled name wrong. Iverson instead of Everson. Paid ticket rather than argue anv further and thought matter settled. ^ - y; ^u <- uv! 1^ V— ’ Letter from Orono stating still want application (now claim thev don't have) and giving deadline of March 6 (note 7 days after date letter typed which was received March 3). Called Lyle Oman and he agreed to meeting at City 3/16/90 3/16/90 3/16/90 4/12/90 4/12/90 4/18/90 Meeting with Lyle Oman and Jeanne Mabusth at City Hall. They will want Survey and said they never received permit application. They looked further and found permit application dated November 1988. We argued that we did not feel we should be required to bear the expense of survey but reluctantly agreed to have it done. Called All Metro Survey. They will do estimate on cost of survey. Called Gronseth in Long^ Laxe who agreed to look at property and call me oack Should take 2-3 weeks. Called All Metro. They needed further information of lecal description, etc (provided) and will go ahead and do the survey in next couple of weeks. Called City Inspector Oman. He is on vacation until near end of month. Askec receptionist to pull our file and advise ii there w’as any requi..e compliance date. She coulcn't find the file. I advised that survey was underway and asked her to Dlease note for their records and to have the oerson in charge during Mr. Oman's absence call*me back that afternoon, since he was busy. No return phone call from City that afternoon or any subsequent time. Received a Complaint from Ridgedale Court for building without a permit with a Court date scheduled 5/8/90 Lon red Prepared for • ■ ’ , i. ! 1, ’• 1! it' % V If \ W^R^>C0v4eR atOJUTION^i CArui Jn *<^'*«r« f«-t) rf*^ tone HAHoawt lOMC A«eA MXK__________ 0*-l6‘ 10,055 4-^0 4% Cowtrft^e 10,309 3190 %•/• 0»M«*5e* LEGAL DESCRIPTION; Tlie southeasterly One-half of Lot 7, and Lots 5 and 6, Block 6, BERGQUIST AND WICK- LUND'S PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Henne pin County, Minnesota. GENERAL NOTES o Denotes iron monument "♦* Denotes cross chiseled in concrete t 939.7 Denotes existing spot elevation (9391 Denotes proposed spot elevotion <--------- Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denotes proposed features Solid contour lines denotes existing features ALL-METRO LAND SURVEYORS Proposed top ot foundation elevation Proposed basement floor elevation Proposed gorage floor elevation = DENCHMARK*. ♦ 2340 Doniils Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Ph. 475-1433 I h*i*by certify thot thU iur««y, or report wot prtporod ^ mo or undtr my direct tupervition ond thot I om o duly RegKtered Lond Surroyor under the lowt pf the Stole of Mmnetoto. UATf f/i A o _REG NO SCALE p’s 50' FILE NO. W47 A To:Planning Conunission Chairman ?elley Orono Planning Conunission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:August 17, 1990 Subject:#1579 Garry & Marie Everson, 4755 North Shore Drive After-the-Fact Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for after-the-fact variance for decks constructed without a permit. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit P Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Staff Memos of 5/18/90 from Gaffron and Oman Construction Plans Hardcover Calculations by Applicant's Surveyor Copy of Assessor's Record RE; Pre-existing Deck Air Phete Documentation of City Action Regarding Deck Pertinent Pacts - 1.In October 1988 the Inspections Department observed a new deck constructed rt the applicant's residence and subsequently sent a letter notifying the property owner that a permit was required. Subsequent discussion with the property owner and a site inspection by the Building Inspector found that the deck was all new construction. The applicants submitted an incomplete building permit application on December 30, 1988, they were advised to provide the survey and hardcover calculations necessary to complete the application. With no response from the applicant, a citation was issued for working without a building permit on April 18, 1989. The applicant's did not respond to the citation, hence the City Attorney issued a formal complaint. The property owners again failed to appear, and in February 1990 paid a §74.00 fine without ever appearing in Court (see Oman memo of May 18, 1990). In February 1990, the City again sent letters to the defendant advising him that payment of the fine does not resolve the problem. Applicant's finally met with City staff in March 1990, and in May 1990 provided the survey which verifies that hardcover on the property is excessive, and the deck is over the lot line. Zoning File #1579 August 17, 1990 Page 2 Applicants proceeded with the necessary after-the-fact variance application, although they were advised that the City could not ultimately allow the continuing encroachment of the deck over the lot line, and that a hardcover variance request might not be successful. 2. Per the survey, the deck is approximately 2' over the lot line. City codes allow a platform type deck with no railing to extend to within 2* of a side lot line. A deck such as this with a railing must be setback 10' from the side lot line. 3. Hardcover on the property, as calculated by the applicants surveyor with one revision by staff and shown in detail on the survey, is as follows: Zone 0-75’ 75-250' Zone Area 10,035 s.f. 10,309 s.f Existing Hardcover 430 s.f. (4%) 5910 s.f. (57.3%) Allowed Hardcover 2577 s.f. (25%) 4. The assessor's record card indicates that an 18' x 13' deck previously existed adjacent to the garage and screen porch. That deck extended approximately 4' lakeward from the house, as compared to the new deck which extends about 10* lakeward from the house. Dimensions of the previously documented deck are 13' X 18', or 230 s.f. The currently existing deck has dimensions 9' X 38' plus an extension toward the lake averaging 10' deep x 16' wide, for a total deck area of 502 s.f. 5. The average lakeshore setback line coincides with the laKeshore side of the house. The old deck encroached 4* past the average setback line. The new deck encroaches 10' past the average setback line. No neighboring property owners have views that are affected by this encroachment. 6. The applicants have constructed a 7* high fence along the street side of the length of the deck. Because this fence is over 6' high based on the grade at the driveway, such a fence would need a building permit, unless it was dropped to a height of 6'. Discussion The piers from the pre-existing 13' x 18' deck are still in place, hence we believe the assessor's records are correct. There is no question that the 13' x 18* deck was completely removed and the currently constructed deck is entirely new as of 1988. Zoning file #1579 August 17, 1990 Page 3 This lot is similar to the Wally Krahl property to the immediate west, in which the house is below the road and there is significant hardcover (rock and plastic) north of the house to help eliminate basement water problems while providing a ground cover where no grass would likely grow. As indicated above, staff noted one minor addition to hardcover which the surveyor did not note on his survey, i.e. 4' x 40' rock bed adjacent to the driveway. It appears that applicant has been digging a trench underneath the 3 season porch adjacent to the deck. If the intent is to replace the existing porch support posts with a concrete wall and footings, that also will require a building permit. Given the lengthy process through which staff has attempted to gain compliance on this property, the applicant has enjoyed at least two seasons of use of this deck system. However, with little existing hardcover area that can be reasonably removed to significantly reduce hardcover on the property, the added deck area is significant from a hardcover standpoint. Staff Recomaendatiun 1. Staff recommends that the 20' x 9' deck section furthest from the house, which extends 2' into the next property, be removed in its entirety, and this area revert back to non-hardcover. This will not only reduce hardcover by 180 s.f., but will eliminate the encroachment across the line and the encroa''hment into the 10' required side yard setback area. 2. Planning Commission should determine whether the remaining 10' x 16' and 9' x 18' deck areas can remain, given the hardcover situation and the 10' encroachment past the average setback line. Removal of the 10' x 16' portion that extends lakeward of the house, would leave a deck about 4' x 18' smaller than what originally existed. 3. Planning Commission should determine if there are any other areas of hardcover on the property that can be eliminated to reduce the high percentage of hardcover in the 75-250' zone. 4. For whatever deck is allowed to remain, applicant should be required to obtain an after-the-fact building permit and revise the deck as necessary to meet building code standards. 5. Applicants paid only the standard $175 variance application fee. Does Planning Commission feel there is any justification to not require payment of the after-the-fact fee of an additional $175 which should have been collected at the time of application? CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION # #4J- ^Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variant/ Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) «• P •i Vv.(I • \ r r PROPERTY LOCATION ary' uRQf^Q riRAHCE OFFICE ^ciw( 71 1 r?* HF.CEIFr-TPMI YOU Site Address ^fn^4h 5?hor^ ^r/()g_, GhnnA , JY1 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) / *7* ^ ^’■^^2/ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. SCft- ^LtrUf-^ APPLICANT Phone (home) V7r^ COO Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (wor)c) ^i^*4 ^ Address; 4l5^ iVT. City; Q mijr!) Zip; OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (wor)c) Address;City;Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property rv^ P . ^CdTIO (1 L|Residential Ocher (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 5 Describe request in detail; 5NlJ-ri)LLj ^ I )i ^0 VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setbac)c Variances ( Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) Other t j* — . ■■■M ■! iifi ■ HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical airricuity resulting irom sutxct enforcement of zoning regulationspp.rdiQ# f>r!i r^nopo/v:^^ - rfljpla(Lld . r^ ' ,T—^ practical difficulty resulting from strict DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements:_ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ UIRED SUBMITTALS 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. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes — in exi.iting grade are proposed. 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. 7. 8. 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 above Infoxiaation 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 information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's Signature /OdiLll tktXA Date ^ 2-3 OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ac)cowledges 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.dOwner's Signature M 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 Ccmmission 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 6 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I? :) v5 l!* > RUN DATE 07/17/90 HENNEPIN CCXJNTY PROPtKTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0HT4ERS LIST BATCH 010 PROP ADDR OmER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SB 07-117-2S S2 0009 04736 NORTH SHORE OR CHRISTINE J SCHANZENBACH CHRISTINE J SCHANZENBACH 4736 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND NN 55364 PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SB 07-117-23 32 0012 047B4 NORTH SHORE DR JEFFREY J MARSHALL JEFFREY J MARSHALL 47B4 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TA>^AYER NAHE/ADDR 3B 07-117-23 32 0021 04755 NORTH SHORE DR 6 R EVERSON P M E EVERSON GARRY A MARIE EVERSON 4755 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND m 55364 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 010 00009 #1 3 REPORT NO. PI4SS401 PAGE 22 3$ 07-117-23 32 0010 047S0 NORTH SHORE OR JAMES R THOMSON ETAL JAMES THOMSON 4750 NORTH SHORE OR MOUr^O MI4 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0011 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO RICHARD 0 CLIFFORD RICHARD D CLIFFORD 10155 GREErBRIER RD APT 208 Mirt4ET0NKA MN 55343 38 07-117-23 32 0019 04745 NORTH SHORE DR HERMAN CRANFORD ETAL HERMAN CRANFORD 4745 NO SHORE DRIVE M0Ur4D MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0020 04753 NORTH SHORE DR LESTER A DIETHART LESTER A DIETHART 4753 NORTH SHOIE DR MOUND MN 55364 ' i 38 07-117-23 32 0022 04775 NORTH SHORE OR H A KRAHL ETAL HALTER A I OOI4NA L KRAHL 4775 NORTH SHORE OR MOUriD tf4 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0023 04795 NORTH SHORE DR STATE LAND DEPT CITY OF ORONO LAKE ACCESS LANES 6/19/70 ST DEED 136852 I cert;fy that the facts represented are an accurate and true REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEffiEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOIIUUCE AND BELIEF DATE • \ • \ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared for:BveRsoN REsi Device G) fo' \\ ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: WaHKRPCOMER CAtCjOUTlONSl CArui in t^Mr« frc*) •! toae HMiociNet Vv AOA AtlA ' The southeasterly One-half of Lot 1, and Lots 5 and 6, Block 6, BERGQUIST AND WICK- LUND'S PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Henne pin County, Minnesota. 59/0 “/a V- 4,6*/ O'* 15' TS'l50* K),09& 10,309 430 4% C»«trek^e 5190 %v« Oviw-^e./O J«»^| 79/e? r7.sy,GENERAL NOTES A 939.7 Oerrates iron monument Denotes cross chiseled in concrete Denotes existing spot elevation Denotes proposed spot elevation Denotes surface drainage Proposed top of foundotion elevation = Proposed basement floor elevation - Proposed garage floor elevation = BENCHMARK: Doehed contour lines denotes proposed features Solid contour lines denotes existing features ALL-METRO LAND SURVEYORS 2340 Daniels Street I Ntrtby ctrtify ?h<jf thil lurvty, plon or nporl wot proporod by mo or undtr my dtrtct tuporvttion ond that I om o duly Rogiiftrod Lend Survoyor undor tho lowt tho Stott ot Mmoototo TO:Bryan Crawfordr City Attorney Fromi Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:May 18, 1990 Subject: Zoning Review - Garry Everson Property 4755 North* Shore Drive Today I received a copy of the Certificate of Survey for the above referenced property, such survey being completed by All Metro Land Surveyors. I would make the following specific comments regarding information shown on that survey: 1. The survey verifies that the wood deck for which the applicant was cited, is not in the 0-75' protected lakeshore setback zone. 2. It is unclear from the survey whether the deck extends into the average lakeshore setback zone. No new construction is allowed to encroach toward the lake past a line drawn between the lake sides of existing residence structures on either adjacent property. (Reference Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B), attached.) 3. The wood deck has been constructed over the lot line and onto the neighboring Walter Krahl property to the west. Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C), the non encroachment section, notes that a grade level deck cannot extend closer than 2' from any lot line, and a deck structure that is above grade level so as to not meet the criteria for a grade level deck, would have to meet a 10' side setback in the LR-IB zoning district in which this property is located. 4. The final critical issue with this wood deck is that it increases the already excessive hardcover on the property. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, limits hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone to 25%. This property is currenty at 56% in that zone, and the contruction of the wood deck certainly exacerbated the pre-existing hardcover excesses. To summarize, portions of the currently existing wood deck which were newly constructed in 1988, and which resulted in this action, do not conform to the Code because they are: A) Too close to the lot line (in fact over it); and B) Contributing to and increasing the pre-existing hardcover excesses on the property. Zoning Review May IS, 1990 Page 2 of 2 - Garry Everson Property 4755 North Shore Drive The property owner would appear to have 2 options: 1. Remove the decks which were added or totally replaced. City policy has been to allow repair of pre-existing decking, but total replacement of a non-conforming deck would not be allowed unless a variance is granted. 2. Applicant could make the appropriate after-the-fact application for a hardcover variance, with the knowledge that the City will expect portions of the deck encroaching on the required setbacks would have to be removed. There is no guarantee that a variance would be granted, and in » case where the hardcover on the property is so excessive, it is doubtful applicant would be granted approval to keep anything more than the original deck in that location. To:Bryan Crawford, City Attorney From:Lyle Oman, Senior Building Inspector Date May 18, 1990 Subject: 4755 North Shore Drive ~ Deck Construction Without a ■ Permit 10/21/88 letter sent notifying owner of requirement of permit for deck deadline date of 10/31/88. Permit application enclosed. 10/28/88 owner returns letter with note on bottom "the work we did to our deck was simply repair and replacement of existing, rotting decking and we are not aware this type of maintenance work required a permit". 10/31/88 letter sent to owner saying yes a permit is required for this type of work. Deadline given 11/8/88. 11/8/88 phone call asking if plans are required, I said I would do a site inspection to determine. 11/18/88 site inspection found deck to be^ of ^11 new construction. 7 days to get permit noted on inspection slip left on site. 12/13/88 letter stating legal action will be initiated if no permit by 12/19/88. 12/30/88 permit application received. 2/2/89 Zoning Department sends letter requiring a Certificate of Survey and hardcover calculations within 45 days. 4/18/89 no response from applicant - citation issued for working without building permit. 6/8/89 applicant does not respond - Court sends delinquent ticket notice. 9/26/89 applicant does not respond - Attorney issues formal complaint. 10/17/89 failed to appear. Bench warrant issued. 1/2/90 Building Inspector requests police to enforce warrant (verbal). 2/21/90 Building Inspector request police to enforce warrant (in memo). it- 4755 North Shore Drive May 18r 1990 Page 2 of 2 - Deck Construction Without a Permit 2/26/90 Police attempt enforcement of warrant, wife of defendant states defendant is out of town. Officer accepts $74.00 fine from wife and declares case closed. 2/27/90 Inspector sends letter to defendant stating payment of fine in no way makes his deck a legal structure, requires permit application and required submittals to be provided to City no later than 3/6/90. 3/7/90 submittals not received. Inspector requests City Attorney to take further action. 3/16/90 applicants come to office to discuss and were told a survey must be provided. 5/18/90 survey provided - see attached memo from Mike Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator. :| 1 » i 1 m w ^ / y » -I V HARDCOVER CALCUUTION WORKSHE^^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' Existing Hardcover in Zone H 250-500' " V 'i' 500-1000' ,1. House <i C^Argie^g.x CAtiOLhcd^ = 2. j Q,q> s.f. length WIDTH . Garage %C c. Driveway D. '&4DEWALK ^4^Iir^ km L/xka- E. Patio/ Deck I^LcL-OUC^ r5w F.Landscape AREAS underlain Elastic- * sheeting 6. Other Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone •B 2.r4a m. io,im X 100 S42- dJU-t . O'? ^SOLT it S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. * , ^ S.FT-N / S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.A S.F.B Vo » I J TYPE 1 2 S.X S/C CLASS I 7 3 7 I O’M - •/ • p ; '*>r >.■'{ # .-:'i-'r.\ # ^ • • * • • JO M,iPROvrA<ENTS VALOC : •/ •• .-• 9 lo^^OfAL POUCHES - BAlCON't* 4 OTE^W SIOGS jJ_____/ •/ y * ^ ^ rc^ 4* s Y r "r •• ► 4* — %• ?.c>'.' 'jO**, f'. ..•>rffv.. .^ -'Trcs^:-------- if •. . . . ^ ~ a . .*• •gjr ^ js: . ( •'•t\ I V.A V Ot’*T » ‘SI^M P f ••: ’.v^ I . * • . i 4 • b > .*34^1,/ : 3 4-. t 1 .• i 4 • c>; . j 4 1 e > J 4 • c.) . J 4 f (« 7 4 • t J f V' -> 7lc^(Pr ^£Ttx:> __* *_____3riC^ c > /.• CITYof ORONO CITY OF ORONO r Post Office Box 66«CrysuI Bey, MinneeoU 55323• Munidpel Offit I On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka March 7, 1990 Associates 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 Ninth Street South Minneapolis/ MN 55402 Re- Garry Richard Everson, <755 North Shore Drive Deck construction without Permit Dear Bryan: Thank you for °fe”s‘^heri there a^rVis^sue^s to be on formal V be more cost effective to oeal Sflh^^mYntr any further comments on tr.is lew Enclosed is a violation report ^on one of^our^^^^^^ process failures. Please anymore infcrr.ation or if I yoi'in“ny*«y,"‘fe'^l free to contact me at my office. Sincerely# Lvle Oman» Senior Building Inspe ctcr LO/tln Enclosure cc: Jeanne A . Kabusth, Building t Zoning Administrator iUliniNC a ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING administration a nNANCE-473-73SI FAX-473-0510 PUBLIC WRKS - 473-735* MIlL k k M /MidBVi‘A ■-A * A CITV CITYof OBONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Munidpal OtDces OF QRaNcr On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 27, 1990 Gary Richard Everson 4755 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 Re:Deck Construction without a Building Permiw Dear Mr. Everson: Tt has come to my attention that you have paid a S74.00 fine on a cita“on"rs%uad”?o you for building without a pert-.t. This letter is to inforn you that ll way makes your deck a al'''aDoi icable "codes if obtain a building permit and ^ion with the recuired you wish to keep thesubmittals must be proviced to .he C..y be.o.e If this deadline has not been met^j:^^ instructed to citations and the P-issues be^o^e fines can be paid Sincerely, ryie Oman, Senior Building Inspector Enclosure - Building Permit Application Mi?hSel^.”GaffrSA,®AisfS!aSninS S Zoning Administrator Bruce Vang, Building Inspector BUILDI^^C a ZONING - 473-7357 assessing administration a nNANCE - 473-7351 FAX-4734ISI0 PUBLIC WRKS - 473-7355 • •* CITY DF dfono CITY of ORONO P.„ 0«- 66.C«1 B.y, 55323.M«.idp.l CM- On tht North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 2, 1989 Mr. Garry Everson 4755 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 Re: Deck Construction Without Permit Dear Mr. Everson, The Building ,^°|Jg"r\c^®peVmi^*to construct new decks application for an after f^e-ks. A review of the PV°thU^hVVo “A"olins information needed for review is missing: 1. certifioate survey. e 1 fc;«ne ""113 deck construction is 2. Hardcover calculations. inspection of your considered as hardcove-, rtr>or*-v ve-v likelv already property indicated hard"co*vVr of"25% in the 75-250' exceeds the ° hardcover calculation worksheetzone. Please complete the ha surveyor should rotate"ril ftty trLtdiovtr tn^luding the deck, sidewalks, driveway, etc. on the survey. in the event that .^“^1 lotab'lV^^^^ constructed decks «*®f*^* A the^decks extend into the 0-7S event that any P-?'*A " vou will have to apply for the lakeshore setback Aging a variance for your use, appropriate variances. I am enclosing should you need to apply* Review of your building »PP“r\Vlure"to provTdV the until the noted i‘*»Atrin'« days of the dHe of this letter 5I?l^Vsult”in'rr%S«r“al‘ortJ!s ‘’«ltter to the City Attorney. lUILDINC a ZONING - 473-7357 assessing administration a finance - 473-7358 Pt’BUC WORKS - 473-7359 .. X- .■ n - ^ 4 kkMMiU *■ • • Page 2 Please contact »e at 473-7357 if you have any cuestions. Sincerely Ass?rtinrP?anning a Zoning AdBinistcator MPG/dh Enclosure: Variance Application cc- Jeanne A. Habusth, Building and Zoning Administratoc Tom Jacobs, Building InspeCwO. Lyle Oman, Field Inspector a' * • • • •• Total Fee: $ CITY OF ORONO - BOILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Date Received: Date Approved: •• JS-e ^ Permit f:Pro ject#:J^ 2. Buildina Permit Application Requirements: , - V '- 1. Building permit application - to be filled out completely and signed 2 sets of construction plans to include the following: a) Floor pl2uis; Footing and foundation plan; Elevations (of all sides); Wall sections and cross sections; Details - stairs and any special connections. Certificate of survey with location of existing and proposed structures including hardcover calculations and grading and drainage plans as required. Energy calculations — form provided. 5 Seo^ic resort and design if required. ABOVE INFORMATION MOST BE SUBMITTED IN FULL BEFORE PLAN REVIEW WILL BE STARTED b) C) d) e) 3. 4. WNER'br CONTRACTORTHE APPLICANT IS: (circle one) : ^755*JOB SITE ADDRESS ZIP:(a J NAME OF OWNER; Qr.AODil l^\ )0 CSr/^J (work) ^ 7 PHONE: (home) un ..TTTi.« »nn»lKS.- A ). CITY: Qr,-:,yC- -01^ ZIP; rn»TPACTOP; vj _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _fsONE:- - - - - - - - - - MAILING ADDRESS:CITY:ZIP: ARCHITECT:PHONE: MAILING ADDRESS:Jt. •44 X A • TYPE OF WORK Demo Mew Addition Move «• uncdei/Alteraticn Accessory Structure_ _ Renovate )c Land Alteration PROPOSED USE (describe in detail):n /Li "i^ront LU<^ucjocxj : STORTFSg Pamh! 'r'SQ, FEET OF EACH FLOOR: / HO. OF BEDROOMS: ^GARAGE .STALLS: ATT.^DET. iJu^o^and): I hereby apply for a building permit and I acknowledge that the abovrii cJ^i^plete and accurate; that the work will be in Srdi^ances and codes of the City and with the State Building Code; that I understand this is not a permit and work is not to start without a permit, and that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE:__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ^ -- - - - - - - - - -- - - -- --- - - - - - - - - - -, (Please fill cmucthb'reverse side of this tormj If- 5.%.. i • • ili 5 Q 5 5 CITYOFORONO INSPECTION NOTICE PERMIT NO----------— DATE TTME CALLED IN SCHEDULED COMPLETED ADDRESS OWNER AJc> CONTR. TELEPHONE NO.*y 7 z-za^ a FOOTING a FRAMING Q INSULATION □ WALL BO. U FINAL a PROGRESS o OEMOU O FIRE PREV. COMMENTS: O PLUMBING Rl □ PLUMBING FINAL a MECHANICAL D WATER HOOKUP O meter SET/TURN ON O SEWER HOOKUP O SEPTIC INSTAU- O SEPTIC MAINT. O WELL TEST PUMP Za^lTE INSPECTION □ EXCAVyGRAOING/FILLINQ “ lakef ore /wetlanos LICENCING COMPLAINT FOLLOW-U:* SEPTIC FINAL HREPLACE/WOOD 0URNE.9 □□□□ Q Ca r :nAS ^JLTyy^ 7 r. C photo TAKENy ^ WORK satisfactory proceed 5 I iii »—'■ call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance. Owner/Contf»,on site Inspector 473-7357 Whftt /Inspector*i Filt Cjfiwy /Sit« Noticf city : OF QRawa CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66-Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka October 31, 1988 Gary Iverson 4755 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 Re: Deck Construction Without Permit Dear Mr. Iverson: ^ u 1Q98 th^s office notified you that a permit On October 21, _ vnu ’•esponded with a note «as required for deck ““^^^““^nt'and'you were not aware of s3.yi.nQ it W3S 3 r6p3ir 3iid . is to confoinn the requirement for a .^“^^‘^^”^^®^air/reolaceme^^ New work or may issue citations. this LU?L"er;iea7e\“eVlHrel °/o iL"ta=t''t.ra “t ?.”"ofSTce“f Sincerely, .. V ...►vi tini 1 ino 6 Zoninq Administrator •=== ?a ni„^ ^ Thomas J. Jacobs, Senior Building Inspector UILDINC a ZONING - 473*7357 A5SE5SLNC ADMINISTRAPON a finance - 473*7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7339 » J .CITY OF dRQNaJ CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66* Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices I On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka October 21f 1988 Gary Everson 4755 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 Re: Deck Construction Without Permit Dear Mr. Everson: It has it" 4°7's5 "’Nlrth“sho«have recently constructed a decjc a^: without the required building permit. mu- laa-t-'hor- 1 s to notifv YOU that a building permit is permit v-ef,ore 10-31-88. x. thxs if you have a rr^hiir»ertrnrms /ela^irne^'rieare^eel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman, Field Inspector Enclosed: Permit Application Thomas J. Jacobs, Senior Building Inspector ujork UJC. to 2- 'cpair ^ replae&mej^ o9 u>^ not aco^r^ tojp. of a^_ Uoorlc. r rod 3 jpCLrrn i t. D * Thei.nlc lou , cc: LDINC A ZONING - 473-73S7 assessing ADMINISmATlON A FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:October 11, 1990 Subject: #1584 Robert Radunz, 1066 Loma Linda Avenue - After-the-fact Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for after-the-fact variances for hardcover, average lakeshore setback, and side setback. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit G Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Application Plat Map Property Owners List Applicant's Letter of Request Dated 8/17/90 Neighboring Property Owner Non-Objections Survey Hardcover Calculations & Survey Attachment Construction Plan Assessor's Records 1974 Variance Documentation Copies of Photos of Pre-existing Conditions Airphoto, 1989 Pertinent Facts - 1.The applicant demolished a pre-existing deck on the lakeside of his house, and constructed a larger deck in its place. 2.The old deck was apparently as wide as the house and somewhere between 5' and 10' in depth, plus a stairway to grade level. The new deck is approximately 28'xl8' plus a stairway. 3.The new deck constitutes additional structural hardcover and the property is already in extreme excess of the allowed percentages. The new deck is also located approximately 8.5' from the south side lot line according to the survey, where a 10' side setback would normally be required. Additionally, the new deck constitutes an even greater average lakeshore setback encroachment than the old deck. Zoning File #1584 October 11, 1990 Page 2 of 3 4. Variances Required: 0-75' Hardcover 75-250' Hardcover Avg, Setback Encroachment Side Setback Pre-Existing Required or Current Allowed 6.61%6.61%0% 69.3%*69.6%25% 11' approx.20'O' 12'in•G O 10' 5. 6. Staff cannot deterine whether rock and plastic was placed under new deck before or after its construction. Applicant's photos suggest that significant rock and plastic areas have been recently added to the property, as well as total resurfacing of driveway. Many of the applicant's "improvements" to the property appear to have been in conjunction with the neighboring property owner to the north. The Building Inspector's discussions with the neighboring property owner to the south indicate that the excess hardcover on applicant's property and that to the north have caused significant drainage concerns for the neighbor immediately to the south. Note that drainage generally heads to the south and east, and that the applicant's property and that to the south each have an outside drainage basin with draintiles running under ground to the lakeshore yard to help eliminate flooding. Discussion - This is another in what seems to be an unending stream of deck replacements without permits. As in many other cases, the replacement resulted in a significantly larger deck which doesn't meet a number of zoning code requirements. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 69.6%, almost triple the allowed amount. More significantly, taking into account the entire lot, 48% of the lot is hardsurfaced. The proposed DNR Shoreland Regulations would allow 25% of the entire lot to be hardsurfaced. Clearly, this property is nowhere near being in compliance. Many of the hardcover items appear to have been completed in conjunction with the neighbor to the north who shares the extensive blacktopped driveway area, the concrete walkway to the lake ending in a shared dock, and similar areas of rock and plastic landscaping. Zoning File #1584 October 11, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Regarding the average setback encroachment, while it is questionable whether views of the lake enjoyed by the neighbor to the south are impaired, there is certainly additional encroachment with this new deck. Regarding the side setback for the deck, note that a grade level deck with no railing would be allowed as near as 2' co the side lot line. However, this is definitely a second story deck, and the 8.5' side setback accc,T:irH;. ces a stairway to grade level. Regarding hardcover, it i ^S^ely that much of the rock with plastic could be removed ana •. ^verted to grass area. The driveway blacktop is extensive, however, the applicant may rightly argue that a significant portion of it is necessary for parking. We have no way of confirming the extent of the driveway prior to its recent resurfacing. From a drainage collection and redirection standpoint, the drain in the driveway with underground tile exiting approximately 80' from the lake, does function to alleviate some of the drainage to the southerly neighbor. However, if this 4" tile plugs up, the effect of the all the hardcover may tend to inundate the neighboring property. Staff Recomendation - Planning Commission is requested to address the following issues in any recommendation to the Council: 1. Is there justification for an after-the-fact side setback variance to allow this upper story deck less than 10* from the side lot line? 2. Are neighboring views of the lake significantly affected by the deck's encroachment past the average setback line? Is there justification for granting a variance? 3. Given the unusually high percentage of hardcover in the 75-250' zone, should the deck be approved after-the-fact, and if so, are there certain areas of hardcover that should be eliminated to decrease the percentage? CITY OF 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) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address lo(oCf Uo/t\ A ^ ^ ^ ^ Ci I y uF uRuHQ rvv'ix'r I'ccrrc i -~f r",-nr>IV\ j k'v' 01 fiS/ TiRECEIPTYOU fflBJlHO cm ROl ro?:i3 vB/1 7/90 TS A Aj) Miwwv • w Property Identification Number (P. I. D.) tQ.r ~ f % k •♦•V. »**• * ^ * « C’.V* Attach legal description to applicatloh if-not included oh required survey. _ __ _ _ _ Phone (home) _ _ _ Phone (wor)c) ^33 ' APPLICANT Name Qc Ac r'T -*<^2 f^,cBT7 City: Zip:j3V£7 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) Phone (wor)c) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired {month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land MB MS wm mm mm mm mm mm * mm ^m ^m ^m ^m mm mm ^m mm ^m mm ^m mm mm mm PRESENT OSE OP PROPERTY I ' > I HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of roning regulations; LcT ol ” T~i> :T e44f/E£ r^Ar i£ri^£cr^ H^Arl ~ ” “ 'XffScfTS'^ Zd.~TT^^DESCRIPTION OF UNOSOAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS ^ Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements ; /*J i97i^ Tc PffimiT *■ T^l-S UT. S/aJc£ TfteA/ UT *^cT //te^T .________ e Zo '‘Ze.TTklZre***“77?? P/ZZr *■ T^Ps^A/'r REQUIRED SUBMITTALS Cr.^btT,o^ 1. 2. 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 340-3271). 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. Sketches 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. YOU ARE 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 variance application is not complete if the above Infomation has not been included. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 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 co rrect to the_best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date S' 1 OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature 5^Date '/ 7 - 9c 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 s Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. \ \ :v u // • •• • • \ .rW . #kI • %• 9/% s «o (riito y-i; >y) I*-.. •••••• ju A W* /I f#-c^ ^ _____\ • ' M5)-A1 » ’1? «.>?' ',‘V _JJ -Aa 9(10) \ J \ \ • « \ i •90 , i ; r *• • ■ ^ ?•*C »/ /^-^4 f (U C 15)GOVT lot 4 V f •# i 1 RUN DATE 06/10/90 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0NT4ERS LIST BATCH 003 PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR 0NI4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR X « 1Y 38 06-117-23 23 0005 01056 lOHA LINDA AVE DONALD D EKEDER6 A NIFE DONALD D EKEDER6 1056 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 36 06-117-23 23 0006 01074 LOHA LINDA AVE R K MATTSON ETAL ROGER K MATTSON 1074 LOHA LINDA AVE HOUND MN 55364 36 06-117-23 23 0021 01119 LOHA LINDA AVE N J A C J POLLARD NILLIAM J A CAROL J POLLARD 1119 LOHA LINDA AVE HOUND m 55364 TOTAL BATCH 003 00009 c-€ r 38 08-117-23 23 0006 01058 LOHA LINDA AVE R F OORLOG A K J OORLOG RICHARD F A KAREN J OORLOG 1058 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUI4D m 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0009 01082 LOHA LINDA AVE JAM LASCKUK JOHN LASCHUK 1082 LOMA LINDA AV HOUND MN 55364 36 08-117-23 23 0022 01045 LOHA LINDA AVE D< miS L ZINDA •."NNIS L ZINDA 25vl BLAISDELL AVE S MPLS MN 55404 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 4 36 06-117-23 23 0007 01066 LOHA LINDA AVE R F RADUIZ ACM RADUNZ ROBERT F RADUNZ 5505 RIVER BLUFF CIR BLOOHINGTON HN 55437 38 08-117-23 23 0010 01090 LOHA LINDA AVE H H BOCKMANN A N L BOCKMANN NILLIAM H BOCKMANN 3422 LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 06-117-23 23 0025 01040 LOrU LINDA AVE C D HOLCOMBE A M J HOLCOMBE C DOUGLAS HOLCOMBE 1040 LOHA LINDA AVE HOUr4D MN 55364 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATI044 OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEH4EPIN COUT4TY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE /y* ,«• *-.j t August 17, 1990 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administration City of Orono 1335 South Brown Road P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth: Enclosed is ny applicaticxi (after the f tct) for a building permit to replace the deck at 1066 Lana Linda Avenue, Legal Lot 6 Lcma Linda, and ny application for a Hard Cover VaricUice. This property was given a variance on Jine 24, 1974 because of the lot size. As you can see by the Hard Cover Survey attached, there is no way the 25% Hard Cover Max in Zone 75'-250' could be met without removing house and geurage. Since purdiasing this property in July, 1988, we have made no changes to the hard cover areas other than replacing the old, rotted deck, lb inprove on the problem of the Hard Cover, may I suggest that we remove the plastic under the rock in secticxi "F", which would give an addi- ticxial 384 sq. feet of non-hard cover, lowering our percentage to 59% from the present 65% in the 75'-250' zone. Also attached are the other recjuired documents to oonplete this tran saction. As you can see by the aiclosed statements, ny neighbors do not object to oy replacing the old deck. I am requesting the information be presented to the Planning Ccmmission for the Oc:tc3ber 15th meeting, euid to the Council for the October 22nd meeting, per ny previous letter of July 27, 1990. Very truly yours. c t F. Raduny 5505 River Bluff Circle Bloomington, Minnesota 55437 Home Phone: 881-3913 work Phone: 933-9480 Adjacent Property Oimers* Acknowledgement Form I (we) M A-eCLA ^ ’T' of /O 7 [print'name(s)1 [print 'addressJ have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at /0(o^ Lcm^^ L/a/PA- also referred to as Land Use Application No. 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 ,<wner > *9C Date Property Owner Date 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 6 Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. #1 Q A ki f • i I 1 r? ►t o V City Ocxtncil City of Orono 1335 S. Brown Road P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 o ef Gentlemen: Please be advised that I have no objection to the deck that Mr. Etobert Radunz re-built at 1066 Lcma Linda. This deck replaced one that was rotting and had a very unsafe stairway. property adjoins Mr. Radunz's property to the south. Very truly yoirs, Date '? / / I (we) Adjacent Property Omers* AcJcnowledgement Form Oor'!/^ at ____ of /l) Aom a. A > ■ tprint address]tprin^t naine(s have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at /OOCfi /\f)n\ci A'.fvcAo^ also referred to as Land Use Application No, _____. I (we) understand that in executing this ac)cnowledgement, I (we) am (are) not aslced 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. 5^- A- 9d Date g»-' I o Date 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 i Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. #1 Q.A K J #lo city Council City of Orono 1335 S. Brown Road P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Gentlemen; Please be advised that I have no objection to the deck that Mr. Robert Radunz re-built at 1066 Loma Linda. Ihis deck replaced one that was rotting and had a very unsafe stairway. property adjoins Mr. Radunz's property to the north. Very truly yours. Tgntft » rm —r if ^urn . #1 Dc3R4JL city Council City of Orono 1335 S. Brown Road P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, 55323 Gentlemen: Please be advised that I have no objections to the deck that Mr. Robert Radunz re-built at 1066 Lama Linda. ‘Hiis deck replaced one that was rotting and had a very unsafe stairway. 1 •f city Council City of Orono 1335 S. Brown Road P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, ^t} 55323 ^ ' It -9o Gentlanen: Please be advised that I have no objections to the deck that Mr. Robert Radunz re-built at 1066 Looa Linda. This deck replaced one that was rotting and had a very unsafe stairway. Very truly yours. A LoDAA Ar\/& Mou#ot> . Mn 2. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE' ONE) 7E-250' Existing Hardcover in Zone 250-500' 500-1000' A. ‘ House 3. Garage c. Driveway E. Patio/ Deck U'silc r.Landscape areas UNDERLA.IN BY t . PLASTIC SHEETING pock ra 92 9. y G. O ther LENGTH D.. Sidewalk ^ 25 X X X X X X X X - X X X X X X . X S I ? I WIDTH S • F. S.r. S.F, S.r. S.F. A 7 = (n/)J, (oPr P.GJPr.orV) O. € =({?/^ f>^or*<r,ixr) S • r I S • F • 2-Z S5 S.F. /3 o O c rI • • . S.F. ^ S.r. 5^0 ^ *7 . <V-?7 ✓_x_ S.F. s.r. Total Hardcover in Zone Total Frcperty Area in Zone J75*0 S.F. 2 V?.« • **>:< iOO €.^l °/o _ _ _i r^AOi^A^T.ro HARDCOVER CALCUUT!Q!I KORKSi ^ET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONS) G-75' (j5-25Q^ 25G-3G0' :xI STING H ardcover in Zone 500-1GC0' A. ■ House LENGTH X 2C.3 X X WIDTH veTjy s.F. S.r . I*'* »y ^ -w i-jx 1 3. Garage c. D riveway 22.y /2. J X X X S. F. ^ 3.?. / /J* 2<P J s. F . X • D. S idewalk ‘7^.3 X 7. y = • 27 j <r X A« X 2.0 S.Z V > VfcN (V |>111 I./ •2V 2.^- X X 7 2. V 1II, E. Patio / Deck • X = . 5Vo / • F.Landscape . - X 111 1./ AREAS UNCERLA I.'{ BY X ?7y . =^3f2— plastic SHEET I.NG X • ( X / oo J < LK G. Other •• • %• X « 2y/y < 4 S.F. r'? /• Total H ardcover in Zone - S.F. s.r. S.F. S.F. 0 . r • S.r . S. r • 1 S.r. o. r . 7^ / A Total F.rope .rty A rea in Zone X ICO iC99o J vrs-J -E• nr /y % ’ / -/c^ "jrf- ^^uC. • r^Epi. Ai£:^y r ^OniA l/^DA (ifCf^L— LoT^ lonfA L/*/OAj /^ /^A^UaJ^ ^6^ PT diL ^ // «d dr% (o^ Poif^ IU*s * Hou"S £ 1 n ?\ Ni w 1 Ler/^A LiAitA ^ LomA A/^DA^ /^. U-<: /-S'• ■•■ •;• ■ • •••,•• J* I%» • * - y^ t ".<• f •V'/* ,>■ !V T-V r *•*. '.i . ; f ;; 1 - •» • / "« • • « j. •. r - 3"^ <XH.' 1 «• Hi 3.C PIMENSiONS BASir MniKT • • % MRCCL 472. «»o 23. .r •/ .V. '■■1 .•«•H vt V ’ 'i- ; CLAM ) a 7 ▼ • INSPECTION DATE /^«/2 *T .4 4 4/! , >AfPRAIIAL DATE » > <» ‘ > . ■'»?V ••Vi *k; ‘V»‘. ., ^ J p* SALE Oa'tI ?C i**? 1 ^go •*^ • *.^4 k t ' / ! PARTfAL ________ ■•- Tfpt ;/Zf, -’•• • ’«-• t *• . ••Jtfe -,. - C'-■ . .* '•*■>» IMPROVEMENT! c ' ■ «%;.: V:;, -A 5 ’. 'A’ •V • “.••i «r\•"> tv-\ ► «A .: f 4 ' » \•* ^ jtal PQRCMC8 - BALCONIES » OTMtH BLOr.s ^tr tin**. ,«.— --------!Ii _ ... X ..S?.'Mu ■iiAtea-iLJ..................._ ^ X ./.fc__.. CiAHAOE t>« r ------------ / fi» A CL.i>0 c 5 rc:^ 1 r \ sj TOi Planning Conwlsslon FR04t Oaxtar Marston, Zoning Administrator OATEDt May 7, 1974 SUaiGCTi Varlanea <Slza, Width, i Moratorium) PETITIONER:Albart Qurkhaltar LOCATION:1066 Loffia Linda Currant Land Usa: Vacant • Existing structura wa rai.r.d Currant Zoning: R-IC 1 Acra Proposad Zoning: LR*IB lAcra STAFF L!SItir!«+'«Hy^?^~l3''>»r'"« '»♦• TT»t» ar« ho«. on altiw tIM of fMo 1^, and Boat Iota In thia arae ara of similar siza. AltMusA th. lot It otiy 10,629 $q. ft.. tl» Ol»t!o».t«««».t».“ «!i” varlanea or to daclara thla as an unbulldabla sita with m ^ L^JT^ilrtv^- thaaa paopla lo mhtm usa of thair proparty would ba to sail It to tha proparty own ara on althar sida. i J PoftKH/ai-Tei?* uinrMuie . V:;. .. . . ' , , . . ^ ••'',*' ’ * * ’ ' * ^ * r' ' *'<••'• • ■.•**:* : i''V. *•'.*'• !•*“ . ** *. » i r • • ' . . •• ‘*5*. . • - • -. * •*. ' . * ♦ i;**:! **.- • ^ * • .. • i • t ** . t • / - • ' h* ^ • 4 ' ; • rf r* • ; * ' /*■i • • *. ' V • • V •' f V • >. vt«no hibuvr ••iTi J % • •w • % ■ V « 90 * •1 # ;> • • r‘ • * i» • ^ . .. 4rfA* p %• •' , • -• • • :*: • t • . • ‘v^t ~r~ lo'fe" ...y________________: _ “Mr’'PlOSViM t ^ 4^* *. V 4 / . / Kf ___^ r *• \ • I - ' ' V • * •»'•■' *• * ■ I L* *- !. * » ' .. • ’• ♦ ^ i • 1 ^ l-ft’. r** '.\irv»*Y r <*»• ;.ot i^LAT ^ARC£U • ^ r^ C.? . t : .‘ O J » |V.« w • I I!-*ni.o,)iii C'-unVi /.r i9rJ9' i V' 1 iV. *' ' , i : ^ ■ t o t/1 ^ A w < 2J .6 »ryyy r r ■i ].V,/| //du4« '• ^ •b' ]• • w Lu-J^U 4 4.** *-4US . 4 J Ha^si ta^t oi^tr /ifft 49.B' /SJ.J e*%» ■4 L‘-v;.;:V’V •, • ‘i;. .•;,*/•;.) >. ............................. •**:♦•/ ‘4 ' • ‘*^’ • V • - ' • I /■ » » n ■• •,' * • I . -: f.*.4 - .• -1 f i-:^ ► »■ k.i j .1 X .*: : i: • ( V-K , kv* • ^ •* 'V-■•('■*. • ■: t! r* i ». 1 r . 1, #>.•:-,. •■ .; .tuit : •.>•.•■. * •- C*n-Uf*i''alo rf rii:**/»iy : T i\or''’ \ c'^rt 1 f^v l.h.’i', IV i: 1: .:.^4 mt'jtlon of Kv»VV4:/-.t :r. t'•» '.-c-r.i'.ir;-'^•:- u trv.n nii'J rornjft roprosont^itlon of •', uuM, windi, /.nd tiio location of ;• vrvi .li * ‘ - . - • ‘.*.f • h ^ V • : i :r\ •. . : ".* • • • « ;•V'«fc^»le;’:- 1" " 40' -15-74 Iron nvtrkor i4.Sit'4V' . > v.» '«• "4 •"* ’‘i*- , V. • : * • MlfNiHt of tho rogalir PUnnIng OotnmiMlofi mooting, t‘<tendoy, Moy 20, 1974 Pago 3 Tho oKlotlng heuoo on tho PIrleh lot was doatroyod by a firo boyend ropolr. Tho lot lo 15,000 aq. ft. In a 1/2 aero tono. Elliott aoMOd, Pbook aoeondod, that o vorlaneo bo opprovod alneo thio roquoot Involvoo o roploeomont of on oxiating atructuro and tho foot that all Iota In thia oroo do not conform with tho 1/2 aero roqulromont. Tho approval la condltlonod on compi lonco .with tho provlolono In tho now toning ordinanco which atatoa ..that tho homo auat bo 75* from tho lako provldod that no buUd- Ing may bo loeatod elooor to tho ahorolino than tho ovorogo dla- :®%tanco fromitho ahorollnojof OKlatIng roaldoncoibul.ldinga on od- rondinoorby-loto. '‘Ayoa (8) ';Nayo (0)V * ' jrho airhhaltorjot la 50* wido and 10,625 aq. ft. ThIa lot la locatod^ln a I aero tono with roquirod lota of 140*. Mr, &rk- holtor purehaaod tho lot and romovod tho oxiating atructuro which hod an ovorhong that oxtondod onto tho neighboring prop- orty. Tho Intention woa to conatruct a now homo on thia alto. Outhrlo moved. Coach aoeondod, that tho vorlonco for tho lot width and lot oroo roqulromont bo granted conditioned on tho now atructuro maintaining a 75* aotboeh from tho lako provldod that no building moy bo loeatod cloaor to tho ahorolino than tho ovorogo diataneo from tho ahorolino of oxiating roaldonco buildinga on adjoeont and noarby lota, and that no aldo yard aotboek varianooa would bo grontod. Ayoa (6) Maya (0). ilr, Ounn propoaoa to aubdlvldo 2 acroa off from a 5 aero troet In a propoaod 2 aero lono. Thia aubdlvtafon would moot all tho roquiromonta for a 2 aero lot. Kullborg movod, Poaok aoeondod, that a Public Hearing bo ached* ulod for Juno 17, 1974. Ayoa (0) Naya (0). Mr. HIraeh haa aubmittod plana for tho oonatruetlon of a 2-car garage which would bo 20* from tho rood and 10* from hlo aldo property lino. Thia Invoivoa a variance alnoo tho loning coda atatoa that a atructuro muat bo at loait 30’ away from tho rood right-cf-woy. If Mr, HIroch woa to comply with thia roqulro mont, ho would have to romovo 3 largo trooa from hi a lot. In addition, moat garagoa along Ivy Place are loeatod right along tho rood rlght««f-woy with vary little. If any, aotboek. Kullborg movod. Hake aoeondod that a vorlaneo allowing a aot* back of 20* from tho rood bo granted for tho garage. Ayoa (8) Naya (0). Tho Borg proporfy la loeatod In on oroa doatgnatod for 5 aero loto. Mr. Barg elaimo that tho oxiating homo at 4080 Bayaldo Rood la aurreundod by a ravine and a ttoop hill, and, thoroforo, tho logical let olao would bo aomothlng loao than 9 acroa. The property on tho other aldo of thia ravine and hill would more logically fit within a aubdivlaion of land further to tho north oeeording to Mr. Dunn. Duo to tho contour of tho land, Mr. Borg MIehool PIrleh Variance Burkholtor 4 Korth?- Variance ^ Hoi lie Dunn Subdivlaion MIehool HIraeh Vorlaneo •V • A V »• ClInton Borg Simple SubdIviaJor. Variance MZN0TB8 OF A KtOOLM, 1BBT2N0 HSLD JUNS 25, 1974 itolBh ••eond«d» to opprovo tho purdiato of tho boroea pxoporty» Poreol S900> Plot 41400* 1*72 ootoi* loeotod on tho Stubbo Boy hood for pork purpoooo. Tho totol eost oprood Qoor o thxoo^yoor poriod io $24*000.80. iaiTho I090I doportBoat woo iaotruotod to eonploto o tltlo oooroh and purehooo ogroonoat. Motion* Ayoo (4) - Moya (0)• OouaeilBoa Uooaongolo rotuxaod at 8t20 P.M* Batlor Bowod* Pauruo ooeondod* to grant a varlaaeo to tho ■oratorium and approvo tho olaplo odbdivialoa for Mr* Bollia Ouna looatod at 39CS Watortown Koad on tho condition of aobodttiag tho S% park foo and a^roval of ooptie oyaVMn dooiga* ^lotion* Ayoo <S) - Maya (0). Batlor nowod* Pauruo aoeoadod* to grant a voriaaeo for Paul Pohlo* 2789 Phoaoaat Road* on two eoaditioaat 1) land drainago ohall not bo chaagod* 2) garago ohall bo novae* I5€ion* Ayoo (S) • Maya (0) • Waloh aovod* Maaooagalo aaeondad* to dony tho variaaoo for tho John Monahan proporty loeatod at 2237 Bbadywood Road. Tho lot in quootion dooo not Boot aoning ataadarda aueh aa lot aiao and ootbaok roquironaata. Motion* Ayoo (4) - Maya (1)* Councilman Butlor Hay. Pauruo anvod* Butlor aacondod* to approvo tho variaaoo to tho let aiao for tho proporty ownod by Albert Burkhaltar located at 1064 Lona Linda. Motion* Ayea (4) - Maya {!)• Council- nan Wolah Nay. Butlor novod* Pauruo oeoonded* to approvo the Rogiatorod Land Survey for John Crooa* 268S North Shore Drive* and waive the park fee. Thio approval ia aubject to the review of the City Bnginoor. Motion* Ayea (5) • Naya (0). Pago 2 P0RCHA8B PARK LAND Laraon Proporty SOBOZVX8XON 3565 Watertown Road VARXANC8 2789 Phooaant VARZANC8 2237 Shadywood Road .• VARZANC8 1088 Loan Linda « • J A RSQXSTBRBO LAND 8URV* 2885 North Shore Ori. Pauruo Boved* Butler seconded* to approve Ordinance No. 165 which extenda tho moratorium as stated in Ordinance No. 149* until September 30* 1974* unless repealed by Council action. Motion* Ayes (5) - Naya (0). OROXNANCE NO. 165 Moratorium . V* . . /»' / ., . S^m*^ Msr \M»C0^ ! 1--------- . 1: __ _.j.i^i, ^£/=r £c.£t^Ar* ^ • • / -c»* /iu.c^ h7i \ •. '-IV . ,VC ' € .s:m o I ’. ■ ■ •' ' ’>-L;•. •■ .-7 ,j ■•-'C 1 S.'>* V\> feg-*- J.3X.. ,ilr;S’’';i^i.y: ri* :3SI^-34 r t. i''’rH ■:1^^ ...• ••I'* . A .'^4 »'.■at4>i:-.\ -•V-it^jt»5.v\- . fQ li-X 'vu* Vi« !•./. .‘•I'SSi’^ ® i:^ m -wCi ■ '. ’ r^’’ ♦ • V'T^. . l,«i^..«/'*Wh ■ - ^ •. .'i^' -x-^ ,-. 'vy;<- ^•' " iX.-.- ••'V-Xj>/^'4'-, ,’• .!;.^^ ^ ^» — ►* >•i«‘i ^** ^ V*^< .V t**-W-'•• ifc^ irw!,n?tixr- • "-.vl-T \y,.V . ■ . ' , . J'Xi,, ;7 ■;. \----- ----------------- ---------- ■ * > « • • - » * . «. « ^ » . ♦ - ■''' •‘••5'!'3¥^,'.,i ^ •• V*. •Vf:v.'j' 11»;. * .*>»■ ■ ■•y'.'• * * VVV* S[ ‘•V-/ *-••,.>.>>.:tv- - V^vr ♦ : . w V # i. ' • * * . V • -• *_' • H >.c t ^ . » To;Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date October 12, 1990 Subject: #1591 Orville Fisher, 3300 Fox Street - Conditional Use Pormit/Land Alteration - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for filling/grading permit, more than 100 cubic yards of fill, outside 0-75' zone. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Application Plat Map Property Owners List Site Evalution Proposed Grading and Drainage Plan Documentation Regarding Activity in 0-75' Zone Comments From City Engineer Pertinent Facts - 1.Applicant proposes grading work on the property to improve drainage. This work is outside the scope of the grading approved with the recently completed construction of the house and pool. 2.Proposed grading work covered by this application is generally south of the house and in the area around the mornu system and south of the pool. This finish grading work will help to redirect drainage away from the septic system, and help to protect the neighboring property by generally directing run-off southward towards the lake rather than westward towards the neighboring property. “5 M •City Engineer Glenn Cook has reviewed the grading plan and his comments are attached as Exhibit G. Zoning File #1591 October 12, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Discussion - The grading completed to date on the site generally includes grading associated with the house and with the pool. Additional grading work in excess of 100 cubic yards is generally necessary for drainage redirection and protection of the mound system, however, the extent of the grading and fill work was such that staff felt that a conditional use permit was in order. All of the grading work for this application is outside the 0-75' protected zone. Planning Commission is advised that the applicant did initially do grading work in the 75' protected lakeshore zone involving 0-3' of earth removal in order to provide a more gradual slope to the lake. This work was discovered the same day it was initiated, all work was stopped, tags were issued, and the property owner was ordered to restore and sod the 0—75' zone to its original grades and condition, which was subsequently completed to staff's satisfaction. Although no topographic map of the pre-existing condition was available, staff members had viewed the site both before and after the illegal grading work, and staff is satisfied with the restoration. The 0-75' zone was sodded directly after giades were restored. The 0-75' grading work was done without approvals even though staff had informed the applican ’n a letter last December that such work would require a conditional use permit. The property owner has choosen not to pursue the conditional use permit and will live with the grades in the 0-75' zone as restored. Note that the property owner did pay the fines associated with the violation citatior 3. Staff ReconBBendation - Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit for grading work outside the 0-75' zone as proposed, per the recommendations of the City Engineer. CITY OP ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATIONA’il !■ r'rT (? "i jL X PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3 3cDO 'ASs^l Cl TYuF 0!& Fli^^!iCE OFFICE Ijj02000il0 # Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) // 7 ~ ^ ^ "Ttcnpr-imK^Yw'^ ** i C.*CT^r» C/t 1 ^ 1m ^ hPlease attach legal d.,scription to application if not includ%«“'’'^' on required survey. APPLICANT Name /v5>Lp r Phone (home) V7S~“7^72- Phone (wor)c) *Z2> 0~3 Address 3 3 o )C City fOO Zip ^ OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) N2une Phone Address City Zip Date Property Acquired I tded (do not) also own the Adjacent parcels of land. U! e ad (month/year) PEES - CONDITIONAL OSB 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.) $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, .seawall, retaining walls within 75' of laJceshore I < PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS $200.00 I » t Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $175.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $250.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule I PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request ±n detail^w G:»'^C5wWl*/0 v/ /.joJ * % REQUIRED SUBMITTAI^ 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map. 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 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 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 al] 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.^est of his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and veri^cation 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 advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. *, J? 5 T4 RUN DATE 06/2a/90 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. P1^35AQ1 PAGE 1 BATCH 001 0014 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR SB 05-117-ES 41 00565 LEAF ST J I C HC COY JOHN L A CHARLENE M KC 5525 HILLSIDE CIR EDINA m 554S5 COY 38 05-117-23 41 0025 00575 OXFORD RD J T HALE ASS JAMES T HALE A 575 OXFORD RD LONG LAKE MN SB 05-117-2S 44 0001 HALE SHARON S HALE 55356 03350 JAMES G JAMES G P O BOX MPLS MN FOX ST FULLERTON III FULLERTON III 30 55440 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR SB 05-117-2S 44 0002 03400 FOX ST JAMES G FULLERTON III ET AL FULLERTON LUMBER CO P 0 BOX SO MPLS MN 55440 SB 05-117-23 44 0003 03300 FOX ST 0 E A A G FISHER ORVILLE A AIEXAf40RA FISHER 3300 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 000438 05-117-23 44 03250 FOX ST GEORGE H DIXON GEORGE H DIXON 121 NASHINGTON AVE S RM 617 MPLS MN 55401 PROP ADOR OFtCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 05-117-23 44 0005 03400 FOX ST JAMES 0 FULLERTON III ET AL FULLERTON LUMBER CO P 0 BOX 30 MPLS MN 55440 TOTAL BATCH 001 00007 I . I ADDITIONAL SITE EVALUATION INFORMATION FOR CHIP FISHER & STEPHEN BRUCE CO. IN TRACT C, R.L.S. # 1358 ORONO, MINNESOTA ^7 u h 8-24-90 r 4rr X LJ ^ i On August 19-20, 1990 an additional alternate septic system area was tested to the east of the former alternate area. This is because of the grading traffic over the former alternate area and the risk of compaction of those soils. This new area was relatively undisturbed and had re sults from the percolation testing and soil borings which would be acceptable for a mound system should the need ever arise. Tnis area must be kept undisturbed. It would also be wise to keep the present undisturbed area northeast of the house as is for another potential site. Additional information follows. If anything else is needed, please notify us. Sincerely, PERCOR, INC. C-tH. Mark S. Gronberg I —- - — 11 fcf m « m \f-r »•/■»•: .1 « . ; •* ,>a %.-••.«•• t •->• . ' • r »'•# *: •• 'f/-./' »v*- ^ * c4»5- w. ^ ' . % . • • '* * * • •• • •' ■* • ' • ,?/ . : *,'■<• -• ■;’ •'.■• • A • 4 » 9 «. ■' I « •-. . • * ’. »• • •. • i I # • #* » • '. * 0 • •• • •-N, N « j ' / ‘ . ;I ?* * j 1 'ViiW<SJ'v •yJrT" •V •; • - -j-jfrrfC !\ i ji*>i • _ * ' \ /•v '*•»•f-.'( r^mmr •.,i • • \ s \.. .\. .. L«X N \ • • • • k€099 \ \ • * • • • • -r->r I’- 5^0. • • • • • • • • .*••* ■ I^Nce' aPF %. V-/f r#' V \ HEHNEPIN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT DISPOSITION SUMMARY CITY OF ORONO City Administrator Chief of Police TO: FROM: Bryan L. Crawford Prosecuting Attorney DATE: October 2, 1990 DEFENDANT: Orville E. Fisher, Jr. OFFENSE(S): Excavation in Lakeshore without Counsel; Excavation within 75 feet of Lakeshore; and Excavation within a Flood Plain DATE OF OFFENSE: August 14, 1990 ARRESTING OFFICER: Lyle Oman CONTROL NO.: SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS: The defendant pled guilty on September 12, 1990 to all three cliarges and paid the fines. \ Q4 DCTY -10- It . * • C ^ • . • , • . •. . * . • - « 4 . «' *. 4 ,»^ « ; !• S • —-** • I •-♦.••«* \' * • .'.<•**• .•••«* «• * ‘ TT- • %. ..*.• • -• % . '* .* * •»*^**4 ’,4• - • •.* •. .•* •• • , ,• . ... ::r.' • . • . .• _ .4,*..’ ' -4. 4«'' 4. ‘ • . **X ' ' YxoiAnoa wm •— % * * . tomn VXOLATXOM mSMCTOK Mil OMMI BM)OI tsn OIFBIDMIT XWOMATIO* • ««Mt OrrlU« !• fi*b«r Junior nddroooi ^!«®?5SSSi MCATXOM Of'v XOIATXW *“* ««' ‘ I :y . ^ %n > . • «r - f r* • » < •■» «' •> A 4* • •>. •-.i • - 4 r '*»V *.‘ • > v‘^f: / .:> . •.*^-*4 . i ‘, . \.... » • •.*•.• • • '.•••.; ■•■ ■!• V’. ■-• ••♦•...# y . - . »:•. rV'vf.vv -;--. « ••.4- • I • • . X*- ■ .*V • ‘ ' ' )• • • K .* . *.4 i.i...;* .. >: *r*v,. • . . . . • •* .*• r* - \ - t f*»*: ■ . *• • ••i," •• * » - ]j* * 4. >»v „•.? -•• * A- * • A AAA 4i*OATH OP VXOIAnOPi Jtognnt 14,ylPSO ^ * s^eVviMVoo'r «5 i“sn::s tb« rielntion. . o..«ip.i.. f jeV«»;sti:n ;r:;c\*«u~ is S S ffS;?vitbia 75* or saetlon I0o03t by th. C«“;*iVbo« A. “thV SabdlTlaloB I* • “SotlTbot »•• told by Hlbo Ooffr^ allowod wltboot a conditional uaa pamlt# • Photon hata boon takon. - Tha City*a raa^ora^tha lakaahora yard and tha?iL?«\“saS:S2u;.s^s' *“ - m"m RF.nnEST FOR ARREST REPORT TO: FROM: Orono Police Department Bryan L. Crawford Prosecuting Attorney 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower Minneapolis, MN 55402 DATE OF REQUEST; September 20, 1990 DEFENDANT: Orville E. Fisher, Jr. NATURE OF OFFENSES; Excavation in Lakeshore w/o Council, Excavation within 75* of Lakeshore, Excavation within a Flood Plain TICKET NUMBERS: 3900467071, 3900467089, 3900467097 ORPTNANCE fSTATUTES NUMBERS; 10.03S19, 10.22S2, 10.55S8 ARRESTINC OFFICER: n/a DATE OF OFFENSES; August 14, 1990 51 DCTT Orville E. Fisher . Jr , 5501 Norman C enter D rive Minneapolis. MN 55437 (612) 830-3241 GT^Cr CRGNOjpi_r 1 September 4, 1990 lSER 6 1£S0 Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron: I am receipt of your letter dated August 28, 1990 regarding the grading work done on my property at 3300 Fox Street. This letter is to confirm my understanding that we have complied with all seven items contained in your August 28 letter, including meeting the specific dates that were referred to in Items No. 1 and 2. I understand that you are out of the office this week and are unavailable until next Monday. If there are any other issues or if for some reason the City does not feel that we are in full compli ance with the items we discussed on August 15, which were subse quently incorporated in your August 28 letter, please let me know immediately. In addition, I believe documents and other filings have been timely filed and are in order relating to our request for a conditional use permit for purposes of grading an excavation on the site which I understand will be presented to the Planning Commission on September 17 and subsequently to the Orono City Council on October 8. If there are any problems in this schedule or the information as provided, please contact me. youre truly W Orville E. Fisher, Jr. OEF/jo IS >J A.k-r r j ■ rv' ■■mil CITY OF ORONd3 August 28r 1990 CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66 •Crystal Bay, Minoceota 55323• Municipal OfScea On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka Orville Fisher 3300 Fox Street Long Lake/ MN 55356 RE; Grading Violations Dear Mr. Fisher; This letter is to follow up our discussions of August 15, 1990 regarding illegal grading excavation and filling occurring withxn the 0-75' protected lakeshore zone on your property at 3300 Fox Street. The grading work done by Bollig and Sons under your direction is a violation of the following sections of the Orono Zoning Code; 1. Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 (copy attached) 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 (copy attachted) 3. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 (copy attached). Accompanying this letter is a citation issued for violation of the above noted Zoning Code Sections. Because grading work in the extent and nature of'that completed requires variance and conditional use permit approval from the City Council, and because such approval would normally require approximately 8 to 10 weeks to process, you were directed by Cxty staff to restore the 0-75' lakeshore protected zone xmmedxately to limit the potential for erosion and sedimentation xnto the lake. City staff set the following time table for the restoration work; 1. Within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, restore the property to the original grades as established by you, your contractor, and City staff, such areas to be sodded no later than Friday, August 24, 1990. 2. Soil testing for an alternate site to replace the alternate drainfield site which was destroyed by earth moving equipment traffic, shall be completed and submitted to the City by August 31, 1990. ■L'ILDINC*Z0MNC-47J-73S7 • ADMIMSTRMION * H.NA.NCE-473-7351 • PIBUCUORXA assessing X)rville Fisher August 28r 1990 Page 2 to be submitted immediately. 4. Any grade changes not in the 0-75' zone that are still required. Likewise, once the restoration and resoddirg the 0-75' zone is complete, if you wish to proceed with an application for grade changes in that zone, a variance an conditional use permit application would need to be filed and approved before that work would be allowed. 5. Immediately place fencing around the existing sewage treatment mound to protect it from all traffic. 6. Your surveyor was to verify the location of the west lot line. 7. The excavation where stumps were buried to the southwest of the sewage treatment mound, must have tne stumps removed (taken off site) and grade restored. Please advise City staff of your intent for aSpliSd work on the property so that the proper permits can be applied for and approved in the most expeditious manner. If ® questions please contact me or Zoning Administrator Jean Mabusth at 473-7357. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning 6 Zoning Administrator cc:Lyle Oman, Senior Building Inspector Bruce Vang, Field Inspector Jeanne Mabusth, Building 4 Zoning Administrator Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator .J • • • . . . • % • • ••• • • • *. . . •. , • • • ■ • • #•• ♦. • ~ • • •• . r * • *• - * • • ^ • ...• •. • *• • . •: • ....................’ •* ‘ .*•• -*•>► • . • • . . • . * ••• • * « • • • 'tl*’ • • •••• .. # •; • y • V*»^v v’-l~wrnm-, # < • I . • • . ^ ‘ V‘* •'* ••’ . •^‘ •r -..i': * ^ . •• •■• *• .* .p • m Wa .'«'>j 1r A®n!ti.r “I"' f 1 “ 1 1 • ! W^9mTT 1 1 7H • • •%ll±li • * • *• • • • •• ,•'• * • •• *•*.••’•• **•• * * * :. •........ V • . ' i* •• •• • '/ -«»• \•* ' ^ ^ - •• » . ^ ^ • ■• • ■ . -• • ^ • •• • I * • j ^ ^ *•#* ^ ^ J • • ••»•••••••*•/-•*^*^^ / ' '* * '* u K : A IL O ;rvj in rra 1 a's U'tf ' ^ ^ j A Zj 1 > 0 1 Lii.A It Isi—f c P O 1 u ^Is! 1 A 1 JttAi • • •.•. * • ,. • • m . • . V ;--• • • i • • •»•* . •• • ■ .♦• ••. • • ••............ . •‘ • .,•••••* ^ a 'll C.I I __I I~ I 1 1 - I ■ ■ •srz^r— nVSVSS^ OMcatHT amNanoia^ • -•'* •r* • •• • .. • « •. »#*'.-Jr /• • • • * • ‘ : • ' •' 'i V . - : . • ••'m ”.*r-»x--' «•' . ‘•^* rv,... E #£g.•£L •I >‘ % A ■Am *a 5 v-#l ' • •—r *1 •- ”«• • • • •• # •t ••fT «■B9 BHBBESaa iT-‘ '6 1 Vmm- • ••m ■ * »* . . • * •’ *• PMM ^ V • • , ;:• V*. V ' *. '.*•;%.* /• **. .4 ‘ »s '■Wr? i • mm • * __' * , • • • • • • • • * • •- . . •••.; •' ‘V."^ • • »# • * • . ' • •*• • - /-TV • • .•j#•»* • •*** •*!* I '. J-< -cr-**''>-'*v~ w‘ ;j- l .%•:. j: .• • •■••'^. * I% ^••••_ • •• ^•.' *•' — • • . , . «l-l CWO»MQCWJ^LI owpwcygwr/ 3EX*k«'jii;CV!H^U BaHSsaEiiiisigy E:BQGEQ£iju .S5>s«?? • • • ^ M • . .! ;/ ’ . : • • -• . - • . .• •.. • i.*; : •" --3M-.046709 a A ^ m m A ^ mm ^ • ,\ • !• * .\ •• • %«• . * *t •, . -v/.x. •., • ,••• ••• • V’*”** ■ * . * f IC Wi>i 1 u (.c • av«► ' ! ! •^ • <9« •••*■■• •» % « ..• . • •• • • It !r*H im !e! ri I I I □□BQna>i T I T TT r- • •Til M ^ 0 I I *: • y -V ^ •• • • *j , ••^ •« ^ • ••* - V* • * II ..li-rli Ia'at' Itl^l'^lfl ) •• •»'•. • •« 4 i •.*. •* -n • * iV* *1■iiBcnaoBBaiiBQeiiii-j- i—r-1-r-i " ^1 iMOi #«3 >• • • > i-.>. |.- . . .* .• • BBBSZaEBBCCCSESBSaCBBOBBBCDBBSaEE=£2=5■BBSBBEBEBSBESeSiJES •i:.inr;».V95S53: • ••».■••• •••• •• 9, I lip Jill «nr . . Tot 3300 Pox Stroot Michool P» Coffron# A§*t Plxnnlnqt 4 Zoning Adiwlnlxtfxtor August 14» 1990 Lsfid Altsrstlon in 0-75* Lsksshoro Protsctsd 2ono, No Fonits This aftornoon* inspactor Bruca Vang was inspacting tha eroDorty at 3250 Fox Straat and witnassad grading oeeurlng In tha lakashoro at 3300 Fox Straat. Ha invastlgatad# and contartad aa1 proe..d.<l to th. .It. ij..dl.t.ly, .nd found th.t th. 9t.dlJy eontr.etor Uppirontly jollgy « fin.> JjJ iiiifliA Mior axemTAtion to roxovo a huap of land witnin 73 or znm lakashora and had lowarad tha grada significantly in If* atoDoad tha cat oparator and ha elaiaad ha was jvat doing what ha waa told by his boss and ha ballavad that Mr. Fiahar and Mr. 5;.7.n Vruc. ’(•ruo. Co»p.nt... »h. y.n.t.I eontr.etor for th. housa) had aat on tha slta prior to tha and 3««t following ordara. Na Uaadiataly issued a Stop Work Order on tha project, sent all tha sub-contractors hooa. and X lo^t tha site to attaapt to contact Mr. Fishar and Mr. Bruca. Inspactor Bru Vang and avantually Mrs. Fishar showed up at which tiaa she an BruM discussed tha violations that ware oeeurlng. the Man tiaa. X contacted Chip Fisher’s VfVi.*"** fVh.n’^aSdJaaeratsry that ha was out of town until Thursday. I than aada contact with Stavan Bruca who assured na that his intan^t was to S.y b.l.VpX«.d .lon« th. Uh..hor., .Xthoujh h. would certainly assist in tha followup, ha was not part t*»a loop with Mr. Fishar hiring a 9rading contractor. X notified Mr. Bruca that X need to aaat with hiasalf and Mr. * tonorrow aorning at 9i00 on tha sits to di*f«** restoration and protection of tha site. I advised l^a that X amartart hla to follow through with erosion protection because 1 is likely that wa will be getting rain tonight according to tha radio. As a point of rafaranct. I aft with Mrs. Piahor on Ow^anbar a 1989 and on Oacaabar 7. 1989 sent a latter to she and Mr. Fishar docuaanting our slta inspection inspactlon ath. and verifying clearly what could and could not be dona as fS^.t“IrldfSiVor’h on th.’prop.rty. Thin l.tt.r ec to th. applicant’s surveyor and to Bruca «>h* eoRtraetor. Obviously# this letter has *5*?«r?hI*?*eord°ln the property owners and tha builder. X noted Jor the Matter of Dacaabar 7th that there ia justification for tha City to approve any ^"9 oj the shoreline. Xt appears that ^^ay hava dona this JJ __1„ rMflonsbla racoaaandation is that this area be rascoraa ^^p^^ptaly and City staff will racomand denial should an aftar- tha-faet application be forthcoaing. Cl T Y GlTYofOROXO Pom Onico W*Cry«Ui B«f. Miai ' OF ORONO On thi North Short of Lakt Minnotenko 0«ctnb«r 7» 1989 9 Mr. a MM. Chip Piahar Long LoXOf ’MH ■■•'55356'^—v '»■' •*•• I «( Door Mr a Mm. Fiah^**• *: r n. <v. V Th. Bulldii.9 * *%“if« application for a building P jesidenca on your proparty, conatructlon of • .J^^^suas^th Mra. Fiahar on Oacanbar 6. !4»’:nd *J^Xd *»• .dditlon.1 c»».nt.. 1. TOUT .t.t.d lnt.«t 1. VJ*ho«. *U “iri"."’. on th# property subdivision 7 (s## sttschsd) zoning Coda Saction axiating dwalling whlla allow! continuad <»««P»"7 A tha principal Jith your building parmit and such occupancy would An axtanaion of tha 3- would axpira aftar »•J PJpp?ovad by tha City and would »* • crtiflct. of Oeeop.ney for your naw hona. *ltho»,h . d.ci.lon 05 «• T. v/£n\.d. «a«i?s',"iSS BESlDlSr«”™i5«"SCT PRINCIPM. RESIDENCE CONSTROCTION. 2. option, for th. old hou.. .r. .. follovsi A) Taar it do%m. B) S.11 th. .truetur. .nd_ h.v. it nov.d off th proparty C) Subdlvida ao that tha *2*acra LR-IA aaparata parcal qu-k to accoapliah a sona would iVJJL varianca! to apaciflc lotaubdlwlaionp although aoma variancaa w atandarda might ba nacaaaary). AOMtNonunoN a mANCX • 4n>m IMI-47MIM Kvjc woaxs • m>uf» Hr, • Mrs* Chip Plih«r» 3300 Po* 8tr««t O«e«ob«r 7» 1913 F«9« 2 of 3 Si. "pisTtV ;sr*Vnii,'?s-: ;vc?iSn'’;s.v.: 3 (6). Tea have Indicated that conatnictlon on tho now heooo •uhdlvlolon*or"*\oniltiono^^ wSfld nexnaX^y toko opproxlaotoly 2-3 montho. You ohould noko tho noeooaory opplleotlono accordingly ao that ^J*i**««of tho oxlatlng roaldonco aro roaolvod at tho tlao you vlah to aevo into tho now houso. 3. Conatructlon plana for tho now roai^nco bodrooaia. Tho aoptlo ayatoa doalgn waa houao. Your aoptlc ayataa doaignor «uat •'•TjSJj aoptlc ayaton doaign that la baaad on a « bodreoa hoaa/900 gallon par day flow rato. Alao, tho alto ovaluator ahould bo advlaod that on both primary and altornato mound dralnflolda» tho odgoa of tho dlko muat moot tho aotbacka froai proporty llnoa. 4. A alto Inapoctlon Indlcatoa your propoaod roaldonco moota tho avorago lakoahoro aotbaek roqulromonta, which almply moana that all now atructuroa (poolar to^la emrta, 9 %tCoJ iBUS^ b# locAt#d no closoir to tho Xoko thon o lino doflnod by tho lakofront walla of nolghborlng adjacont houaoa. Your aurvoyor haa ahown that lino on tho aurwoy# and all currontly propoaod conatructlon appoara to moot uat aotbaek. Howowor, you Include a pool ogulpmont room but do not Indleato a pool location. You ahould conaldor roloeatlon of tho propoaod houao aa nocoaaary to accomm^ato any propoaod pool behind the average lakoahoro aotbaek lino. Aa wo dlaeuaaod. tho City ia aware of tho "no build covenant dlacuaalona you aro having with Mr. Pullorton. The City haa no legal Intoroat In tho outcome of that laauo# and will not delay iaauaneo of a building permit aa long aa all City roqulromonta aro mot. 5. The propoaod building plana Include a bar* alnk and rofrlgorator In tho baaomont. It would appear from tho zoom layout that thla la not Intended to bo a kltchonotto aorvlng a aoparato dwelling unit within tho houao. however, for too record. It la atandard City policy to adviao you that a guoot apartment within the exiatlng dwelling would require a conditional uao permit if that typo of uao waa over eonaldorod. '•1 t- «» ' f i .•• • & • • i.« r SV ■f «. . MM. Chip mh«r. 3J00 FO* str..t UactahT 7» 1M9 C. ?Ii *!?eecttx ws . JL.T^af th« primary and nltarnata rja\^M.^i'.iVa". iSr^SJtSiraS? orthVtoun^aria. of the. aitat* _ Rlp-rapplaf of th. ahorallno 5*^i7trlct!^^ *Any**Vlll^i«9' oVv*’‘.-?F PUe««ntth? to?l^^Vld * IM^ t?. -ASW;.«{-*Si*tVir T??'.'?;.?. and ovarall contour ■ • ® ^uid ba raquirod rathar than ■horaliaa* lanadiata o-75'» ragradlng raaoltlng In ■aadlng. Xn araaa outnida VJ* "’.pota 1-2* daap or ehMfOf of contoura ^^*** JiJi 1 An and euld ba pamittad ■ec«) ■«« h« ra'nitnetfea"pree*sa it l»el«d«d •■ # a • • a ^ ' V ■• V», t • ------------ --- - 'on .. p«»««i*v *y^A,iV. yo«r pi*" *' "*r!:473-’t3»7 1* y.« h.v. •»? quaatlona • y, 8inearaly« .yt^- 4r MudhlatMtot MPC/tln “• SSS.'S^ZS.., 53. UK. St. h.y»t. 553.1 *. • -• i'4 . ..• -N %mm T t 0 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene iFB Anderlik & |\j| Associates Engineers & Architects OCto 0 BChrihoa H ipOeft W P£ ioH*0n C A-wnA. PI Mervthl Sorv^ie. PC t<h«« I TUher P| jjfhei c Ohoo. p| Cifrv^ I C90i PC Tngmis I Neyn M Rbecr*. Q SownM CemA CPA Afifh A Cowi. PS P<Mia W AjUff. PI Oorjirf C PI irry A DourdoA. PI M#rs A H#n)or\ PI T«f A Pr«o. PI Mchjr T *#wtmyA pi C06cf!l PM%A|. pi QM O lOMOU PI ▼AO'AJi w Arerjcn P| M<^rfel C lyhih. PM j^mn t V|i|A4 Pf Arnnetn P AAdenarv PI Mdrhl lOPiPI iDinC auuei. a:a ThoPm I Argwi Pl NgtArUd A SihM. PI Olhe< J Moerrgr Pf MiriA MPI Philp i CsfA^’. PI rvpffi MaAtntf pi M|rtl 0 PI fhorvt P Arv*ffvin AiA Gdfy f PyWPie* V^'esS k*nirn Pf L Phil’O CVJvfi -1. PI li^^C Pyjfun AiA AOVtM PV>9 AiCP jef/y 0 Prrv^ch. PI CKwOiv^ PS CWft A I'tliW* yro V >*evw^uy Mjftir M iysot October 12, ISOO City of Orono Bor 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Attni Mr. Mika Gaffron Set File No. 139 - 1591 Fisher Dear Mike, The site grading as proposed on the Fisher Property off Fox Street is accept able. Care should be taken to insure that the swales around the aound system carry a 2 percent olnlaua grade. This will alniaite the possibility of standing water adjacent the aound. The swale along the west lot line should be adequate to keep the majority of the drainage on site. Please contact this office if you have any questions Yours very truly, BONESIROO, ROSEMB, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Glenn R. Cook GRCtli i .f To;Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:October 11» 1990 Subject #1592 Smith Bay Marina & Yacht Club, Inc. (Gerald E. Toberman), 1955 Shoreline Drive - Renewal Variances & Commercial Site Plan Review Public Hearing Resolution #2190 approved the original variances and commercial site plan applications for Smith Bay Marina S Yacht Club, expiring on June 8, 1988. Resolution #2648, the renewal application, expired June 12, 1990. There is no change from the renewal application of 1989. The club house footprint of 30'x40' remains. The single story club house is proposed at a maximum 16' height to peak of the clerestory (review Exhibit K). Pertinent Ordinance - The major upgrading of the marina property requires a review of pertinent standards of the B-2 zone. Although improvements result in less intense use of this severely limited property, all new improvements require variance approval. Zoning District - Total area = .7 acres Required = 2 acres Variance = 1.3 acres or 65% A) Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (A) - Lakeshore setback. Principal structure: Required = 75' Existing = 9' Proposed = 50' Variance ■» 25' or 33.3% (existing = 66 or 88%) Deck structure connecting to existing dock: Required = 75' Existing = O' Proposed = 0' at 929.4 elevation Variance =75' or 100% B) Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (B) - Side setback to residential used property. Principal structure: Required = 50' Existing * 14' Proposed =40' Variance = 10' or 20% (existing = 36' or 72%) k I ■ ir ■! I ii 111 iin r • i i i A. Zoning File #1592 October 11, 1990 Page 2 of 4 C) Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (C) - Street setback. Principal structure: Pequired = 50' Existing = 70' Proposed = 50' No Variance Required D) Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (D) - Hardcover. Total area = 31,117 s.f. or .7 acres 0-75' setback area = 25,017 s.f. Allowed = 0% Existing = 18,428 s.f. or 73.6% Proposed * 15,862 s.f. or 63.4% (10% improvement in hardcover) 75-250' setback area = 5,100 s.f. Allowed = 1,275 s.f. or 25% Existing = 5,100 s.f. Proposed = 5,100 s.f. (no change) E) Section 10.41, Subdivision 9 - Lot area. Required = 2 acres or 87,120 s.f. Existing » .71 acres or 31,117 s.f. Variance = 1.3 acres or 56,628 s.f. or 65% P) Section 10.41, Subdivision 9 - Setback for parking from street lot line. Required = 30' Existing » O' Proposed = 10' Variance =20' or 66.6% (existing 0 or 100%) G) Section 10.41, Subdivision 5 (A) - Parking requirements - 6 stalls per 10 slips. 79 slips ■ 48 parking stalls Require = 48 stalls Proposed = 42 stalls Variance ■ 6 stalls H) Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 - Setback variance from lakeshore for accessory structure (fence along Shoreline Drive). Review Exhibit I. Require = 75' Proposed » 43' Variance = 32.43% Zoning File #1592 October 11» 1990 Page 3 of 4 List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E - Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit HI Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Exhibit N Exhibit 0 Application Property Owners List Resolution #2194 Original Variance Approved 6/8/87 Resolution #2640 Renewal Variance 6/12/89 Planning Commission Minutes 5/15/89 Survey/Site Plan Revised Date 1/20/89 MCWD Permit Expired 12/14/88 2 - Parking Schedule on Key Detailed Plan Showing Details of Variance Areas Floor Plan Elevations Hardcover Fact Sheets Run-off/Drainage Calculations Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Reflecting Increase in Green Areas Status of Application - The applicant has completed dock construction and seawall installation as proposed in the original comprehensive application of the 1987 review. The applicant now proposes the construction of the club house and site improvements as originally proposed in the 1987 review. As noted above, the new club house will be 16' high measured to the peak of the clerestory. The 40'x30' footprint has been maintained requiring the same setback approvals as in the original variance review of last year. Review Exhibit H and 0, these two exhibits will be included with the approval resolution and developer's agreement as both depict the planting (green space) and parking plan required as a result of the new construction. Please review Exhibit F, the updated site plan locating the seawall along the shoreline in addition to the walkway. An underground gasoline storage tank is shown on plan. Four parking spots will be located above at grade level. The sale of gas will be subject to review by the LMCD and the City of Orono per the pertinent fire code standards. Staff can confirm that the applicant proposes to continue to sell gasoline at the site. The tanks were inspected by State Inspectors. Applicant will submit copies of the inspection report for the City files. t !i Zoning File #1592 October 11, 1990 Page 4 of 4 As in the 1989 review, staff would no longer condition approval of the parking stall variance on the use of the overflow parking in the municipal parking lot area. The Planning Commission noted in the earlier review that the standard for the industry is 30% maximum usage at any one time. Based on that standard, only 24 slips out of the 79 would ever be used at any one time. 42 parking* stalls would satisfy 24 slip users. It should also be noted that in the earlier license reviews for this marina, the overflow parking at the municipal parking lot was imperative because of the boat sales operation and fishing rental units that existed under the previous ownerships with Sailors World and Paul's Landing. The present marina use involves only the rental of slips. Staff would suggest that the conditions and findings noted in Resolution #2648 are still applicable and would recommend approval of the renewal variance and commercial site plan for Smith Bay Marina & Yacht Club. 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) fr I rl ;r:' M ^ : CITY OF ORufid PROPERTY LOCATION rr-Avrr^ L*i i * “Ft V .*Vr*t ^ WW V. VX.'W Site Address 1955 Shoreline Drive Wavzata. Mn .,i-rrroT-l Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) luluuii I tiinyS tifi/ ^ti^vlOO cool kji T10:2'i09/13M> Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) Name SMITH BAY MARINA & YACHT CLUB. iNCPhone (wor)c) 542-1189 Address: 1955 Shoreline Dr._ _ _ City; wayzata Mn_ Zip: 55.321. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Gerald E. Toberman_ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) Phone (work) S42-11H9 Address: 11708 Wayzata Blvd City: Mtka Mn Zip: 55343 Date Property Acquired 12/31/88 (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land PRESENT DSE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property L/t f A Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 65.OOP.00 Describe request in detail: VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances (_X Other _ _ _ _ Lot Width Hardcover Side J HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ DESCRIPTION OF DHUSUAL 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. SIcetches 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 (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 information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by Clerical Staff _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • • • ^ ** ^ ^ mm • • •• mm APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the for.ing 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 )cnowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature ^ Py^«--9t/^«.trrPate <7 - /o-^rO 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 ar 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 6 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. r mim ^ • •9^ C c. L 38 10-117-23 31 cool George f rovegno 2010 ShCRELiNF ORI VE WAYZAU MN 55391 38 10-117-23 31 CC89 DANIEL CREAR 1900 SPATES AVE LAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 42 COOS A G ASCHENBECK JR 1930 SHORELINE DRIVE hAYZATA MN 55391 38 lC-117-23 42 0015 H TOURANGEAU 2060 SPATES AVE- WAYZATA MN 55391 38 lC-117-23 42 0022 CRAIG OLSON 1960 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 31 0CC8 MARIETTA h ANDERSON 2055 SPATES AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 31 0095 TERRY D MORSE 2C80 SPATES AVE CPONO MN 5539. GERALD D. TOBERHfN INTERCHAGE TOWER SUITE 1460 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55426 28 10-117-23 42 0017 LYLE VICKERMAN INTERLACHEN LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 10-U7-23 31 OC02 JCHN T SPENCE ^ 20 40 NO SHCRF DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 31 0C90 RICHARD V STINSON 2040 SPATES AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 42 0007 ALAN NETTLES C ANNE NETTLE 1940 SHORELINE DR QRONO MN 55391 38 10-117-23 42 0016 RQNAL C J PRINEAS .1980 heritage dr WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL *-i'lt* F JATCH 003 OOC 10-117-23 31 U0o4 STATE LAND DEPT ao 38 10-117-23 31 009» HARRIET a TES TOR mNGc AU 2060 SPATES AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 * 23 10-117-23 42 0014 SAILORS WORLD BCX 176 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 10-117-23 4-2 0021 CANIEL CREAR 1980 SPATES AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 I h -■7. |. d CITY OT ORONOD City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2194_ _ _ _ _ A RBSOLOTIOH GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.41» SUBDIVISION 10 (A)(B)(D), SUBDIVISION ,9f SUBDIVISION 5 (A) AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 AND PER SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 2 i^PROVES THE COMNBRICAL SITE PLAN FOR SMITH'S BAY MARINA AND YACHT CLUB, INC. FILE #1142 WHEREAS, Smith's Bay Marina, Inc. (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 1955 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the North line of Central Avenue extended Easterly with Easterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 7 thence Northeasterly 42 degrees 15 minutes East 120.05 feet to actual point of beginning thence South 57 degrees 45 minutes East 29.04 feet thence North 37 degrees 50 minutes East 130 feet to the of North lir- cf Grand Avenue extended Easterly thence North degrees 45 minutes West 18 feet thence Southwesterly 42 'degrees 15 minutes West 131.05 feet to beginning including accretions, ORA parr ON LAKE MINNETONKA", Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter tne property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes the construction of a principal structure and major restoration of the marina property has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit fencing 10 feet from the lakeshore instead of the ll feet, 10.41, Subdivision 5 (A) to permit parlcing stalls for 42 vehicles instead of the required 48 stalls. Section 10.41, Subdivision 9 to permit parlcing 10 feet from the street lot line instead of the required 30 Action 10.41, Subdivision 10 (A) to permit the principal built 50 feet from the shoreline instead of the 7 Subdivision 10 (B) to permit the principal structure to be built 40 feet from the side lot line adjacent to a residential zone required 50 feet. Subdivision 10 (D) to permit 15,862 s.f. or 63.4% of hardcover (actual reduction of 10% over existing hardcover at 75 feet of the lalce where no hardcover is allowed and to permit hardcover to remain at 5,100 s.f. or 300% over the allowed amount of hardcover at 1,275 s.f. or 25% and per Section 10.41, Subdivision 2 seeks approval of a commerical site plan for the complete restoration of a marina property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: Page 1 of 5 I CitY OP oRONd; City of OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2194__________ FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 11142. 2. The property is located in the B-2 Lakeshore Business Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application listed above and the commercial site plan for the complete restoration of the subject property on May 18, 1987, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) The lot is not deep or large enough to allow structures to meet required setbacks. B) The majority of the property is located within the lakeshore protected area where no hardcover or structure is allowed. C) The property has been used as a commercial marina for over 40 years and was recently rezoned to B-2 in 1975. D) The proposed improvements provide a reduction of 10% in overall hardcover in addition to improving quality of storm water runoff prior to entering lake. E) The majority of improvements provide for a major reduction in hardcover immediately adjacent to shoreline. F) Access to site and parking areas have ^een greatly improved with a proposed single structure making for a more efficient use of the severely limited land area. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 City of ORONO CITY OP OI^ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2194_ _ _ _ _ _ CONCLUSIONSr ORDER AND CONDITIONS Bd'sed upon one or more of the above findings^ the Orono City Council hereby grants the variances as set forth above and approves the commercial site plan dated April 20, 1987 by R.L. Wuornos and Associates for Smith's Bay Marina & Yacht Club, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. Owner to execute a Developer's Agreement and post a letter of credit with the City to insure the following improvements are installed byiAugust 31, 1988. a) Drainage/surface water treatment improvements per final plans approved by the M.C.W.D. and City of Orono - the City would ask that an underground drainage tile system be located and its use reviewed as part of that improvement. b) Paving of parking area, lighting, signage, and installation of grassed area per plans by R.L. Wuornos and Associates dated 4/20/87. c) Reconstruction of dock adjacent to shoreline in conjunction with shoreline restoration - areas of dock located above the 929.4 elevation not to exceed a 6 feet width. d) To construct a six feet high privacy fence along the west side lot line adjacent to the public access. 2. The executed Developer's Agreement and letter of credit (amount to be 150% of the cost of requirement improvements) must be submitted to the City prior to application for a building permit for new principal structure. City Engineer shall review total estimate of improvement costs prior to submittal of letter of credit. 3. Erosion control shall be employed at all times on the site during the time of the construction of the principal structure and the shoreline restoration. 4. Owner/applicant shall apply for a building permit with penalty fee for commercial dock constructed prior to his ownership of the property. 5. Demolition permits are required for all buildings to be removed. Such permits must be obtained by applicant at the time a permit is issued for new construction. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued for the new structure until all buildings designated for removal have been razed. 6. Owner/applicant is hereby advised that at the time an application for building permit is submitted to the City, the Orono s«:aff shall evaluate the proposed improvement and uses of the property per standards adopted by Metropolitan Waste Control Commission in the determination of Service Availability Charges to be collected with the issuance of a building permit. Page 3 of 5 City of OROIVO City OP ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2194 __________ 7. Owner shall reimburse the City of Orono for the cost of the Installation of a striped crosswalk within the right-of-way of County Road 15. 8. Authorities granted with this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this approval will expire on that date (June 8, 1988). 9. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 10. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of June, 1987. ATTKS^: UAl lorothy ^y;/Hallin, City Clerk Jcunds R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Smith's Bay Marina, Inc. Page 4 of 5 , » WZ » II • • ’mUf tk. r A ■ I CITY I '''' II ORONCM City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2648 P A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 10 (A),(B),(C),(D), SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 9 SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1, AND PER SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 2 APPROVES THE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN FOR SMITH'S BAY MARINA AND YACHT CLUB, INC., FILE #1408 WHEREAS, Smith's Bay Marina, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation (hereinafter "the appliq^nt") has an interest in the property located at 1955 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached WHEREAS, the applicant proposes the construction of a principal structure and major restoration of the marina property and has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit fencing 43' from the lakeshore instead of the reqtiired 75'; Section 10.41, Subdivision 5 (A) to permit parking stalls for 42 vehicles instead of the required 48 stalls; Section 10.41, Subdivision 9 to permit parking 10' from the street lot line instead of the required 30 ; Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (A) to permit the principal structure to be built 50' from the shoreline instead of the required 75’; Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (B) to permit the principal structure to be built 40' from the site lot line adjacent to a residential zone instead of the required 50'; Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (D) to permit 15,862 square feet or 63.4% of hardcover (actual reduction of 10% over existing hard” cover at 73.6%) within 75' of the lake where no hardcover is allowed and to permit hardcover to remain at 5,100 square feet or 300% over the allowed eunount of hardcover at 1,275 square feet or 25%; and per Section 10.41, Subdivision 2 seeks approval of a commercial site plan for the complete restoration of the marrna property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1408. Pace 1 of 5 .« • City of OROIVO CITY OF QRONa RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2648 ________ 2. The property is located in the B-2 Lakeshore Business Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application listed above and the commercial site plan for the complete restoration of the subject property on May 15, 1989 ard recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings; A) The lot is not deep or large enough to allow structures to meet required setbacks. B) The majority of the property is located within the lakeshore protected area where no hardcover or structure is allowed. C) The property has been used as a commercial marina for over 40 years and was recently rezoned to B-2 in 1975. D) The proposed improvements provide a reduction of 10% in overall hardcover in addition to improving quality of storm v.ater run-off prior to entering the lake. E) The majority of the improvements provide for a major reduction in hardcover immediately adjacent to the shoreline. F) Access to site and parking areas have greatly been improved with the proposed single structure making for a more efficient use of the severely limited land area. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 5 I vV CITY OF ORONa .4 . I ■i City of ORONO resolution of the city council NO. 2648_______ 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district? that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property? would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty? is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant? and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS , ORDER AND CONDITIONS < \ Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants the variances as set forth above and approves the commercial site plan dated November 1, 1988, revised January 20, 1989 by Advance Surveying and Engineering Company for Smith’s Bay Marina and Yacht Club, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. Owner to execute a Developer's Agreement and post a Letter of Credit with the City to ensure the following improvements are installed: A) City Engineer to approve drainage/surface water treatment plan per final plans by Sathre Bergquist. B) Paving of parking area, lighting, signage, and installation of grassed area per plans by E.O.S. Corporation of Excelsior, Ziint^sota dated January 10, 1989. 2. The executed Developer's Agretrent and Letter of Credit (amount to be 150% of the cost of required improvements) must be submitted to the City prior to application for a building permit for new principal structure. The City Engineer shall review total improvement costs prior to submittal of Letter of Credit. 3. Erosion control shall be employed at all times on the site during the time of construction of the principal structure. Page 3 of 5 i) rii . >' City of OROrVO CITY OF ORONO3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2648________ 4. Demolition permits are required for all buildings to be removed. Such permits must be obtained by applicant at the time a permit is issued for new construction. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued for the new structure until all buildings designated for removal have been razed. Applicant may continue to use existing structure up to the time the Certificate of Occupancy is to be issued. 5. Owner/applicant is hereby advised that at the time an application for building permit is submitted to the City, the Orono staff shall evaluate the proposed improvement and uses of the property per standards adopted by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission in the determination of the Service Availability Charges to be collected with the issuance of a building permit for the new construction. 6. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (June 12, 1990). 7, Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 8. The undersigned applicant on behalf of the Smith's Bay Marina and Yacht Club, Inc. has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on its heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of June, 1989. Dorothy , Mayor Applicant(s) Page 4 of 5 CITY k aRONa b City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUC CIL NO. 2648________ STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of June, 1989, by James R. Grab-sk & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor 6 City Clerk of the City of Oro-io, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrviment was ex .-cuted on behalf of the City. CLLik Lt M^ary Publi . wotam - HENNEPIN C SCHEFFLER f40fA/K - MINNISOTA • v.i' HENNEPIN COUNTY P y coffimiiiioo •xpirti 6-8*93 My Commission Expi .*es STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) } SS. On this day of 198f the perafonTs) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) execited the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Etaine S. -Z^7 _ NOTAIT fUlllC - MIH 4isorA HENNEPIN COK NTY My commiuton pxpirpt Jun« 1991 my commission expires Page 5 of S city of ORONO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2648__________ EXHIBIT A Commencing at the intersection of the North line of Central Avenue extended Easterly with Easterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 7 thence Northeasterly 42 degrees 15 minutes East 120.5 feet to actual point of beginning thence South 57 degrees 45 minutes East 29.04 feet thence North 37 degrees 50 minutes East 130 feet to the intersection of North line of Grand Avenue extended Easterly thence North 59 degrees 45 minutes West 18 feet thence Southwesterly 42 degrees 15 minutes West 131.B feet to beginning including accretionsn "ORA PARK" ON LAKE MINNETONKA", Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and i e MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15, 1989 ZONING FILE #1404-MIKLBTHUN/HAOG CONTINUED Chairman Kelley questioned whether the lot area was consistent for the neighborhood* Gaffrcn repliedthat it was. no comments from the public reqardinq this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval of the lot area variance, per staff recommendation. The hardship in this application is that the sewer was previously assessed and a house previously existed on this property, and that the lot area^is consistent with neighboring properties. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1408 SMITH BAY MARINA 1955 SHORELINE DRIVE RENEWAL VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 9:25 P.M. TO 9:35 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Toberman was present for this public hearing. Zoning Administrator Mabusth reviewed all of the variances required even though the applicant's proposal involved a less intense use of the property. The lakeshore setback for the existing principal structure is currently 9' and the applicant is proposing 50' lakeshore setback for a deck structure connecting to A' « ’ ng dock is proposed at O' and the current dock is O'. A sx^ . setback to the residential used property is currently 14' and the proposed structure is at 40'. The street setback for the principal structure will not require a variance. There will be a decrease in hardcover in the 0-75 setback area from 73.6% to 63.4%. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback area will not change. A 1.3 acre lot area variance will be required, as will a 20' setback variance for parking from street lot line. The parking requirement is 6 stalls per 10 slips. The applicant's proposal for 79 slips requires 48 parking stalls, the request is for 42. Chairman Kelley asked whether the LMCD had approved the request for 79 slips. Mabusth replied that Smith Bay Marina had been approved for 79 slips last year and that number had not changed with this year's application. Kelley noted that if the applicant was required to have 40 parking stalls, the hardcover percentages would increase. Mabusth commented that this Marina was allowed to use the Municipal parking lot for overflow parking Zoning Administrator Mabusth said that the applicant was also seeking approval of a 32' setback variance from lakeshore for an accessory structure. This variance would apply to the proposed fence along Shoreline Drive. Chairman Kelley asked about the applicant's proposal for MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15, 1989 ZONING PILE 11408-SMITH BAY MARINA CONTINUED signage and landscaping. Mabusth replied that the proposal was included in the Planning Commission packets. She added that there would be no plantings in the 10' buffer area due to sight distance problems it may create. She suggested that the applicant provide an updated plan showing the exact location of the seawall and the proposed landscaping. Chairman Kelley inquired as to the curb cuts off of County Road 15. Mabusth said that only two would remain and added that the entire parking area would be blacktopped. Planning Commissioner Bellows expressed her desire to see an updated site plan. The applicant replied that they would work with the City to achieve satisfactory landscaping results. He further stated that he would prefer to keep any plantings from the edge of Shoreline Drive. Chairman Kelley questioned whether allowing parking in the municipal lot would not create a pedestrian safety problem. Mr. Toberman replied that there should not be any overflow from the main parking lot. Council Representative Callahan, suggested that the aspect of municipal parking should not in any way be tied into this application. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Bellows indicated that she was in favor of the improvements proposed for this property. She was concerned about the status of site plan. Mabusth replied that a planting schedule would be tied into the landscaping plan. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval as follows: 1. Approval of the lakeshore setback variance of 25'; 2. approval of the deck structure connection to existing dock variance of 75'; 3. approval of the principal structure side setback to a residential use variance of 10’; 4. approval of the hardcover reduction within 0-75' setback area to 63.4% and no change in the 75-250' setback area; 5. approval of a lot area variance of 1.3 acres; 6. approval of side setback variance for parking from street lot line of 20'; 7. approval of a parking stall variance of 6 stalls; and 8. approval of setback variance from lakeshore for 1 < — — . - . . - ■ —— — - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -r • A A « . • • MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15, 1989 ZONING PILE #1408-SMITH BAY MARINA CONTINUED accessory structure of 32'. Approval is conditioned upon a planting schedule with specific planting identification being presented to the City Council. Mabusth asked the applicant about the existence of an underground gas tank and asked the applicant to provide the City with such information. Kelley added that provision to his motion. Bellows seconded. Kelley added that the City should be very strict when dealing with gas tanks being placed near the lakeshore. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Cohen abstained. Motion passed. #1409 JANN & RENEE OLSTEN 3090 PARVIEW LANE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:42 P.M. TO 9:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this public hearing, as was the applicant's contractor, Mr. Brian Butterfield. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the land alteration conditional use permit was required because the work is being done after the issuance of the building permit. Mabusth asked the contractor whether the excavated dirt would be distributed and seeded? Mr. Butterfield replied that there would be approximately 200 yards that would be distributed on site and seeded. Mabusth asked how many yards of fill would be required to achieve the 4" to 6" indicated on the landscaping plan? Mr. Butterfield said approximately 200 cubic yards would be used to grade on the north side of the driveway and around the septic system. Mabusth reminded Mr. Butterfield to use special care with filling in drainfield area. Gaffron noted that he had advised owners to fill around the drainfield. Mr. Butterfield said that he had tracks on his bob cat. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1410 JULIE PRINEAS 1980 HERITAGE DRIVE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 9:47 P.M. TO 10:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Prineas were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron I i 1 *1 i * ••'■ * • r ; v:’ * , 4* • . '.r * •■ • ■• ■#.’ I I'. • '“ •'■• ■ • !:V.. . i (. • .• \lt- ‘ ■ •' ■ *• ■ N ‘V • * t ‘* 5*c. • ' 4fff4 » \'j \ »• f \ I if ► /• , ’/ ■ \i 9^i k'.'. S -.y ’* *V. ^ •' • m, I I: •-*. ■ i’ (•:•■ > * * > iiK ■ . i *. « I ■• i • *1 :*’• W T d'% I / fc V*^ '-'i I •!V ■■>• J& • >/*i. • ■ %TV V' • ’•• Nv>v- • ' .-v V^- '. . TV - • 4- '^N V*»‘ I * .»;• . / •,•• »i 4 %V* '• I -? .• •* » • • fi r •''X I •» i • •• jZ/<^4P ' •• #' V •■ . ) %N /-.IT '.4: S'r»f'»> V Vi -4I tv * >'• »'V 3 "V »a 0\i %V- .• ./ *. • . i':i f\ I ~ ^•4 V Ji' V > ■e...,. .srv'v'.V'-i'v.' . .v-'-.T : V *•:— ♦ . It •• ! • . I ./ i \. \* .fvt ? ' :• r p<Sir»?3feh^ v.f : il »»f I % t (3)yyi W f, / r •t• » • • ^4 > N SS'v.O < ../•:• • f T y; I > litHvt *» f r' •# / 'f Vr.T t'7-V • t.® Vt I »• • • > «• V • < • •» *. * . • - A \ A I » %• •.*'tV' '• V.m; * iv1 'I'! * t ’ • » #^ • Atf 9dxJ^ ^ mm 4. >-jrW!T/ • V Mb/i ^ <11 ' f , 4. •1 • 7 '■ • ’ .A..---- iH MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 80M0 Of MMUfifA& Oivid H. Cochran, Rrei • Albert L Lehman • John £. Thomas Camille 0. Andre • James R. Spensley • dchard R. Mitter • Michae a Carroll OEG I T £5i" December 14, 1987Permit Application No: 87-78 Owner: Smiths Bay Yacht Club/Toberman Mgmt. 1460 Interchange Tower Minneapolis MN 55426 Location: City of Orono, Sec lODBC, Smiths Bay, Lake Minnetonka Dredge to remove 4,020 cubic yards of soil for navigational access in a commercial marina and 280 lineal feet of steel sheet pile seawall. Purpose: Dear Sirs: Receipt is acknowledged for the following which you have submitted as part of the above permit application: 1. Structural analysis of the proposed seawall by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 2. Review and approval by the DNR, received October 6, 1987, This plan and letter are in accordance with the action taken by the Board of Managers on June 18, 1987 in reference to the above permit. This letter is your permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Permit approval is based upon the following exhibits: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Permit Application 87-78, received April 15, 1937. DNR Permit application. Typical cross section and plans showing the dredging limits, prepared by C. Reep, dated April 7, 1987. Typical cross sections of the proposed seawall, dated May 13, 1987, prepared by C. Reep. __ Revised site plan and cross sections, prepared by C. Reep, dated May 13, I’O/. Structural analysis of the proposed seawall by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Review and approval by the DNR, received October 6, 1987. ^ ..fcr. ^ .»■ .-I ^- - - - -- -- -II ■ in n i« k t i--rii-n-nw ■I r-T—u-rr- -iii.t .f i Tf •u I ' I ■ r*■ maw ■ i ■ Permit Application No.: 87-78 Page Two (5^ This permit is valid for one year. If construction is not complete within one (1) year, an extension must be requested. Please contact the . 473-4224 when the project is about to commence so an inspector may view the work in progress. EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES Engineers for the District cc: Date of issue Board L. Smith Cliff Reep J. Boudreau, ONR City of Orono I r 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 7 Planting Schedule For Smiths Bay Marina & Yacht Club Ijii _ 2*» Summit Ash Ij" - 2" Summit Ash li" - 2" Summit Ash Ij" - 2“ Summit Ash 18'* diameter Hughes Juniper and Anthony Water Spirea (pot size) 18" diameter Hughes Juniper and Anthony Water Spirea (pot size) Gold Drop Potentilla 18" diameter Hughes Juniper and Anthony Water Spirea (pot size) all along the walkway. Mock Orange Mock Orange Maney Juniper(pot size) and purple leaf sand cherry (pot size). All plantings will be done in the fall of 1989 after the building construction and blacktopping are completed. Vern Larsen Property Manager -w I /si ? r •• i* • (I . • .•* ’• . * ‘ ' * I t . ' S. l •• .. • • **• * . / •: * ' . ,■— • • • .. •' - • ................ ^ . ... ... • ^ • *% • ,, .. -J i. -, %. »« •• *A4«^r? i»X • .- • • . 1 I • *.» ••s • ,ri : T.1, • • •. • .• m • . ... I • ^* . * • b* . <• . . » ^ ii*. •%* * *. “^. • « . « ■•••-• ^ ‘ 4 , •• • • .. • >v*'' -•* " **• • • * • . • • • .f * ^ . * • • • #• V "N • %^'V • -»•. I ••' i»* A* ^ V ^* * » • * • I.- ^ .»■. . # ... -■.. :•^v^ • ' •: ■■ • • .••■. %• • • • » ■• • m\ V iV ^ •;. . • . I \ <^srre-r^rY (AUO M.T^PNAH> . trpAf- r^t’CiA. i-EPAP ^\\\Cr.. dl^Af* flNIAHlSP UMBe^VNG CAPt> M.T»rMa»rB) “TT— •• • I • •.•• • • '* \ *. •' .»..•*. • '. #■ • • • . . ■ .• . 7 • *t • ■ \ .♦ t • • • • * • • • I. .» * -4 t • . .. • i-- ' . / . • • •• ‘ % ^^Nsr*) • »« «• /4-'* ' V ^ c -w-^V ; •• HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET VJ- • ^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A A. House B. Garage c. Driveway > X LENGTH A WIDTH X s S. P. X S.P. • X S.F. X S.F. X S.F. ~ S.F. 0.SIdehalx X s X s X iTJ E.Jatio/ D eck X a . F. Landscape - X areas underlain BY X a PLASTIC SHEETING X _ X _ _a G. Other X Total Hardcover in Zonc Total Property Area in Zone 7 * J I~7 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.E :2 7 • < 7 > j.B 2': ->n X 100 S3.3 % p(2^P0S^Q CofUD ■ HARDCOVER CALCUUTION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75- Existing Hardcover in Zone (^/v/ r\cvo.tNj/js I- A. House LENGTH WIDTH S.P. S.F. X .S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage S.F. c. Driveway ••2. 3.F. S.F, D. Sidewalk S.F. S'fO S.F, E. Patio/ Deck 5.F. S.F. — \ O ^ ri\ \ ^■'* V ' i'jV ^ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' (^75-25^ 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House B. Garage c. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS underlain BY plastic SHEETING G. Other LENGTH WIDTH Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone Cl \oo S.F . S.F. S.F, S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.E S'7S-5 B Gioo X 100 3 Vo i C -'N* O' —lO^' ” T \3 tX i |rV\/V)Ll NJ !\pfc-of'OScO HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone I 4 Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone A •nuu:)c _ LENGTH A WIDTH X S • X •X a • X B.Garagc X a C.Driveway X X a ( D.Sidewalk X 5 X 5 X 3 s E.’at10/ Deck X a .r F.Landscape X s areas underlain BY X a s PLASTIC SHEETING X s X S G. Other X s S.F. 4^17^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S • r • S.F. w • r • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F. <j> >CO S.F. B n 41-1^f ««oo X 100 6 5. W Vo 2liTh 3flY ikronot KiTir.«sota ORIGINAL SITE Total Area (Ae): Grass Area : Hardsurface Area : Coefficient of Roricff iCe): yRQPC£D aIT£ Total Area ;Ao): Grass Area > parcsurfaee Area s Ccef::c:sft cf tCi/: «.71 Acres «.71 Acres i Acres I.2G 3.71 Acres Z.C& Acres 3. #5 Acres t • 2** Critics; :ne '■* -crcr'cracctr. ;r.f :e -ir.\r.B5 Tairifall Ir.t»<sities :• f r•»• • • • • #r •13 VRCia*122 '••’<1:22) 3.2 >'/-T •>i/-^5.6 I.*i/“*5.2 1.0/Hr "tea ••••••• SB a* 2. i/iistiriS iuAcffiCe/ > CexlAAe V. SO 1F5 S. fmit 2 * •z *r*«• .m) 0 Aroioseo iunoffiCo) ■ CcjiIxAa 1. ‘♦b 3r 5 2.13 ^ mm (to. S M. f M «.• W turiofr IrcreaseiV.) » Co - Ce »a i* 3 C.-3 . . 3 0 a««' to 2a 53 2.-3 teciirec Sttrace = Aia.cTir.Jifci 72£ 1-•csr ^ '1273 C“aSci Zr site -c-rc iterate lec-irec ;• • ^ »•> Ailciiaoie Tjr.cff rrta Site :1.16 -F3 •fciicn <-re Cutlet r Direct Aurof* AittA t€~ SSAIMNS "u AviO “oto. Area iAca): Grass *res : rartsurfice Area : Cc«ffic:er.t of Auwff iCo): Critical Tiae of Corceritration : iainfall Intensities : Prt-ooseo nunoff(3oa> « CsxInAoa AlloMOle Aono Cutlet > Ce - uoa ?.39 Acrs! 3.36 Ac~es r.3i -c'es 3. *5 li RinutR 1 fACl) 5.2 In/Hr a. 12 C?3 2.53 CrS 5 VACS) *.8 In/rr 2.13 Cr3 3. *3 C73 la YACll) 5.6 In/rv 3.22 2^5 mm V« a*** 3 laa Ysciaa) 6.2 In/rr a.22 Cr3 a. 34 C.-3 ?*a*iw« Pore Cutlet During IW item ■ 2.64 Cr5 3»re ^t«3 Mcooroingiy To: Prom: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator October 11, 1990 #1593 Philip P. Kaley, 1395 Brown Road South - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-IB Total area = 18,182 s.f. Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Lot coverage. In al zoning districts for all lots of 0-1.99 acres in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. Total lot area « 18,182 s.f. or .4 acres Allowed lot coverage = 2,727.3 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,605.6 s.f. or 8.8%* Proposed additional structure = 461 s.f. Adjusted lot coverage = 2,066.6 s.f. or 11.3% * Accessory structure «= 386.6 s.f. Principal structure = 1,219 s.f. Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) - Street setback variance required for proposed north side addition. County Road 146 (Brown Road South); Required setback = 50' Existing = 20' Proposed » 20' Variance = 30' or 60% Arbor Street: Required setback = 50' Existing = 43' Proposed = 43' Variance = 7' or 14% Subdivision 14 (C) - Lot coverage. Tennis courts, patios, decks, and all similar open structures when partially or fully enclosed by fences, railings, or walls which extend mor«* than 6' above grade level (if any portion of such structures extends more than 6* above grade level, then the entire structure shall count towards lot coverage). Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) - . . . terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops, or similar structures which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than 2' from any lot line. Zoning File #1593 October 11, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Please review Exhibit D, applicant's survey suggests a proposed deck to the west side of the existing structure. Note plans submitted with building permit application do not reflect open deck addition. The above referenced sections of the code would allow the deck as long as the 10' separation is maintained from the detached garage structure and is no closer than 2' to any lot line. Staff would recommend no closer than 5' for safety purposes. Applicant's survey suggests a 25'+ setback. If the total deck structure including railing extends 6' above grade, applicant is obliged to meet the lot coverage standards and such deck could not exceed 667 s.f. or 3.63% of additional structural coverage. Note with the proposed north side addition, lot coverage is already at 2,066.6 s.f. or 11.3%. 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 Survey Submitted by Applicant Survey of Property Before 1985 Addition Floor Plan Elevations Minutes of Original 1985 Review Review of Application - The applicant proposes a 10' addition to north side of house requiring street setback variance from both Arbor Street and County Road 146 lot lines. The applicant's survey also proposes a future deck not currently proposed. Please refer to setbacks noted above that govern deck construction on this property. The applicant received approval of a street setback variance on October 28, 1985 for the family room addition shown on Exhibit D. Please review Exhibit H for background on original application. deck. Applicant should provide clarification concerning proposed Options of Action - 1. Denial, please refer to the necessary findings in Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A)l. 2. Approval, the Planning Commission may consider the following findings and hardships: Zoning File #1593 October 11, 1990 Page 3 of 3 A) The house was placed on the property prior to the current 2 acre zoning standard. B) The property is surrounded by streets on three sides. C) The property is .4 acres in area and subject to 2 acre zoning standards. D) The improvement would be consistent with similar improvement projects on adjacent properties consistent in size. E) The property is served with sewer. The only condition staff would add to an approval recommendation would be to place applicant on notice regarding a possible future deck to west side of structure, noting the limitations of lot coverage if deck structure is to be above 6* in total height above grade and of required separation setback from the detached garage. Staff would also add the following advise to applicant reminding applicant of Section 12.05, Subdivision 2, exterior work. All exterior construction, including siding, roofing, doors, windows and finish shall be completed and present a finished appearance within 12 months from the start of construction. < > I t-1!)V' o* ••- ,r m' - 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) mm mm mm •• •• ^ •• •• •'* *"• ** ** *"* ** ** ** *" ** PROPERTY LOCATION _ Site Address ^ ^ y^d u!) Y) ^ / Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) •*-- ^WUV4.WWV N fljf 00Attach legal description to application if not included on I'fs.CO required survey. HECEJPT-TufilK' YCV ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------—;7^p:7^-Ct^’’Y^rT14:01 APPLICANT Phone (home ) V7?~^7 7S^ v9/17/90 y Name PL, .* ' up gy __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (wor)c) ^*7 Address • ^i^V* / OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home),_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ / N2une Phone (wor)c) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels cf land MM MM mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm iM mm mm iM mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mt mm mm «m mm ^ mm PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District _ _ Present Use of Property _ _ Z/iLid Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ OO Ot oe> Other • HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; U6T' Q-iouyt^ g? w> 3 hy DESCRIPTION OP ONUSOAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; LeTT u / vi . c^Tz-c.. hcn<url ^ k ______ 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. S)cetches 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. 8. Additional ite.;is as may be requested by City staff . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 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 above information 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 rot covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurztsd in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to tl.e best of his/her Jcnowledge. Applicant's Signature jlXjL-j Date f -// OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ac)cowledges 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 ^ ^ ~~ ^ submitApplicant 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 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. RUN DATE 09/1V90 '> «-1. hl»‘«'> ■ ■• • ' ■. ■ 1> .-avw*: • , - • ]\[HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM •» t BATCH 001 . t w I • » • . • ‘ i •.t, ■ ? ki.. '. : A'Y •s PROP AODR .OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR ■ -r* ' .•■■■• • I ‘|T 58 10-117-23 31 00^7 • i 00038 ADDRESS UUSSIGNEO ’ . CITY OF ORC3NO . CITY OF ORONO ; - P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 V. .. . i t:. , i, i* • > PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 38 10-117-23 51 0050 01395 . BRONN RO S P F S L KALEY r PHILIP KALEY 1395 BRONN ROAD SO HAYZATA MN 55391 i)-'2 .i• I * i' i ;{ i • • PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR \ i 58 10-117-23 31 0055 01585 ‘ ARBOR ST * ENRIQUE A LIBATIQUE ETAL ENRIGUE LIBATIQUE * BOX 139 . 55325 A J r; ‘ ■/. ‘I• ‘ •? .CRYSTAL BAY I • -i . < .; ;n • f • . v» PROP AODR OI#IER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR • I*■'V '•»$* TOTAL BATCH • ^ 001 00009 ■ -t .r-V “ I. . •- * L • •‘ L ^ • • ■•Ayr ••• :4:, {. V.. < i: v. .1 ; 1 . k. «' * » \ J 0' am I .• r?' 4 2. % . 7 f; « i V r. A I ** t'• • i ^ . ♦. : ^1, *,'-I •r . * • ; V - \ - :i-- PROPERTY OWfkERS LIST 38 10-117-23 31 OO<i0 01375 BRONN RO S KEITH ALAN WESTBROOK * KEITH A ROXANNE WESTBROOK 233 16TM AVE N HOPKINS m 55393 38 10-117-23 31 0053 01380 BRIAR ST MABEL M BELT MABEL M BELT BOX 162 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 10-117-23 31 0056 02190 rtORTH SHORE OR DORIS I EISENKRAMER DORIS I EISENKRAMER 2190 NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA Ttl 55391 38 10-117-23 51 0099 01380 ARBOR ST ' OOUGlAS DE HALIGNON DOUGLAS DE HALIGNON'.' BOX /7 LONG LAKE MN 38 10-117-25 01365 ARBOR J E SUTHERLAND J E SUTHERLAND 9865 MAIN ST E • v ^ MAPLE PUIN MN 55359 38 10-117 02265 NORTH KINGSLEY KINGSLEY 2265 NORTH HAYZATA MN 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE *' " \ REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS ‘ / OF THE MEtAJEPIN COUNTY OEPARTtiENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST 01 Mr KNONLEOGC AND BELIEF. f *' • ■9 J I f. V ‘jL -t; ’ f ‘ 1-\l V(' * i > f >•> k ; o q<i'J DATE 1 • ■ . :r • I / 9. ivJ O'. *A iL 't •I * • •‘I r* *‘**a#;‘^ I ^ ' y ■' ‘iir*. ‘ ‘ V . • f. • ' • r V * 2 S' * • ' ■ • i -I' ‘5 tj'-..*:.%s. /. •' ; » •'« «• i I • *. j. r»4 1 V #15 OQ Vii /. £........ -------- ■ -..••» N >’«• •'*O:: .i ; •.* . / K tT4(T*l (t'»)*'H^tsi J&SVmK SfrSCBiflr^ tirMi ■ II n*lt »9 r /• • /■^ettsT&\/*S1PS* '* ‘•d ' '^ iviJ^ = • £ *• f SI ^iVijW5 0 .c»r»|ayTO?* \ 31 S •N *)» -------12J------i *9 i/i1 m p* r«5( '8);p6}3r.[’L^ (?rj5 »-»«T s a • ..- /•S' a * *" i: ' iK I 3 •ler « 0 V 1 ■N0-5-H----- ■itrnirr- Ci't t i I tcjl.c ol Survi'ij (oc fhilip F. KaJey of Lot 5. OlocAr J. MARKVILLE Hennepin County, Minnesota L r hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of all existing buildings on Lot 5. Block 1, MARKVILLE in relation to the north and west lines of said Lot 5. It does not purport to show other improvements or encroachments. . COFFIN a CRONBERG, INC. Dote ; 10-1-85 Scale: 1" • 30* o ; Iron marker Marksl ^onberg Reg. N&t 12755 Cordon R. Coffin Reg. No. 6064 Engineers a Land Surveyors Long Lake, Minnesota »I (J / ' / • V— w C — • «■ '» Certificate of Survey for Philip F. Kaley of Lot 5. Block 1, HARKVILLE Hennepin County, Minnesota CO. PD. 3/ 0. #9^1Q I L /V' ' V 4 ^ % * i I hereby certify thjt this is a true and correct representation of a survey of all existing buildings on Lot 5, Block 1, MARKVILLE in relation to the north and west lines of said Lot 5. It does not purport to show other improvements or encroachments, COFFIN & CRONBERG, INC. 7 Date : iO-2-55 Scale: J” - 30' o : Iron marker Mark S. Cronberg Reg . / 2 755 Gordon R. Coffin Reg. No. 6064 Engineers & Land Surveyors Long Lake, Minnesota s cm or oftow) - variamcs appucatioh n‘fsy iL : c,-5«,-s<r . . tT ' *5/S'O.OO CCM4X^C_f , Initial Application Fee 9150.00 ($50.00 per each additional project) Aftar>tha>Fact Peea (Double application fee) / IT* raorarr uxxnom Site Addraee 13^S’ B>^r>gc/ So je-gla^ ^ Property Identification Huad>er (P.I.D.) /^- )!’?• SJ> Please check one — Is the property *^bstract or _ _ torrens?-i T-; «',i eePlease attach legal description to application if ot included on required survey. APPUCAMT MaM PZ / ).'yr» P Phone V7 1- V7 Mailing Addrasa / ^9 ^ ^ J »- a t. owns Marne ^ ^ fT^a ie V Phone V 77 r-•>v Mailing Address /_?9Cro *o rt QactrJ ^qlSUs ^ • 5"^.5T/ Oats Property Acquired /)gr*wif»ey~ /5^9 (eonth/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels ot land. *♦ • / ♦ -•:>< PAunrr osi op pvopnn Present Zoning District Present Use of Property other (specify) V ^ -‘if'jL* ;V ’A.* DBSCXIPTION OP RBQOXST^EstlBSted Construction' Cost>>*^^7^'^^<tfe> . . *A» . scribe request in detaili ’4>e./ ^^eJY r* ftr ■ 3V.iF<A7^f^n-,.„rfr«ri eg faP^TU- /gooiil ----------: .. ■ . .1 ^ ■- • i. S* 4 ie^ VAAIABCU RBQOllXO Lot Area Settacit Variances ( Other ____________ Lot Width Front "• • Hardcover ■■ .•' ■ '.V-?i ‘' ^ Mar) ' j . ' I • -‘t wi V' . •, ^ * V * I ____________________ .V.. n .• **,*• *• ‘ ast ' • * • , . j'.M* • ■ (OVHK) cV'. ' • /' t 7F *. •• .V' • ♦ »i \y TB9 or TO HAS OtOBO COOBCIL NEBTUIG BELO OCTOBBB 28, 1985. PACE 6 ■ ‘.•X ^UF EAunr ■numaomi boao soutb VMUAECB 1E80L0TX0B 11880 Phil KAl«y was present for this natter. ^ ' • sT - •. ✓ • .a: City Adainistrator Bernhardson explained the request for e setback variance for a family rooa addition. Mr. Xaley stated resolution. he had no probleas with the proposed S .u. ;.. It was Boved by Councilaember Praha, seconded by Councilaeaber Haaaterel. to adopt Resolution 11890 approvinq the variance. Motion. Ayes 4. Nays 0.<r •988 OEOEOE EOVMK) 2010 8BOREL1VI DRIVE VARIAEC8 Ceorge and Susan Rovegno ware present for this natter. . p#Wr x- City Adainistrator Bernhardson explained the request for an after-the-fact variance for construction of a S foot fence within the 0-75' whereas (based on interpretation) only a 3- 1/2 foot fence is allowed. George Rovegno noted the serious probleas he has had which placsnent of this fence has solved. He submitted a aeaorandua containing a series of facts pertaining to the iseues for Council to review. Mr. Rovegno stated he is willing to do I'■ •I; one of the following to solve this oattert 1)leave the fence at its existing location and cut it down to 44” except for the first 30 feet by the public access which anist be only 30*:'in height, or) 2) move the fence back to the latheaartrend kee it at its existing 5 foot height except for the first:30if by the public access which aust: be only.30*-in heightf;# noted that he believes Code Section 10.03 15(C) could only have been written about intersecting street lots. He also Indicated hia frustration with the City in dealing with^the .'f ' vprobleas he^has encountered which.forced.hia, to erect'th . . . .. . . . . t %I \ fe- Mayor Butler stated that the fence poses a safety haxard.,.-< CounciIsMsdier Praha indicated that applicant's problaastf ^ were valid and felt the City should address the problem of trespassing and litter. He also stated he was agreeable to a 3-1/2 foot high fence in its present location.I Mjiyor Butl«r »tat#d it allowing this fanes. would b« aatting a pracadsi^l by V'A :< City Adainistrator Barnhardson notad that applicant naada a varianca for tha i*l/2 foot accassory struotura on a lot that cannot sustain a principal structura. •' ^ hr ■r •' . / t • /V‘V?VL^ -r Wv •v^.tOMuns or ns piAanac oomnissxom KErriNC held octobkb 21, 198$. > pace 5 ' f ’X1979 oral oontlsoad Tho purposA of the public hearing was to consider the request; '«^ for e lot area variance to construct a new residence. Zoning Adainistrator Mabusth noted that the survey has been received froa applicant. She noted the drainage plan and reviewed staff's recoaaended conditions. ‘ { Everand Ceyen was present for this aattar and stated he had no objections to the conditions. r> > Th«r« w«r« no persons pr«s«nt objecting and the public hearing was cloaeds Kelley felt that in order to maintain a desired building envelope# no additional variances should be granted. It was moved by Sioe« seconded by McDonald, to rocoassend approval of the lot area variance subject to staff's >• conditions and subject to the condition that no additional variances be granted In the future. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. .f,. wnu9 w. lAunr ^ nan boao south VARIAHCB PUBUC HXABXHO Ii35 - 8i3« PM A The certificate of mailing and affidavit of publication was v noted. I The purpose of the public hearing was consider the request of vJ s setback variance to construct a family rooaie Philip Kaley was prosen' for this matter and had no coeoBents There wero no pen hearing was closed. .... .. .» ; tj?.U^^t4wasi»ov^«by , - - - _ approval:of. the.variance as-proposed;.^tletloQtftAyoaj •984 4ieS*IIATBROMI " ■’■-ft? • . ' ■ >.*.4 • * FUBUC BMAMim . .... . ... \^aS4Sfm Joe Sawchuk was present for this ’*^tter and stated he was< unable to complete the survey required aM would have it done for the next Planning Cosnission eeetjng. f.IZt was aoved by Siee, seconded by McDonald, to continue thiS ;:'4 Public Hearing until the Noveaber Planning Coaalssion ■eating. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. St » % I. To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator October 8, 1990 Subject: #1594 Duane Luke - 2465 North Shore Drive - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, sewered Application - Request for side setback and hardcover variances to construct additions to existing residence List o£ Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Application Letter of Support from the Marfield's Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Hardcover Calculations Construction Plans Average Setback Determiniation Pertinent Facts 1.Allowed/ Existing Proposed Required Side Setback 33.5'25*.30* Hardcover,75-250'37.3% (7979 s.f.) 38.3% (8069 s.f.) 25% (5272 s. Hardcover,0-75*10.2%(No change proposed) 0% Hardcover,250-500* 7.6%(No change proposed) 30% Hardcover (as a percent of 18.9%19.1%— overall lot area) 2.A review of City air photos and surveys indicates that the proposed additions will not encroach past the average lakeshore setback line. •i Zoning Pile #1594 October 8, 1990 Page 2 3.The proposed improvements are located approximately 84' from the 929.4 contour. 4.The net hardcover increase on the property without removals would be 90 s.f. or one-half of one percent in the 75-250' zone. There are significant areas of rock beds which could be reduced to result in no increase or even a net decrease in 75-250' hardcover. Additional hardcover areas in the 0- 75' zone might also be considered for potential hardcover removals. 5.Note that this property shares a driveway With th*“ Wilson property at 2485 North Shore Drive. Discussion The applicants are proposing remodeling and additions at the southeast corner of the existing house. A proposed 8* x 10' mudroom and entryway on the east side of the house will encroach 5' past the 30' side setback requirement of this 2 acre zone. The neighboring residence to the east is approximately 70' from this addition at it's closest point, and this entryway addition should have no effect in changing the character of the neighborhood nor reducing light, air or open space. These neighbors (the Warfield's) have submitted a letter in support of the request for variances to construct these additio.',s. Regarding hardcover, the proposed additions result in a minor hardcover increase. Applicants note that the drainage from the garage and driveway area is directed away from the lake. There is no question that landscape areas could be made non hardcover to result in a decrease in overall hardcover on the property in both the 0-75' and 75-250' zones. Staff Recommendation Staff would recommend approval of the side setback variance for the entryway addition, finding that it will not increase the visual density of the neighborhood, and would recommend approval of the additional structural hardcover associated with the 22' x 22' room additon subject to removal of other hardcover areas, the extent and location to be determined by Planning Commission. Isv .1 j 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 PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2AUS SWoilB t)g-\Cto ^ H O ± rTTV nr WA I f Cl L'MCIICrccrrcf Xt^rntu u*i I ici- 1 * — » i'.'r’ »i >» ^i*•^ ^ Chi/C*. W WV f > V' Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) irvoutn lU iv» 1 : xjtynf 175.00“L'CTr U » ;jrrrTOT..TUw vr.:Mi.ut.if f I f jmtf\ I wwi rTi.'vwC" CVV.A ncJi ic/*v» nO / 7 r/p/ \r // X U/ I V Attach legal description to application if not included required survey. APPLICANT Name Address; K]0ft.4 ^ TY< City; Phone (home) ‘^'7*3 __ Phone (wor)c) ^S3n~^3l'^ Zip; 5'5‘3^ I OWNER (if different than applicant) Neune _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address;City; •Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land OH* mm 49 mm mam • • mm am mm mm mm mm mm am aam mm ^m mm mmm mm mm mm mm ( PRESENT DSE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District _ _ _ Present Use of Property —■Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request Estimated Construction Cost $ iOO |{yPQ^ est in detail; \o WiVcWeiO Ag^Ai » '^nnAyx At^r^y A&nu-H irtJScYTFr---- VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area_ _ _ _ _ _ Lot Width X Hardcover Setback Variances (_ _ _ Front X Side _ _ _ Rear) Other d(TTlCa^cYr' ' ,SA'^' ^ S£Uo-/"~f t HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP DNUSOAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: lO W jQgiOfc L CU<u n REQUIRED SUBMITTALS Lx>-^ I^CTT 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 cria-.ges in existing grade are proposed. 6. S)cetches or plans of floor and elevation views. 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of a.'Y 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 above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Va iance 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 ^pplicatiM, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to thea£ his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature ^ ^ /ill/-..Date in . OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this recrtiest. Owner's Signature Date nj- 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. lo)C "1 * • * JEANNE MABUSTH CITY OF ORONO 1335 SOUTH BROWN ROAD CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 OCT ^ 10/01/90 RE: DUANE LUKE ADDITION/VARIANCE DEAR JEANNE: WE SUPPORT DUANE'S APPLICATION FOR A VARIENCE OF THE HARD COVER GUIDELINES TO BUILD AN ADDITION TO HIS HOME. WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL GRANT HIM THE VARIENCE NEEDED. THE ADDITION SHOULD BE A ASSET TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SAM MARFIELD JOYCE'^a[ARFIELD 2455 SCOTCH PINE LANE WAYZATA, MN 5391 473-3344 I . I ' CC: LUKES m i) tss^ c=5 (ky i. i cs=dm t*j >> ✓I 3 tn 3 V « • •• •c 01-117-53' j: f>* •TIL >} OB O 5 •...' \ s Ol'/l7-<55- RUN DATE 09/13/90 BATCH 003 PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR • • IIENr4EPlN COUNTY PROPERTY INF0RHATI0T4 SYS TEH PROPERTY OTHERS LIST 38 09-117>23 0009 00038 AODRESS UNASSIGNED CHARLES I DIRGITTA SCHOEN CHARLES t BIRGITTA SCHOEN 2<i3G NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA MN 55391 I PROP AODR OHTJER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 38 09-117-23 <1^ 000^ 02A55 SCOTCH PINE LA SAMUEL S HARFIELO t HIFE SAMUEL S HARFIELO 2^55 SCOTCH PINE LANE HAYZATA MN 55591 REPORT PT-.3W01 PAGE 7 58 09-117-23 COOl 02985 NORTH SHORE JR H V BURNETT ETAL C STEVEN WllSOtJ 2985 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-25 99 0002 02965 NORTH SHORE DR DUANE A LUKE ETAL DUANE A LUKE 2965 TK3RTH SHORE DR HAYZATA mi 55391 38 09-117-23 99 0007 02925 SCOTCH PINE LA II A C HILL II DOUGLAS A CHERYL HILL 2925 SCOTCH PINE LANE HAYZATA lUl 55391 TOTAL BATCH 003 00005 u. i fy A • C. ifc; I CERTIEY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEI0JEPIN COUNIY OEPARIMLNT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KNCNLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE . i-f SURVEYING A. ENGINEERING CO. • 5IUIS N a IOI Mi-ti«wULMN35W r»OM (412)4747«M SURVEY FOR. DUANE LUKE tURVe^-EO: Ai»tm 23. I'Fju -i.' ««• \ DRAFTRIV Anf«i 24. I^ni LEGAL PFSCRimoM TVji (*3M 0(C«AcrR«cM LiA 5. Sccihmi •*. T M«»4*f ||7. IU m 2.^ 4«ciM m nTnri- ■ pnMi« theccsicr itae *4R<*»| N/> «|. •ntch wnam jit ^4*1 Srctaia ‘K iliwMi ir^4) iv(t iomIi o4 tiM tlw ^aaftet cone* of im4 mkiiok UM mo m ■loom Wot aloof Ike tcaicr Use ul uol ro««t« Ruj 4 a 4^jmm of 30 looR iJItwo NmR II 4mm r? mmwua tkmt me hoc <4 vm4 r.>«i ris kci ikcace So«i4 «) 4tmi 01 mmmm I^Wf «4 l^»c Mioovttmu. •OCIHC M«o40r»»c«0r tluof taif lOnff (tog m gg loitfHnaHI MR f Rot IMM 5nmn »t ii€ttcK% or mmm*^ lum i»« paot m btoooMr i4mt Nu«i4 «4«mmOf ^ tJMrpMii4Sftaa«af $aO»c^i M. ..a sJ.CMCOI t.w paOOc mao u»cf lOc >u(t0caa««l» »| Icn ilMMiC AIM laMoa m m km » t .iri|< .4 t.a4 12 Ul la »aliA mf O fcci oo COdl ai4o of iRe nTa m |kaaftN4 uMf Uac. u. an (kfiMOf a« a pam m iM SantiemmH hoe of lit aiM OMrMua^ uou, jniaai ^.akrt oi lOeoom N*aihi;ftwco«aef tlictto^ '*^4*>vSRoiO!ii4MfM(fTaMooMO j ijo|coiul (a*»c lo i4t rMM «mi g iiOMt of IJD fcn m m »»H-nrtia«a aai lor ^*fm^»-\i«fttr iii»« «4 iia: iKa . jc*ctiN4 iraci ao4 iRoio ictMooMiR »c%eo iIS.l fcn StiMk aii oifrcoa n? «to»4ca Wo< h iRc KotUMoMflf (NWlo) owm of iRo im Min^ae «kaaii^r4. iRcoic ai a iifRi aofW lo a VaHRcaiteftt «StN) fMcoioo a Orioom of Hy i— (52) Lei. iKoiv ai a rifM tope m a SawRacatiiK |S\IW| «R«taiao a 4oiaoco of Ofta at i (54) fcoi. iRwi ai a rifN a#p»i >a a N.iria«oicri« f\Uhj ai#»ua»a a iiauaia iif (IOvam (52) Ret «ariT atooo iRt- • ---------------- - fW' hr I S}kh I ime ul ujct Jv^ni^ 10 ifet fmm I. MMITaTI'^Nt a«aM« « a«*« A««a«ar>'T»f«* •««■’*««k<««ii«Mmaaa •« ^faaa«ia«aaiNaa< «*aa«»ai*iv«»^ .*« .V .iMt *•« «•«« »• M • wta ««MMw*i •**•** ••“•nntri • .«» a«^ .< ai%»»aatia a.«r4».« •«« acaaaa«^a» a am > %a «aMg iMaa OM < ITanoaw D A roN\Tvno\a mmmmm *aaa mt •«»« .a* ( rooTinrATKiw A IRm • V < I Rewof erriiR iRai iRo »aar». • m prfwrO »m m, ^ .aOrf ai* Pniictaamai Sa«Mc^ aaOtt iRa U«%«4 iRv St.m >4 Mmhkmia 1*V* JOBH^ NtUt t A ^ I /jJi : *>. ^^ALcTw^NaTEOCML^Or^I J^e l^pmetonlci Ct^mC ^ajr HAfirCOVEH CALaUTION WORKSHEsT SSTJACX ZONE! (CIRCU one ) (?-7^ TSslJO'^^fl-SjlQa»/SOIJtI!IOP' ExtETiNO HAE0i;avES IN Zone | " A. • teSt^_2XS____ V zj* / • ... LSNC7H • • X WIDTH • t a _ S.P, ... ^ m _ s.pV • .... X • a _ S.P. X •• a ^ StPi • ■ , SARAfiS ... , 1 _ S.F, • r. DRtVE^AY X a , S.F. X a •# t . sip. • • B. SfBEWALK X •. S.F. X a . S.P. X a . S.P. E. Jatio /D eck lo ___ X 6-5 . S.P. * p.Landscape . x • S.P. AREAS UNOIRUIN o AIV .6^ X 4>- 2o 4 S.P. EUMTIC ’ EHgSTINO.,, ^ - IS4- • S.P. • • X •• a S.P. • • • a. Othm X • •• ■♦••• • f.p.• Total KARDCoveR in Zone . • . . Total Property Area in Zone 8.F, ^ q057 SJ T| ^23 .i.|Tl X100 ■» lO.T- % mm mam • # HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 5ST3ACK Z0N8: (CIRCLS 0N8) 0-75' Existing HAROjOvgR in Zone 250-500' 500-1000' A. ' Kouss E. Patio/ Deck F.LANOSCAAe AREAS UNOSRUIN »Y PLASTIC SHEETING G. O ther 2.7:____X LENGTH 3fe> • • • B. Oarage __ 0*. SioewALx — X \2> A q At II AO 60 X X “2.0 WIDTH X d / ^7 c. D riveway - - x------ ZS s: IS V Total H ardcover in Zone Total P roperty A rea in Zone SAO _ s.^.® ^S4 , 5, ,.,.©£^0^^ . S.P. S • r • s.p.(£) sip. Mi MN S.P. ----liK3 lo bQ S. P .'-'^^1 • S.p.^ Zoo ,.f/P ?.oo’ ..F.@ • • ♦••• ^06*=? «.F. S.P. "a 1 Z! Qftft R.R. [i [X T zi og>ft_ X100 » —^ m B)avnioC^ ts =• = 37.B ^ ^8)0--10 -• • t 9 f HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHE£: SETBACK ZONE! (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' (j5Q-50gj) 500-1000' EK^sTiNflJJahdjover in ^Zone A* ■ House B. Garage D.. SlDSHADC E. Patio / Decx F.Landscape AREAS UNOERUIN »Y PLASTIC SHEETINS Q, Other LENGTH c. Driyehay -—^lS>0 Total Kardcoyer in Zcns _ X ■ WIDTH X * S.F. S.F. X m • • S.F. X -a • S.F. • X • ____ S.F.• X m • . S 1 i* • ^ \-2_'2-\ 40 _ S.F.• • • S1 P1 X •S.F. \iff-. uX- S.F. )C ■S.F.fi s -s X S.F. •■_ S.F. X S.F. X • • C.F. S.F. Total Property Area in Zone . S.F, _‘2.) 40 S.F. [_A •z-Q^ig ..p. [i '2.1 fco j.m 2-8^1? X ICO = ^ % qc>^'^■*2toe.6-'2S^^l»= c;6V‘/3';<-«.sr- / ■■ o • # • • •• (ri i •• 5-2 V ^ VXN |(i>'^''>*P0 Setback Une lU . . . r '•5?.— t Concrete Biocke «•.* RXK sOftFACE. tt >> vv . ^QNC.WALK>! W N \ VV W V V vw ^ ^ NX^ -STORY FRAI WeLUN< #24€!9ft« ' (D- • CljNCRtTE. PATIO. <£y WMm PROPOSED «.* o-PROPOSED aooitioh -■’5 ‘Setback Line L Reteinmg^jWa^^ ROCK %URFACe ^7'JJ /f, boat : MOUSE- ROCK Deck ^ 0'^^ Ordinary Water Urt€,92S.4 Contour-. orv*w«;^ <T>#% ____\929.4 Shoreline August 22,1990 'T4^'n Qa, i4 a* m mrnmmt •• I r, I.- . ...Tr.. *■ i ft . =—.“ -z. !?• ./ i i • ■................................................................ — • 1/z- - --------------------- 1Jf t 1 _______ {, t t-h----------------- - ^ ^•!r ' \ a- ' f . 0 • A A -CiZL'’*"^ i>--------- —-:r^V r-------...."U-. ELr^vA 1 u'r. w, * ^ • •• ..-f .>-.Jb t U»J4ivi ^ -^’ * j *: I, • 7'r''^Vr*M r r-^<- I ’ • i ♦ , » I . I I • IV ii r • ,i. ’• • 4 J ; ^a&_elev^7.l^’^_____I 1 , > T i . I • I 1 .4 1 4 I H* *! » if I I jtM'.'i’ '<1 i > #< O',•«.#«- , .. . ’1. j ♦.* ’ '; .:'i - ■ iiil 1#15 ‘i J-. m i) iJjM'j'-jH r li»‘.***t'''l 1 ,.t V , , ^ ir.iiril^tmAi P»cpC;"i5|z4|V . ..n ■ I • »-• »*SAWHORSE IMC.'•Rf)o\i Annriio\>:< '.•4 • • • V lii pmjEai IvKs,' Ik •l~a!i « ♦.*» 'ni: l»i «• rr* a 1 ^;i'..•—‘—‘-f- ^!i i> I * • i ■* *? M*" I t I I:* <'.•!:* V: [>i i‘ •-. k* * . • t I 1 f. r* tM. > : -ft ' i>* • *rp4 f}c::^. . ^yt \^\t^ pkp^T^p/ if U^V i. U : >‘If •: I :• r ;:i' .. .. I i , . < »‘{ I 1 2 .T.''"! ■ ■*f • • «<■••••« L>p f- • 1 ^ *<A« ) ^>7 t:eiT»|L.iC3 R= ^ .%n * \*/ .. rt -y-tcKfwivi, iJ frpvJ<VP of’ f‘,V V/.I/ . j * •{■ —rCsjT '^ ^ r. "Aijc. , 1r*drv * :.ki rr - , rr——ti * •'. * J. • / . - asw aJ ' -. - .Jfcrt -----isa Imi •*- - V*4 1* r"p;p-: fv/Vc ’j Ii' ff A r-'LU f* I r?» fT. * • •/•#J r ^ I <• t) • 1^* 0»4': r^i^*’i ^-'lr *Jr , • 4 p* * C L . I:* rr V C-. I:' nV i-r <>' z-ir •' iv”w*’t. l_____;______U-.J----a-------u------ t'\0 p«r-1 ‘It* TW'r7 1* ♦/re I Kk^ • iw'nJtAp 'J ^uioep ik:zz:::zizzi=^^^“‘XT . . ir f % ^ : i; .,1 .♦* . A i, Ifri-9kj ? \ ^ ; ^ i 4 0 • ^ I - ■ » »;• ( . » > ’’ • .■-■♦‘r. ♦ 4 ♦ . 1 . ■» ‘ i.rf- • ’ \ <'• ?■ ;. '•••; ■ ■•. • . • * • * '* ’ S**t * 4^ .* *•*. . J -♦♦tv * iy» *' > ‘4 ♦' v’» . .’ J' ' - ‘i'l •• V ■-•: - ;• V • -• «> *« , *1 Ir f -c • I Vr^T—Jj-L * •err * 5*V “1 Cl !_i uviki:^ :1 j —”1 ,.J 1 ——-ii' ' - (T < - '’J / ' :-1 ---- 1 -11 . :r > 1 • ? • \Vi ; • 1 • i. . ♦/• ; • •• .^r I ••■ • til • 4 • . .• f $ •• \ u i .• 1 • • 1• •$ f. % * •• • . * •*' * «<: r t .1 > •'K- ’ ♦. I' # • . t ' 1 *•«0 ^ f • ••*. % y • iV») '•'i %• k 1 Vs 3 1*^ 1►(k eVu*1 » • • ?^LFVEi: FL.:;i ■■wr—r«fi‘III! ii^i~i~ii fii~mnnjT ii ■ ~ irirt i i ■ ii rii r if —rn n ■ n ir « -gg Qu€^STgt^ . Tfhrf LiKei-y uiiLL g<F /e^iz/Aj e. :TU^^ fAcPo^^L.____________ - Toj Mayor Grabek S Orono Council Membars Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date Subject October 11, 1990 #1596 Daryle L. Uphoff, 2699 Kelly Avenue Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB Total area = 25,696.3 s.f. or .6 acres List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Application Property Owners List Plat Map Hardcover Fact Sheets Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form Survey Lakeshore Improvements Floor Plan/Elevations Hardcover Improvements Staff Sketch Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 - Approximate 4-5' encroachment of average lakeshore setback line by proposed east side addition. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover variance. 0-75' total area = 6,250 s.f. Allowed = 0% Existing = 296.75 s.f. Proposed = 289.5 s.f. Reduction of 7.2 s.f. (new retail: vg walls to be constructs i out of 75' setback area) Hardcover 75-250': Area = 19,446.3 s.f. Allowed = 4,862 s.f. or 25% Existing = 7,402 s.f. or 38% Proposed = 7,537.2 s.f. (135 s.f. of additional hardcover per applicant's findings)*^ or 38.7% Proposed » 7,593.1 s.f. (190.9 s.f. per staff's findings)*^ or 39% Applicant proposes equal removal of existing non-structural hardcover of landscape areas underlain with plastic for purpose of maintaining hardcover at 38%. Zoning File #1596 October 11, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Non-structural hardcover on property increased 389.5 s.f. or 2% (77.5 s.f. of courtyard area as is included). Existing courtyard considered structural hardcover because of wall with footings in excess of 6' plus 312 s.f. for master bedroom expansion. Refer to Exhibits G and I, hardcover improvements within lakeshore yard involve approximately 55.9 s.f. of additional hardcover over existing hardcover at 311.9 s.f. Applicant's proposed lakeshore yard improvements show an increase of 55.9 s.f. of additional hardcover. Review of Application - The house was designed by the owner of the home and built in 1973 prior to current lakeshore regulations. The house meets the required 75' setback. The current application involves a master bedroom expansion of approximately 10'x31.2' along the east wall of the residence and the addition of a bedroom within the defined courtyard area. This addition is 16'xl5'6”. In addition, the applicant proposes the replacement of deteriorating timber walls and stairways within the lakeshore yard resulting in 55.9 s.f. additional hardcover over existing at 311.9 s.f. The applicant proposes removal of equal amounts of non-structural hardcover consisting of landscape areas underlain with plastic, in an attempt to maintain hardcover at the existing 38% level. Please review Exhibit J, the master bedroom expansion results in an encroachment of approximately 4-5' of an average setback line involving house to the immediate east. If members are able to visit the site, please review the landscaping planted between the two yards and the higher elevations of the yard to the east. In addition, che location of the main lake in relation to the view windows of the house to the east results in no impact of viev's of the lake. The applicant notes the following hardships; 1. The needs of his young family require a bedroom on the same level with the parents' bedroom. 2. The architectural design of the house does not permit an expansion upward. In addition, although not pertinent to the ordinances, the applicant notes that an upward addition will block the views of the neighbors' homes across Kelly Avenue. Zoning File #1596 October 11, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff has received no comments from the Garritys, the neighbors to the immediate east who receive the most impact from the proposed expansion. Please note, no side setback variances are necessary. Options of Action - 1. Denial. Please refer to Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) for necessary findings; or 2. Approval. A) As proposed by applicant maintaining hardcover at 38%; or B) Requiring non-structural hardcover removals equal to structural expansions totalling 389.5 s.f. or 2%. Total hardcover would be at 7,203.6 s.f. or 37%. C) Additional removals recommended by Planning Commission, please refer to Exhibit I. CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION A- Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 if _Jx (no change from original application) • » After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) t-'' • >>»V . . ^'O PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ____^ 4> ^ /A Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Z/- //7~ 7^3 Z3 Cj^*^ ( r7 7V r.r “.dih** vail t.‘l U'MWftfU Attach legal description to application if not included on rr;.j'vrr nccrrcI j./*nni.u ui t ILL, L'VW A 7 rnj 17-TVJL CLit ill-'* 7 T-/.V/JL u.WVCW'WW required survey. * _ _. . ..17=: M i I V.' • W APPLICANT Name L. C< erf/- — — — — — — — — fTtui-ii t tt.mn tuu Phone (home) v::<“.O icQl ROl TOJi^ Address; ^ _____ Phone (wor)c) City; ____ Zip; T^'Yb( {'\0 V;"» /"Of} V/ / i-V'/ IV 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 PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District ua-\6 Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail; A* y /it u Q 1.I'iL 5 7-/ fn *~OL .______________________________________________________ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances (Front Side Rear) Other HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ Rto; Idw, tw»*|l i,/oCK I'XUt o4DESCRIPTION OP DNDSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS J Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with ^Zo^in? Code Requirements;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ / REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1 2 Z), iUc). <»»/'• 3 4 5. 6 7 8 Completed Application Form u^.l ^ \r* ’*"<L^+to,r 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. ^ Sketches 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. 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 above information 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 information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. llidhjDate OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature \L 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. ') • ; ‘ v:i ! V;< Ij *‘-yT•• 1* r \m *»'. • i V ^ i V i| t'/“:• ' vtV \» . >;• •■^:i?.;• *.v.. sll ; •■■^ ^; h .'’. •■•,5'5'' ;v ^':lki'r. ^4*4 \ :■ :• * •. * * i w? ?; I. *' , . . f"‘‘i •'• i •. {vk‘v t v * . - * • >» *• •.; 1 ■'*' •'• ' ; ■ N.'J • '...•. ‘ •!*•**'' r*.*‘ >1 .. » ir'* . ‘: .-. - ^ b* f V •• * • ! ,y • 4 * .5 i;. . 1 . 5 . ft •. 4 * •» i e-^^-'rv ;■•* jCv-'J :;-''; •: ♦ • -*» • • K 9r * •' ' *'*«• ■ i'. ' ; 4^ . >-< >> •• ^LUfALTERS : 4k, ^ BAY BZIOiTS i z- PORT LA % 4/ » J :: if * P^^ASAfjr I ’ • » « V • I \ RUN DATE 09/04/90 BATCH 001 HENT^EPIN COJT4?’ .»TY INFORMATION SYSTEM <‘Ct4ER5 LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE I C PROP ADOR 0NT4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADi)R 38 20-117-23 14 0004 02655 LYDIARD AVE J A J DERG JAMES DERG 2655 LYDIARD AVE EXCELSIOR m 55331 38 ts. 14 0007 02695 KELLY AVE S A H KAPLAN GARY BIPJaAUH 2695 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR m 55331 38 20-117-23 14 0008 02695 KELLY AVE G DIRNDAUH ADS DIRNDAUH GARY DIRrCAUM 2695 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN 55331 PROP ADDR ONTTER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 21-117-23 23 0033 02700 KELLY AVE R B RICE ADD RICE RICHARD D A DEBORAH D RICE 2700 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MT4 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0034 02710 KELLY AVE LEE R MUMKELHITZ LEE R MUri<;ELHITZ 2710 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MT4 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0039 02702 HALTERS PORT LA A J MCDERMOTT III ET AL ANOREH J MCDERMOTT III AND JEROME L SKITTER 2702 HALTERS PORT LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 C C DROP ADOR OHr4ER NAME TAXPAYER :^AME/ADDR 38 21-117-23 23 0040 02701 KELLY AVE C E GARRITY A A GARRITY CHARLES E GARRITY 2701 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MT4 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0041 02699 KELLY AVE DAL UPHOTF DARYL L A LUCY S UPHOTF 2699 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR m 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0042 02703 HALTERS PORT LA HILLIAM H REESE JR A HITE HILLIAM H REESE JR 2703 HALTERS PORT LANE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 21-117-23 23 0D43 02705 HALIERS PORT LA DONALD H NELSON ETAL DONALD H NELSON RT 2 EXCELSIOR MT4 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0046 02710 PEr4CE LA DEAN E TERRY DEAN E TERRY 2710 PENCE LAf4E EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0047 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED A J MCDERMOTT III ET AL ANOREH J MCDERMOTT III AND JEROME L SKITTER 2702 HALTERS PORT LA EXCELSIOR m 55331 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 21-117-23 23 0048 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ENVlROt4MENTAL PLAft4ING IfC ENVIRONMENTAL PlMiiUiG lUC 4530 IDS CENTER MPLS MN 55402 TOTAL BATCH 001 00013 1‘ Im* n t'-Tr Q .:)o •«• 9 RUN DATE 09/0^/90 3ATCH 001 HEfJNEPIN CCXiNTY PROPERTY INFORMATIOr4 SYSTEM PROPERTY OHTiERS LIST REPORT NO. P1935901 PAGE 2 f i O r \ M ^ "7” IL ^ / HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET L^'AirTsiz'‘> Poz r SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONs) 75-250' 250-5C0' 5C0-1G00' Existing Hardccver in Zone • • A. ■ House X • S.F. LENGTH WIDTH • X « S . r . • • X •^m S.F. •• X • •• S.F. • _ ■ . X • *• • •• S.F. 3. Garage . X S.F. c. Drivev /ay ___ X • S.F. X $ S.F.•• • D.. Sidewalk _■ 2'X t? =S.F. . X S.F. • . X S.F. E. P atio/ Deck • » X S.F. • • F.Landscape . •X t S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN 3Y .X • • S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X • • • S.F. 71CJC K < • V X 1 1 II>S.F. c lsz, . 3 G. Other • X 7. C . S.F. 6-/ Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone A 3 X 100 - CD 03 vn G/ f ‘j ? ! S.F. S.F.5 % k!c c»*Aw<’a*-i f** IC-.V I ' • » P £• ' r’J ■ >» ■ • •« #••• • i PAC-Yi-^uo'T z. , z, j , rocT HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEEj_ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ome) 0-75' (75-250' Existing Hardcover in Zone 250-500' 5G0-1GC0'b- • • A.HoiISr X 5/. z <^45.^S.r. LENGTH WIDTH • • X n*i.5 S.F. •X Zo,z>,• • s.r. • # .«» • ’ ^X • «« S 1 r • 7'f X &-Z • • •• • . • a 1 ‘i. c?S.F. Carag =X • • S • F • C. 1 • IstVrWAY X T f • ' •* ., S t F • X _ ■« • • S.F. • • • n. 511 nRWAi K ('r > X _1 S.r. V * • j,ou2.r -?iS^ rC jH.S «*-i- X =•S.F. A-CC7 X /£P.Z?" .o'S • r • E.^ATIO/ Deck X h^ft «■ S.F. • • • c \ An r AP c zif /P'mmm /Z-7V. 4-S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN Av . f'nhi_r'r:v /’.r’-iiX _ ,^-p . iL. / / . '. S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING E<-2 X • s .//7 -• « S.F. P«-e. P-AnTi’I;X * - ^Z?S.F. r.. Oth^p 2^Z LC.L&X ss • L-/ •S.F. V V % Total Hardcover IN Zone 7 4LJ2..X S.F. ' Total Property Area i:1 Zone /44~;;-. 0 . S.F. X 100 -V-K ^ *LJ ff \ 8 *1 > O' \ •7 ^ .. 3 ] % •»- d.T^iTr'SfM A 1‘A>*7.C*>F "*■ C'j 4^ :« it ^ ivi-r^ii' in'67.10 iCu:C*4 TA.^C .'f ' HnlP CO-'C ' TO?t | <ic? O •*>(' l.pJiAn M'U V' a. •• #.*• • -V* i Adjaceni: Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form I (we) /h/yyr 2-7^/ [print name(s)J \j print address]/^ have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No. . 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. y Property Owner Date ^ o Date 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 4 Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 0^t M 1 S»m ' ^o j 'j.wj' To: Date: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator October 11, 1990 Subject: #1597 Ralph D. Burgess, Jr., 2610 West Lafayette Rd - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre Application - Hardcover variance to replace deck in 0-75' zone. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F ■ Application ■ Plat Map ■ Property Owners List • Letter of Request & Neighbor Acknowledgement ' Survey ■ Resolution #2037 Including Hardcover Calculations/Site Plan Exhibit G - Construction Plans Pertinent Pacts - 1. Please review applicant's letter of request. Mike Peters is project manager for Mr. Burgess on the remodeling of the residence. Planning Commission may recall Mr. Burgess had originally requested to totally replace this house with a walkout style residence, which required excavation in the 0- 75' zone. That request was rejected by the Planning Commission and the Council, and ultimately Mr. Burgess decided to remodel the existing house to sell it. He revised his original application to merely a replacement in kind of the existing garage, which Council approved with no changes in pre-existing hardcover. 2. As noted in Mr. Peter's letter of request, a miscommunication with one of his workmen resulted in the pre-existing 12'x21' deck being totally removed rather than repaired. As it is the City's policy to consider removed structures as no longer existing, the placement of that deck in the 0-75' zone requires a variance. Zoning File #1597 October 11/ 1990 Page 2 of 2 Discussion - As can be noted on the site plan, this deck is 55' from the shoreline, and is entirely located in the 0-75' zone. 0-75' hardcover includes stairs and retaining walls, a portion of the house, patio, and the deck for a total of 7.9%. In the 75-250' zone, hardcover is 33.7%. In the 0-75' zone, 1% is approximately 179 s.f. The 12'x21' deck constitutes 1.4% in the 0-75' zone. Staff Recommendation - The Planning Commission is requested to consider whether or not the pre-existing 12'x21' deck can be replaced in kind. I so, does Planning Commission wish to recommend reduction of other hardcover on the property or accept the pre-existing hardcover percentages? I fc Ih J I T* r • m . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ■ tOt, fTP '/ ( CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 . . ($50.00 per each additional variance) -v=- » Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) rr • V \ • , ify . I y y j / / < • PROPERTY LOCATION TV* mC TC “vA Site Address ^CslD W r.‘;i.-'--rr nrrrrrI aitr^MUL. L'l I iui. V'vv*w m / rrii* fT- .V) Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)U I T1f u < T^T /V> X !\J mV>i Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. uLraciT-'-Miy vnij tsuimuxi I I tw •f * '.* i < • I * 11 / I < i ? i I f < 111,' • i ? / A VV'V IwW'X I V' / .' imX/ /V APPLICANT Name Phone (home)__________________ Phone (wor)c) SS^ - •S^CO Address; L^n^City;Zip; 5*5qq 7 OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address:Citv;Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT OSE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width /Hardcover Side Rear)Setback Variances (_ _ _ Front _ _ _ _ _ _ Other _ _L ..rOv^/N-f ^y^ UIDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: r<g'<y^ved._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ U ASCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ AQUIRED SUBMITTALS / N 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 (provide one (1) copy 8h"xll" for reoroduction). Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8%"xll"). S)cetches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8%"xll"). 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. :e Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please •member that vour variance aoolication is not corr.olete if the above iformation has not been included. •PLICANT'S SIGNATURE le applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or iquested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff .me not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses curred in review of this application, and certifies that the information pplied is true and correct to jplicant's Signature r\ theifpest of his/her knowledge. Date rNZRS SIGNATURE le owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further thorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, ents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga- on and verification _of tfiis ro^uest. ner's Signature ^ * Date ^Q plicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the anning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the ird Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled view meetings of the Planning Commission and Council- If an applicant is able to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an thorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building 6 Zoning ice of this change prior to the meeting. <• ••** « f *^»-• » ; •• f .* I* •* •'A... A ‘.V. • /•" -• • t. • • •. 1 • • .^. # — C • - • . . . ^.r^- Jl\*f •*• J* if* •• • • *• KUN DATE 06/23/89 . orfve. 90 IILimLl'in COUNTY PROI'ENTY llirORMATIOM SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE 1 PROP. ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 21-117-23 21 0001 2606 WEST LAFAYETTE RD E M & J L RODGERS JR ELEANOR & JOHN L RODGERS JR 2606 WEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 21 0002 2600 WEST LAFAYETTE RD D M & D K GILMAN DAVID & DONNA GILMAN 2600 LAFAYETTE ROAD W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 21 0003 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE RD S S & V L HAMILTON S S & V L HAMILTON 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 21-117-23 21 0007 2605 WEST LAFAYETTE RD BRADFORD L BLANKENSHIP MOLITOR & ASSOCIATES INC 4530 W 77TH ST SUITE 219 EDINA MN 55435 38 21-117-23 21 0010 2607 WEST LAFAYETTE RD MARY HANNAH HRS JOHN I) HANNAH 2607 W LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0043 2610 WEST LAFAYETTE RD RALPH D BURGESS JR RALPH D BURGESS JR 205 INLAND LA PLYMOUTH MN 55447 1 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 21-117-23 24 0044 2630 WEST LAFAYETTE RD THOMAS P LOWE ETAL THOMAS P LOWE 2630 W LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0048 2635 WEST LAFAYETTE RD H MAC GREGOR LYMAN LYMAN LUMBER 300 MORSE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-U7-23 24 0045 DONALD A layman ETAL LYMAN LUMBER CO 337 WALKER ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0049 DONALD A LYMAN LYMAN LUMBER 33/ WALKER ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0047 2655 WEST LAFAYETTE RD DREW D WHITESIDE DREW D WHITESIDE 2655 WEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0050 2650 MAPLERIOGC LA D J CLARKIN i K J CLARKIN D J CLARKIN & K ) CLARKIN 2650 MAPLERIDGE LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 .. 4 «• i— I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENIAllON OF INEORMATION AS IT APPEARS T'lIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. ■ISIIPIIIIIIIII ssggaa September 20, 1990 Orono Planning Commission Members Orono City Council Members c/o City of Orono 1335 South Brown Road Orono, MN 55323 /7 O I.•• \ ' ? i ft W ’ 4 . V f i RE: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 2610 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD Ladies & Gentlemen: Due to a misunderstanding on my part, it is necessary that I again come before you with a variance request for 2610 West Lafayette Road. I apologize for taking more of your time with this project. I was in attendance representing Mr. Ralph Burgess, Jr. at the July 23, 1990 City Council Meeting, to finalize a vari ance request for 2610 West Lafayette Road. The Council at that time approved the replacement "in kind" of a detached garage on the site. A percentage of hardcover was also approved encompassing all of the hardcover on the site. On a recent Monday building inspection, I was dismayed to hear that I had made an error by attempti'^*’ to upgrade the deck floor boards which were severely weatnered due to neglect. I was under the impression that this was allowable, as the Council had earlier approved the percent age of hardcover for the site, and the dpck was included in that percentage. After conversations with Lyle Oman and Mike Gaffron I now understand I was mistaken. To further complicate the problem, a workman ma an error when I was unavailable and dismantled the entit« I have tried to work closely with Lyle :> this project and have asked for his input on a number of questions which have arisen. He acknowledges that this was an honest mistake. I would like to assure you that my intent has always been to work within your guidelines as I hope to v;ork well with you on projects in the future. FEC CONSTRUCTION DIVISION 2765 NIAGARA LANE • MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55441 USA • PHONE: (612) 559-5200 • • • September 20, 1990 Page Two I am asking you to approve the request to replace the deck to its' pre-existing plan. The deck is an integral part of the overall house plan as it pre-existed. The deck is an important design aspect to the overall appeal and utiliza tion of the house. Thank you again for your time. Please feel free to call me if I can answer any further questions you may have. Res Mike Peters Construction Superintendent 804-9315 (home) 868-0903 (daytime) MP/cj cc: Ralph D. Burgess, Jr. President FEC Construction Division 2765 Niagara Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 I (we) Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form A'‘> P- of ^r f.*.i A rA'/e//x (print name(s)][print address] Application No._ _ _• I (we) understand that in executing this acltnowledgament, 1 (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 <«e) am the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project requires Council approval. I —v«w ? 1 y Property Owner Date Property Owner Date ************************************** I (we)of [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the nave ^ also referred to as Land Useproperty located at _________________________ Application No. ♦ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare-approval or disapproval of the Lt merely to confirm for the City Council the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the his Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building 'oning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. • i CITY OF I ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _________ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #1428 WHEREAS, Ralph D. Burgess (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of property located at 2610 West Lafayette Road withxn the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: All of Lot 11, Shore Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota except the southeasterly 15’, front and rear, (hereinafter "the property")? and WHEREAS, the applicant on June 23, 1989 applied to the City of Orono for variances and a conditional use permit seeking approval of land alterations within the 0-75' protected lakeshore setback zone where no land alterations are normally allowed, and requested a variance to allow hardcover in excess of 25% in the 75—250* lakeshore setback zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 1989 the Orono Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested variances and conditional use permit. The City Council reviewed the application on August 28, 1989 and directed City staff to draft a resolution for denial of the requested variances. On September 11, 1989, the City Council table final action on a denial resolution at the applicant's request, pending submittal of a revised plan by the applic..nt; and WHEREAS, on July 5, 1990 the applicant suomitted a revised proposal for interior and cosmetic improvements to the existing residence^ with no proposed work outside the existing walls or roof line, and with no land alteration proposed. Additionally, the revised proposal included replacement in kind of the existing 22 x 26 detached garage, to be replaced in the existing garage^ location, requiring a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow continued hardcover in the 75-250' zone of 33.7% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 11428. Page 1 of 4 I • I CITY OF ORONO J City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2837_ _ _ _ _ _ 2. The property is located in the LK-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono City Council reviewed this application on July 23, 1990 and finds that replacement of the existing deteriorating detached garage in kind and in the existing conforming location, will provide a benefit to the property and to the neighborhood while not changing the existing percentage of hardcover on the property. 4. The Council further finds that the revised proposal is of such a minor magnitude as to require no further review by the Orono Planning Commission. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect cf the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the replacement of the existing detached 26' x 22' garage, allowing continuation of the existing 33.7% hardcover in the 75-250' zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall submit suitable construction plans for City staff review and approval, verifying that the proposed garage will not exceed the current footprint dimensions and meet all other City requirements. Page 2 of 4 1 • • • CITY I ORONO City of OFtOIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2837__________ 2. Applicant is advised that hardcover on the property in the 0-75' and 75-250' zones may not exceed the amounts and percentages as shown on the survey and table attached as Exhibit A. Any future proposals to increase hardcover on the property in those zones will not be allowed, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover, yielding no net hardcover increase. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (July 23, 1991). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate a.iy authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 23rd day of July, 139 f. attest: , City Cler,James R. Grabekr W yor Propef^y Owner(s) M STATE OF MINNESOTA ) } ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was ac)cnowledged before me on this 23rd day of July, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor 6 City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behali^ofs the City.^^ j ^ !' j <-f Notary PuVlIc Page 3 of 4 RUN DATE 09/13/90 BATCH 003 .•ilENT^EPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATIOtl SYSTEM PROPERTY OEAJERS LIST REPORT f*0. PT .35901 PAGE 7 PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 09-117-23 91 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CHARLES A BIRGITTA SCHOEN CHARLES I BIRGITTA SCHOEN 293C NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA HN 55391 PROP ADOR OUTER NAME TAXPAYER LUHE/ADDR 38 09-117-23 99 0009 02955 SCOTCH PINE LA SAMUEL S HARFIELO A HIFE SAMUEL S HARFIELO 2955 SCOTCH PINE LANE HAYZATA rtr 55391 38 09-117-23 99 0001 02985 NORTH SHORE DR H V BURNETT ETAL C STEVEN HILSON 2985 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 99 0002 02965 NORTH SHORE OR DUANE A LUKE ETAL DUANE A LUKE 2965 r<ORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA IVT 55391 38 09-117-23 99 0007 02925 SCOTCH PINE LA II A C HILL H DOUGLAS A CHERYL HILL 2925 SCOTCH PINE LANE HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 003 00005 I'iRji'iy.iL'io iE,s^SER,mG TO; JuaiitiES. DUANE LUKE ‘ —— ... . .,, A*|w*4 U. I Ml CfLlEZm ^»rvM lA I'Mi \ LCC %! n«?5rf trr^oN {^-iin« IV v.-^.cr -.»k' "J • r^^’J 4^TT"^ “ Co«uw«i«| m • Vo*>, . 4mim i:ut .M ,v Lm 4-|r,cf c.w*«, J"’Emi IU.O# A«i ,h>., U«t ^ wiiJ C\....! B 1. "*• « ..4 l^iC •^•HC .V—. r -uavia Wru UIJM •hr f»n.iM.4 ^ ^ «*»|»<«i 07 «ai,to Ej *j ^ :r::r,:r.T-.-';': ::r:'^ •■r ------ •«... s... .7 7 .y^zz'T" '* *" -- •••mua.arr _________ M., ^ w..r ou-... ^ «*-«• « *or^ i:3*i i n ^...a «. „. kwmitai nttr- Uci n $ ••{%( ,mxK i« a ik %u». j * •t‘n*it$m $ a«iia«4C u4 mo i J2j >'tx ..,K,. i„.i“ 7i. 7!u.r, - - * "< •"*« •’*' *«’" • ................'** MJ —.. , ..* ^ "*’^*****'* •.*«••* •■-«••.» MM IL.V»-a\W0>V*fH>LAA. .\rNTfo>^ M ■ • -•• • <n« w% M M. IP.M ’ •. M M»«*o • M.wf •«• ■», ...M .0* fMMtl t. ’ r WM* .W« .M M f "IMt M my]fv-Anr?fa ‘'-I »*«r> •«• MBTf ■« 4imi Si.,n .4 Miooumm • 1 • .,___•-> ;:\» . l«Mrt M r**»rf f L T% M fijlf ihM I M a torsMO Sber«itn« Avi9u«7 JidJce Cf(innetdnLd Cz^stiC ^iy HARDCCVEH WLC'JLATIQN WORKSHEET SST3ACK ExUTINi LSNSTH B« Saragz C. DRlYfrtAY D«. Sidewalk E. Patio / D eck ^3 F. Landscape AREAS UNOEAUIN BY . . PLASTIC 34 SMEETINO -A:> s. Other WIDTH - X X __ 'Tr T otal HARocovEa in Z one Total Property A rea in Zone • •••• • <^23 ^0^ SiF. 8.F. S.F. S.F SI • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. 2.0 4 s.F. f ^4~ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. [X S.F B a]_ ^2^3 -i|Tl 100 % • • •» HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SE73ACK 2CN6: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' (ff-250j 250-500' 5GO-1QCO EXI57INQ HaRCJCVER IN ZONE At ■ House I B. Garage £. Patio/ Deck p. LandscapeAREAS UNDERLAIN »YPLASTIC SHEETINO Q. O ther LENGTH • 'in. ■ Q>.S c. D riyehay - — AO 4^ 40 6o WIDTH X 6 V/A ^7 D.. Sidewalk V^A x X X s: IS Total Kardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone • 540 • *934i s.p.® ^54 s./;<:s>f!ii£2^ 52. S.P. , ©S • r • I gap a.g/o ®3®ir7 V i 41 4 S.F. K3 lo <5o S.Fi li ■S • ? » .T* J Zoo «.f.D .F. ©OC) s 2.! Qft^ s.p S.P. t S.P. i aot.q__Am 2.1 o&p. «100 = 3S3 % £%ivn^(i IS ?c>^ ■• ^1 ogft = 37.0^ ^10- - & - .«. *•• • ) 1 t k I •, • • • # ^ HARDCOVES UUL'UTiON WORKSHEii SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' (250-50^ 500-1000 Existing Harcjcver in ^Zone A. ■ House B. Garacs Di. Sidewalk E, Patio / D eck p.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING LENGTH c. D riveway IS.^. WIDTH X a S.p. X m s.p. y a • „ s.p. X s.p. • • X • _ S • r •Tr •X \'2--60 ^ s.p. a • • sip. \i ‘ X =s.p. ___s.p. .N 0 s.p.Jf* r.*v *iL \ •• • X S.p. DC ■s.p. m pmrn ^ ^ T j X m s.p. ' X t a • # m* r » 0. Other Total Kardcoyer in Zone Total Property Area in Zone 2.) LO s.p. S.F. S.P S.P A B 2.) feO « B I X 100 » (:> _ yo ••• • • r^r. Shoreline August 22.,^S90 p4^ti • i £* —4. «-r.f -.• *-r r 5 to. -* • •' .♦ -)i :: - ---------- — - ------- - ■f.rp - r ■• 4?---r- __________J Ato> r ^ -^. 'm ELu 'n A 1 U'»J------ I V, » .to.* toC T; T * 7^* <n f ^c.*-c .1^7 kuy^itol ^ . ^ . •. ' 1 . 1 • f^r\y • i ti4 •• • EuEV^l A^U_____i . ■ -5 . . »v .> .;: *1 : ■ I.. • ’ ' .« 4 J »• » . I « :l .# •• •• . 1 • ^ ’•»! ». ,t*<f.’|i i» • '1i ‘ ■ I , li' ,• }* 1 ji■•*.. ' > I . f p»--p?re|s4l*v>i fillHi t' E . { «• • ;s _____ 1 I i SAWHORSE FNC.ROOM \IM'>riK'\'.-»sagasMBi'; .iiMck L»ne r^~ - \ y V.5fl.O •’■ r P. ; . ui\ uf.i^ff - /V— • » ___*----z' ' \ ■ : t- - \ T. 'fv^ii >••••• • '. if - - ■ ■.««..- J-; • • . \»,‘Vr:- - • um 3* •'. «■ **r ;-* .: ShoreUnc Au0vjst 22., w. « • .. • »• •,^. , , % %. 4* T^c ^nnetbn{ ^C^ystiC M __ — ^ 1 I I V ^ A .K|.4 --------. • minnetonh-a ^cfly5T»t ' • ••■ < ' • N f • N ' •• *• 1 iy r~ r» «JMTU^<xnr^^ 5eT2S.Af.*sl ^»•« I nTiMfruiirMtartyginw 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: October 11, 1990 #1596 Daryle L. Uphoff, 2699 Kelly Avenue Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB Total area = 25,696.3 s.f. or .6 acres List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Application Property Owners List Plat Map Hardcover Fact Sheets Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form Survey Lakeshore Improvements Floor Plan/Elevations Hardcover Improvements Staff Sketch Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 - Approximate 4-5' encroachment of average lakeshore setback line by proposed east side addition. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover variance. 0-75' total area = 6,250 s.f. Allowed = 0% Existing = 296.75 • f. Proposed = 289.5 s.'. Reduction of 7,2 s.i.. (new retaining walls to be constructed out of 75' setback area) Hardcover 75-250': Area = 19,446.3 s.f. Allowed = 4,862 s.f. or 25% Existing = 7,402 s.f. or 38% Proposed = 7,537.2 s.f. (135 s.f. of additional hardcover per applicant's f .• A *1 to 7»findings)*^ or 38.7% Proposed » 7,593.1 s.f. (190.9 s.f.^per staff'sfindings)*2 ©r 39% Applicant proposes equal removal of existing non-structural hardcover of landscape areas underlain with plastic for purpose of maintaining hardcover at 38%. J Zoning File #1596 October 11, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Non-structural hardcover on property increased 389.5 s.f. or 2% (77.5 s.f. of courtyard area as is included). Existing courtyard considered structural hardcover because of wall with footings in excess of 6' plus 312 s.f. for master bedroom expansion. *2 Refer to Exhibits G and I, hardcover improvements within lakeshore yard involve approximately 55.9 s.f. of additional hardcover over existing hardcover at 311.9 s.f. Applicant's proposed lakeshore yard improvements show an increase of 55.9 s.f. of additional hardcover. Review of Application - The house was designed by the owner of the home and built in 1973 prior to current lakeshore regulations. The house meets the required 75' setback. The current application involves a master bedroom expansion of approximately 10'x31.2' along the east wall of the residence and the addition of a bedroom within the defined courtyard area. This addition is 16'xl5'6". In addition, the applicant proposes the replacement of deteriorating timber walls and stairways within the lakeshore yard resulting in 55.9 s.f. additional hardcover over existing at 311.9 s.f. The applicant proposes removal of equal amounts of non-structural hardcover consisting of landscape areas underlain with plastic, in an attempt to maintain hardcover at the existing 38% level. Please review Exhibit J, the master bedroom expansion results in an encroachment of approximately 4-5' of an average setback line involving house to the immediate east. If members are able to visit the site, please review the landscaping planted between the two yards and the higher elevations of the yard to the east. In additi n, the location of the main lake in relation to the view windows of the house to the east results in no impact of viev/s of the lake. The applicant notes the following hardships: 1. The needs of his young family require a bedroom on the same level with the parents' bedroom. 2. The architectural design of the house does not permit an expansion upward. In addition, although not pertinent to the ordinances, the applicant notes that an upward addition will block the views of the neighbors' homes across Kelly Avenue. Zoning Pile #1596 October 11, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff has received no comments from the Garritys, the neighbors to the immediate east who receive the most impact irom the proposed expansion. Please note, no side setback variances are necessary. Options of Action - 1. Derial. Please refer to Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) for necessary findings; or 2. Approval. A) As proposed by applicant maintaining hardcover at 38%; o- B) Requiring non-structural hardcover removals equal to structural expansions totalling 389.5 s.f. or 2%. Total hardcover would be at 7,203.6 s.f. or 37%. C) Additional removals recommended by Planning Commission, please refer to Exhibit I. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION /f 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 ^ (o ^ ^ /A #1 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) "2^1 It'J Z.3 Ca V ( rrrv (*c I I Ulr7;;A;?rr riccrrcI st*nn\.u %Ji I X ifu 7 T^/V“v**ruV\A A W WW Attach legal description to application if not included on OJ, 175.00 required survey. Phone (hone ) 1 ~ ^ ^ v I'-Qj ~<01 T07‘^ 09/20/70 Name L . 6 crf</-________________ Phone (work )__^2Z i11-L£---------- Address: kli fL _________ City: ^ ’«-C*/VwTv Zip:_ZH2Z----- APPLICANT OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property \_a-v0 Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ (f0,o(r^'- - Describe request in detail: J pbiitiL t-tl. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _—_ _ _ VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) HARDSHXP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: f-f-V^ux.^ cr.v^v-a^ _ ^ec^/d , ^YO^oo</ t^Ul y>-a^ --------------------------------------------------- Qtc- [dw, U^**|l iUCKtrx'XUt oifDESCRIPTION OP DNDSOAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS StAvA/r» J Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with^^ning Code Requirements:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ / d-Jek . 2. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form t^.L >a ^ ^ <Li—4t»r 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 i in existing grade are proposed. Slcetches 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. 8 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 tlie above information 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 information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Date 1 lidhj OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature i L- 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. m *»• i •^ .1 . ^-V.vvv ■•..••;':{‘/.vvhi • * • ’ - • i ^: • ■■• i-v,.' ; ••. ?«*L •$ •• .'* •*4 - >i 5 • '•.•. ■ ••. ; ;& • L' * ‘ • * “ . ' • • • t»f /•!.; ■,• 1 ' •• *1 ••. I < •*5 • ; V i • vJi • ;* ! • • . ... »t • ; - Ir.v‘•••.:•'•*• •• • • ■ -: . •;^ b'(v • •*- • 1. • : t M •. I •;; . .. • I ^ -»** * ' ^ « I -»v *-< ^ .1 • • '■ t-V • -i' • >S • y jt__ j.mhdiAw ^ BAY BSICHTS i - - AIL 71 I •. S 3 * •I • .S'* ^ ".I ■ ^54 - ^^^ASAfJT ■( • 4 * I r :r RUN DATE 09/0<^/90 BATCH 001 PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP ADOR (M4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR OHT^ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR HEWEPIN COJTfTY PROPERTY INFORMATIOt4 SYSTEM PROPERTY 0HF4ERS LIST 36 20-117-23 19 0009 02655 LYDIARD AVE J S J DERG JAMES DERG 2655 LYDIARD AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 36 21-117-23 23 0033 02700 KELLY AVE R B RICE ADD RICE RICHARD D t DEBORAH D 2700 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICE 36 21-117-23 :3 0090 02701 KELLY AVE C E 6ARRITY A A 6ARRITY CHARLES E GARRilY 2701 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MT4 55331 36 21-117-23 23 0093 02705 HALTERS PORT LA DONALD H NELSON ETAL DONALD H NELSON RT 2 EXCELSIOR MT4 55331 36 21-117-23 25 0098 00036 ADDRESS Ur4ASSIGt4E0 ENVIROrtlENTAL PLArt4ING INC EfiVIRONMENTAL PLArt4ING UK 9530 IDS CEf4TER MPLS MN 5S902 38 20-117-23 19 0007 02695 KELLY AVE S A H KAPLAN GARY BIRr4BAUH 2695 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR M4 55331 36 21-117-23 23 0039 02710 KELLY AVE LEE R MUT4KELHIT2 LEE R MUMKELHITZ 2710 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MT4 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0091 02699 KELLY AVE DAL UPHOFF DARYL L A LUCY S UPHOFF 2699 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MT4 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0096 02710 PEf4CE LA DEAN £ TERRY DEAN E TERRY 2710 PEr4CE LANE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TOTAL BATCH 001 00013 REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 1 38 20-117-23 19 0008 02695 KELLY AVE G DIRNDAUM ADS DIRNDAUM GARY DIRr4BAUM 2695 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 36 21-117-23 23 0039 02702 HALTERS PORT LA A J MCDERMOTT III ET AL ANDREH J MCDERMOTT III AND JEROME L SKIFTER 2702 HALTERS PORT LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0092 02703 HALTERS PORT LA HILLIAM H REESE JR A NIFE HILLIAM H REESE JR 2703 HALTERS PORT LANE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-25 23 0097 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED A J MCDERMOTT III ET AL ANDREH J MCDERMOTT III AND JEROME L SKIFTER 2702 HALTERS PORT LA EXCELSIOR m 55331 !i )o ^\Jl \ I cc t •u r • I ^ . . • $$ RUN DATE 09/0^/90 3ATCH 001 HEf4NEPlN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHTJERS LIST # #• r REPORT NO, PI435^01 PAGE 2 n I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATIOTT OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HErHEPIN COUTFIY OEPARJMEN/ OF PROPERJJY TAXATION* TO TJ<E BEST OF MY MAJWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DAT "7/ if f r V 2. t: 2. P02.J HARDCOVER CALCUUTIOfI WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE one) /O-zJP 75-250' 250-500' 5C0-1GC0' Existing Hardccver in Zone • • M •■ House ‘ x • S.F. LENGTH•«WIDTH • X s • S.F, «• X • • • S.F.m •• X • •• S.F. • X • ** •94m S • r • 3.Garage x • S . r • C. • Driyev /ay . . X • S . r • 1 X • S.F. • D.. • • S idewalk ; x a-*■&. 0 S.r. X S.F. •• X S.F. E.^ATIO/ . 3eck X _ « S3 . m ^ • S.F. • • F.Landscape ‘ x ^ • S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , X • • S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X • • • S.F. • r A V X • W S.F. cL-?& . 5 G. Other ' x •S 7. V S.F. *. Total Hardcover in Total P roperty A rea in • Zone S.F. 1 Zone ^ z o.r?S.F. 6'-/ n 1■yz^ j cj ct. <L._ j \ 1 * A R L -J X ICO % • • • k!c cuA^jra'-i I M c*. >v/V I ’ ♦^ *r*j-*i #\r^P • •• #..• • • w A* ■-------------------- ------———Aa M M ■ «<r-tr. PAC-Yue^" u'PHorF^ uo-r =. , f- 2, j . roc T HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET^ N. SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE one) 0-75' ( 75-a50' Existing Hardcover in Zone 250-500'ripn ! • • A Ho u s c X 5/. z M'b.'b . SI F1 •• LENGTH WIDTH . • • X ZC^.'L =3 17^.5 S.F. •• •o•X ZO.^, • qi b • • S.F,• • I X \ •• S • r • f‘9 _ X G * 40 • 1 S.F. 3. Garage - X • S • F • c. Driveway • X . ••m t • * % . S. F • X • . S.F. • • D.. S idewalk j:,ouc.T ^ • Z S.F. -/t.Z *. i- X =:•S.F. ;ccc7 X < rs S. F • E.^ATIO/ 3ec :< X • S.F. • c 1 Afin<:r APP • IP^ n,' !r Uj^ P/r-.zX-. • I'Z.n-l. -r . S.F. areas underlain5v . Vni^L.'^rr. zip- • .' / -'■S*b- / • /. S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING E«-2 X _ • ,, ^/ / 7 • S.F. p Ti-t X Z?S.F. • G. Other tZ. .UL& ■X .=s • ____S.F. Total Hardcover in Zcne Total Property Area in Zc:ie ~7 -C? 2,, s 1 f /‘■/4-V;- ■ 0 S.F. b-^ to ^ , 2 o' l2 4 i 1. pn pil_ _ _ _ _X 100 - __Zii5- - -^ L^.Trif'i At>tr? I'A‘7,0^>F -,A;:D ;. TU;*S ^ ^ ,aT«'iL WCv^-’ toT'xI- I •..'.vD ,vT'-l le'iT.lO nTuic'u r/v.^C I'T .M •' iKiJi h»\LT= COvC-TO-Et eCf4:>,'vP I O "?r ru>-v i;i/.fVi'^r iKi^i covC 7-».B7.10 ‘■>/=• . •• *..• •• V .«*> -••• • Adjacent Property Oumera* Acknowledgement Form I (we) Jy^y" 7^?/ y/.dft J ly (print name(s)J \j (print address]/' have reviewed the plans for the proposed Improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No. 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 t U^/. Date ’/eAy* u Date f 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. oV O linr-t «vi 'Ml To;Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson n From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator October 11, 1990 Subject: #1597 Ralph D. Burgess, Jr., 2610 West Lafayette Rd - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre Application - Hardcover variance to replace deck in 0-75' zone. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F • Application ■ Plat Map • Property Owners List ■ Letter of Request & Neighbor Acknowledgement ■ Survey > Resolution #2837 Including Hardcover Calculations/Site Plan Exhibit G - Construction Plans Pertinent Pacts - 1.Please review applicant's letter of request. Mike Peters is project manager for Mr. Burgess on the remodeling of the residence. Planning Commission may recall Mr. Burgess had originally requested to totally replace this house with a walkout style residence, which required excavation in the 0- 75' zone. That request was rejected by the Planning Commission and the Council, and ultimately Mr. Burgess decided to remodel the existing house to sell it. He revised his original application to merely a replacement in kind of the existing garage, which Council approved with no changes in pre-existing hardcover. 2.As noted in Mr. Peter's letter of request, a miscommunication with one of his workmen resulted in the pre-existing 12'x21' deck being totally removed rather than repaired. As it is the City's policy to consider removed structures as no longer existing, the placement of that deck in the 0-75' zone requires a variance. ’in.ruA'A'l. pikj Zoning File #1597 October 11, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Discussion - As can be noted on the site plan, this deck is 55' from the shoreline, and is entirely located in the 0-75' zone. 0-75' hardcover includes stairs and retaining walls, a portion of the house, patio, and the deck for a total of 7.9%. In the 75-250' zone, hardcover is 33.7%. In the 0-75' zone, 1% is approximately 179 s.f. The 12'x21' deck constitutes 1.4% in the 0-75' zone. Staff Recommendation - The Planning Commission is requested to consider whether or not the pre-existing 12'x21' deck can be replaced in kind. If so, does Planning Commission wish to recommend reduction of other hardcover on the property or accept the pre-existing hardcover percentages? -( / CITY OF 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) rr •1 's N y . I / /J (J PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address W TTV •••r111 Ul C* » km i *^C ‘Tl'C’I .iitrr/tcu i.*i I iuk. 1 X fc'ufViWw WVYV n Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. n i rTii frr:X » • wVIv.n.1! rLTTi-’ im 1 :uj\ V1 u 175.00 uLf'crc-T^runiw vnii Itl-UWAI 1 1 t rnni \ I uu ‘I'i r.’n f •f X r X VV'V UrW'X :.'if Ti“u'*77' 1IV X f \/ U* * w\L. /Oi') V' / / i, X / /V APPLICANT Ncime Phone (home)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^>\n ~~T> Phone (worlc) - ■^<^CO Address; c^"7 L^»^.p_Cityt _ _ _ _ Zip; 5'SMW ~7 OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Name Phone (work) Address;City:Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Ld/S Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front /Hardcover Side Rear) L _ i 0‘'> d p^f.’ - --J (Z'^C ^SBIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; ioi*s Lui./y i- d. ^ ^rviY^ve A scription op unusual property conditions Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SQUIRED submittals 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 (provide one (1) copy 8i5"xll" for reproduction). Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8ii"xll"). Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 3h''xll"). 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. :e Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please ‘member that your variance application is not complete if the above iformation has not been incltided. N >PLICANT'S SIGNATURE ;e applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or tquested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff .me not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses curred in review of this application, and certifies that the information •pplied is true and correct to^hejf^est of his/her knowledge. \'),_5H tc\ • Dateiolicant's Signature fNBRS SIGNATURE le owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further thorizes reasonabxe entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, ents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga- on and verification_of t(Tis request. ner's Signature « Date ^ Q plicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the anning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the ird Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled view meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is able to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an thorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning fice of this change prior to the meeting. tr / Ic/ •■': '^L: V ■ ' V - •• ^ ••. • ■■: *• * ■*;■''I? . ,. ... . *• ’T ' ■ *' • •• **•: t /:r:> \ (i) / ■ • - • >' A part of lot ’0 / NT ^ \ N /v\,\ 'IA -JF I *» ^•* * o •• 1 '*. 1^: \ • • V ■^c ■• A'’ >-V V ' \ • *• ^ ji •' t ^ 1 \ \ f ( >•’*.•..,4 •^1• 1 \ i'Ar '1 V \ \ % • • ^1 ^ f • •. * ;s I V 4 li #/ V A / I .-/ '‘*c (!»/ .%/ .V'-.' "j: v.? V s' 0 V ff •t. -i •Vc> ‘* • • H T* >7!»> 7 vy '< -■ ^ / / i .*-. i I -y/. KUN date 06/23/89 . C^a.Kjhi'T orFve* HlIIIILl'in COUNTY PROPERTY lIirORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE 1 PROP. ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 21-117-23 21 0001 2606 WEST LAFAYETTE RD E M & J L RODGERS JR ELEANOR & JOHN L RODGERS JR 2606 WEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 21 0002 2600 WEST LAFAYETTE RD D M & U K GILMAN DAVID & DONNA GILMAN 2600 LAFAYETTE ROAD W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 21 0003 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE RD S S & V L HAMILTON S S & V L HAMILTON 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 21-117-23 21 0007 2605 WEST LAFAYETTE RD BRADFORD L BLANKENSHIP MOLITOR & ASSOCIATES INC 4530 W 77TH ST SUITE 219 EDINA MN 55435 38 21-117-23 24 0044 2630 WEST LAFAYETTE RD THOMAS P LOWE ETAL THOMAS P LOWE 2630 W LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0048 2635 WEST LAFAYETTE RD H MAC GREGOR LYMAN LYMAN LUMBER 300 MORSE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 21 0010 2607 WEST LAFAYETTE RD MARY HANNAH MRS JOHN D HANNAH 2607 W LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0045 DONALD f LAYMAN ETAL LYMAN LUMBER CO 337 WALKER ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0049 DONALD A LYMAN LYMAN LUMBER 337 WALKER ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0043 2610 WEST LAFAYETTE RD RALPH D BURGESS JR RALPH D BURGESS JR 205 INLAND LA PLYMOUTH MN 55447 38 21-117-23 24 0047 2655 WEST LAFAYETTE RD DREW D WHITESIDE DRFW D WHITESIDE 2655 WEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0050 2650 MAPLERIDGE LA D J CLARKIN & K J CL\RKIN D J CLARKIN & K J ClARKIN 2650 MAPLERIDGE LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 i • *• . I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE ■■SUPllllllli 8BBBSS8SijnT^^%ilS>ffiMSitS5TnTnIffTnrSiBB?^^ September 20, 1990 Orono Planning Commission Members Orono City Council Members c/o City of Orono 1335 South Brown Road Orono, MN 55323 aI'l I i I I •• i ‘ V \ *7 U 4 . i f : RE: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 2610 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD Ladies & Gentlemen: Due to a misunderstanding on my part, it is necessary that I again come before you with a variance request for 2610 West Lafayette Road. I apologize for taking more of your time with this project. I was in attendance representing Mr. Ralph Burgess, Jr. at the July 23, 1990 City Council Meeting, to finalize a vari ance request for 2610 West Lafayette Road. The Council at that time approved the replacement "in kind" of a detached garage on the site. A percentage of hardcover was also approved encompassing all of the hardcover on the site. On a recent Monday building inspection, I was dismayed to hear that I had made an error by attempting to upgrade the deck floor boards which were severely weathered due to neglect. I was under the impression that this was allowable, as the Council had earlier approved the percent age of hardcover for the site, and the deck was included in that percentage. After conversations with Lyle Oman and Mike Gaffron I now understand I was mistaken. To further complicate the problem, a workman made an error when ' was unavailable and dismantled the entire deck. I have tried to work closely with Lyle on this projert arj have asked for his input on a number of questions which, have arisen. He acknowledges that this was an honest mistake: I would like to assure you that my intent has always been to work within your guidelines as I hope to work well with you on projects in the future. CONSTRUCTION DIVISION 2765 NIAGARA LANE • MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55441 USA • PHONE: (612) 559-5200 September 20, 1990 Page Two I am asking you to approve the request to replace the deck to its' pre-existing plan. The deck is an integral part of the overall house plan as it pre-existed. The deck is an important design aspect to the overall appeal and utiliza tion of the house. Thank you again for your time. Please feel free to call me if I can answer any further questions you may have. Res Mike Peters Construction Superintendent 884-9315 (home) 868-0903 (daytime) MP/cj cc: Ralph D. Burgess, Jr. President FEC Construction Division 2765 Niagara Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form I (we) (print name(s)] c. ^ o '" ■ ^ p/^'fe77\ [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed inprovement or proposed use of the property located at __________________________also referred to as Land Use Application No. .* I (we) understand that in executing this ac)cnowledgeinent, 1 (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 o^ the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. ?l'' P /« w^- ^ V • ( (g Property Owner Date Property Owner Date I (we) [print naTie(s)][print address] nave reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _slso referred to as Land Use Application No. __ _. I (wo) 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 the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project reguires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the ^®^ie-^ of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. CITY OF ORONO MtT* CSV, I • 1 City of OROIVO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2837 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono City Council reviewed this application on July 23, 1990 and finds that replacement of the existing deteriorating detached garage in kind and in the existing conforming location, will provide a benefit to the property and to the neighborhood while not changing the existing percentage of hardcover on the property. 4. The Council further finds that the revised proposal is of such a minor magnitude as to require no further review by the Orono Planning Commission. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting rhe variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the replacement of the existing detached 26' x 22' garage, allowing continuation of the existing 33.7% hardcover in the 75-250' zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions; 1. Ap'licant shall submit suitable construction plans for City staff review and approval, verifying that the proposed garage will not exceed the current footprint dimensions and meet all other City requirements. Page 2 of 4 i CITY 1 OF I ORONO City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2837_________ 199fT A 2. Applicant is advised that hardcover on the property in the 0-75' and 75-250' zones may not exceed the amounts and percentages as shown on the survey and table attached as Exhibit A. Any future proposals to increase hardcover on the property in those i.ones will not be allowed^ but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover^ yielding no net hardcover increase. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant# but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval# or this variance will expire on that date (July 23# 1991). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code# shall automatically terminate any authority gra.ited herein# and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself# his heirs# successors and assigns# hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 23rd day of July# ATT^T : ^thy HTT^IJ^# City Cler, Property OwnerTs) James R. GrabekT yor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of July# 1990# by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor 6 City Clerk of the City of Orono, and said instrument was executed on a Minnesota municipal corporation behal^ofj the City.^/^ j A/ Notary I^ollc Page 3 of 4 - . • • • •• • • • CITY OF ORONO J 4 City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. On this Z3 day of 199 d for said county, personally ^ ^ known to me to betary Public within and exe.T.ed the foregoing instrument,” and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: October 12, 1990 #1598 Jensen Homes, Inc., 1700 Shoreline Drive Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IA Total Area = 31+ acres Dry Buildable = 22 acres Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.03, Definitions: 1) Accessory use or structure. A use or structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure on the sarrj lot and customarily incidential thereto. 28) Guest house. An accessory separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests, of the primary dwelling. regular lot requirements sha 11 be met by the quest house. 73) Use conditional. Those occupations, vocations, skills, arts, businesses, professions, or uses specifically designated in each zoning use district, which for their respective conduct, excersize, performance and such designated use districts may require reasonable but special, perculiar, unusual or extrodinary limitations, facilities, regulations in such use district for the promotion of or preservation c2 the general public welfare, health or safety ther-nin, and in this City and therefore may be permitted in such use district only by a conditional use permit, which is designed to meet the problem that arises where certain uses, although generally compatible with the basic use classication of a particular zone, should not be permitted to be located as a matter of right in every area included ^thin the zone because of hazards inherent in the use itself or specia 1 prob1ems which its proposed 1oca tion ma y represent. ~ 75) Use principal. Ihe main use of land or buildings as distinguished from subordinate or accessory uses. A principal use may be either permitted or conditional. Zoning File #1598 October 12, 1990 Page 2 of. 1 Section 10.27, Subdivision 3 - Conditional use reguired for guest house. Guest houses, a separate dwelling 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. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (B) - Accessory buildings. Height restrictions. No accessory building in the R District shall exceed the height of the principal building, nor shall an accessory building exceed 30' in height. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) - Area restrictions. In all R Districts, no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 s.f. of footprint area except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 s.f. will be allowed under the following conditions: A; Not more than 1 oversized accessory structure shall be permitted on any property. An oversized accessory structure is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 s.f. ... B) Oversized accessory structures are regulated by the following table: Total Area of Accessory Structures on a Property 2,400 (pertinent to 1075 Millston) 6,000 Lot Area 2-3 acres 9 acres or more Maximum Allowed Size Footprint Area 1,200 3,000 C) An oversized accessory structure shall be subject to the following conditions . . . ; i. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the City in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. ii. If the property is subdivided, the oversized accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of the building. Zoning File #1598 October 12, 1990 Page 3 of 7 List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Application Property Owners List Plat Map Hardcover Fact Sheets Site Plan Detail Section First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan Front Elevation Side Elevation Side/Rear Elevation Septic Plan Exhibits for 1075 Millston - Exhibit M - Spec Sheet Exhibit N - Plan/Section Exhibit 0 - Survey of 1075 Millston Review of Current Proposal - The applicant proposes the removal of an existing guest house/pool house structure with a total footprint of 731 s.f. for a new guest house structure totaling 1,749 s.f. The property already sustains another non-rental accessory residential structure. The existing pool house is located less than 10' from the pool. The proposed guest house will be approximately 20'. Per Section 10.28, Subdivision 3, all lot standards must be met by the proposed guest house. The 22 dry acres within this property will easily satisfy the area requirement, not only for the proposed guest house, but for the caretaker house and principal structure. Review Exhibit L, the guest house will be located 80' from the west side lot line and approximately 105' from the principal structure. Septic testing has been submitted confirming that a standard trench system can be constructed to the south and east of the pool house. All pertinent standards of the conditional use permit section have been met for guest house use. The major concern has been the application of the new accessory structure ordinance to this property for existing and proposed accessory structures. In reviewing the pertinent definition sections above, the guest house is accessory to the principal use, hence it is classified as an accessory structure and must be included in an inventory of accessory structures for the property. The inventory for the applicant's property is as follows: Zoning File #1598 October 12, 1990 Page 4 of 7 Accessory buildings: Shed (31.4x20.3) = Kennel (12x18) = Detached Garage (30.8x19.2)(20x24.5) = Caretalcer House (22.5x37 )+ (14.6x30 ) +( 25.5x22.5 ) Proposed Guest House ^30.8x56.8) = TOTAL Allowed = 6,000 s.f. of accessory buildings 637 s.f. 216 s.f. 1,081 s.f. 1,844 s.f. 1,749 s.f. 5,52’’ s.f. The accessory code allows only one oversized accessory structure in excess of 1,000 s.f. There are currently two and the proposed guest house would be a third. At times, the accessory structure code and the guest house conditional use permit sections appear ambiguous. The guest house is at one point both accessory and yet the review standards are to assure that if a subdivision takes place, that the guest house structure must meet all principal structure setbacks and area requirements. The guest house under present ownership is considered an oversized accessory structure. At the time of a future subdivision the structure may become a principal residence. Although the guest house well exceeds the street setback from Shoreline Drive, technically the code requires the guest house, as an accessory structure, be placed in front of the principal structure and as proposed would require variance approval. Although if the private access . ^u, in excess of 1,000 is considered legal access the guest house structure woulo be behind the principal structure. The property consists of a total of 31 acres, 22 of which are dry buildable. The oversized accessory structure area standards stop at the 9 acre level. The accessory structure ordinance would appear to not address the needs of an estate use at this size and needs level. To add to owner's dilemna, at the time the applicant (contractor) was filing the conditional use permit application for the guest house, the caretaker was filing a building permit application for a 31x84' greenhouse totaling 2,604 s.f. to be installed on a 2.7 acre lot within the Millston subdivision (refer to Exhibits C & 0). This property is owned by Mr. Jacobs, but under a separate PID. Based on the area allowances for accessory structures for a 2.7 acre lot, the maximum allowed oversized accessory structure would he 1,200 s.f. Zoning File #1598 October 12, 1990 Page 5 of 7 There already exists a 1,414 s.f. detached garage and with the proposed greenhouse at 2,604 s.f., the total accessory structures would be at 4,018 s.f. A 2.7 acre lot would only be allowed a total of 2,400 s.f. of accessory structures. Both the caretaker, contractor and finally Mr. Jacobs were advised of the dilemna. If the two parcels were combined (total 34 acres, 25 dry), the total accessory structures would be as follows; 5,527 (existing and proposed for a 22 acre parcel) 4,018 (existing and proposed for 2.7 acre parcel) 1,332 (principal structure at 1075 Millston now becomes a caretaker accessory structure) 10,877 Total Area of Accessory Structures Allowed = 6,000 s.f. The owner's contractor will file for a separate variance application to review the greenhouse at the November Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Jacobs has been advised of the zoning complexities created with both requests. Staff has been advised by Mr. Jacobs of the need to proceed with the guest house construction before the winter months. Mr. Jacobs has also been advised that the introduction of the greenhouse issue may result in the guest house portion of the application being tabled until all is resolved. Staff advised Mr. Jacobs that it would be up to the Planning Commission to decide if they were comfortable in acting on the first phase of the application as long as all issues were addressed in this first phase review and concept ^1 direction provided to the applicant for the second phase, the variance application for the greenhouse structure. Issues for Consideration - 1. Are there any benefits to requiring the legal combination of the 2.7 acre parcel with the 22+ acre parcel. The following variances would be required if both the conditional use permit for the guest house and variances for the greenhouse were approved; A) Total of accessory structures at 10,877 s.f. requiring a 4,877 s.f. area variance. Zoning File #1598 October 12, 1990 Page 6 of 7 B) Approval of the following oversized accessory structures on the total combined property: Proposed guest house 1,749 s.f. Detached garage 1,081 s.f. (on original 22 acre parcel) Caretaker house 1,844 s.f. (on original 22 acre parcel) Former house at 1075 Millston 1,332 s.f. Detached garage 1,414 s.f. (on 2.7 acre parcel) Proposed Greenhouse 2,604 s.f. 2.Would you approve a 2,600 s.f. greenhouse structure on a 2.7 acre parcel? Would you approve a 2,600 s.f. greenhouse structure on a 34 acre parcel that would also require the granting of a variance of 7,877 s.f. accessory structure where 6,000 is allowed? 3.Does the fact the owner controls 34 acres have any bearing on your considerations? 4.Does your accessory structure code for oversized accessory structures address the needs of an estate use? 5.Is it practical. . .realistic to limit large acred 1jts to only me oversized accessory structure in excess of 1,000 s.f.? Do members have concerns with granting variances for six original accessory structures on a single property? 6.Is this type of property unique to Orono? Can you find unique findings or hardships to approve variance sought by applicant? 7.Do members feel as staff that the application has been contrived to test our new accessory structure ordinance? Cations of Action - To table application until the greenhouse variance application is presented for Planning Commission's formal review, finding both applications require a single comprehensive review and action; or To approve a conditional use permit for construction of a new guest house to replace an existing guest house structure on the property located at 1700 Shoreline Drive. This application will require the granting of a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C)l as proposed guest house/accessory structure is in excess of 1,000 s.f. and the property already contains two other oversized accessory structures. iJ Zoning File #1598 October 12, 1990 Page 7 of 7 Approval of this conditional use permit and variance are based on the following findings and hardships: 1. The new guest house structure will replace an existing guest house structure. 2. The property contains 22+ acres of dry buildable land and can easily satisfy the area needs of the guest house and existing principal structure and caretaker residence on the property (6~22 = 16 acres for credit of accessory structures). 3. Septic testing has confirmed suitable and adequate soils for a conventional trench system. 4. All appropriate lot standards for the LR-IA zoning district have been satisfied with conditional use permit proposal for guest house. Are the customary conditions associated with an oversized accessory structure applicable for a guest house use? If a future division takes place, the guest house would become the principal structure. The conditional use permit confirms the guest house satisfies all lot standards of the given zoning district. What is the Planning Commission's position? The Planning Commission may wish to provide conceptual direction to applicant in the filing of the variance application for the greenhouse (i.e. size of structure - legal combination [to do or not to do]). t'A n I ^ f • \ .1CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE AP^TCATIoi* PROPERTY LOCATION Sire Address i?nn <;hn.-ai-ino N ■ • *. Property Identification Ntimber (P.I.D.) 10-117-23 Please attach legal description to application if not includedyw,^w on required survey. rr-v nc rnzr^ UX I I Lt WMUItU r ; tmVi. c urr iCc u XT APPLICANT Name Jensen Homest Inc. •» i Tii 1 A.^ J. -V; T X m VV •. » U 1 W* V • VV Phone (home) 47f^-0qflftr----- .yw/ t c 1 j'. ? r“ r* A f v'«** TAvri^m.'avxv' wwl nvi 1^*0 •'lu Phone (work) 475-0548 ,* fi / ■? 1 jon - - - w Jk / / V Address 601 Lakeshore Parkv/ay #1225________City Minnetonka S5342 ------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Irwin Jacobs_________ Phone (heme) Phone 337-1901 Address 1700 Shoreline Drive Citv Orono Zip 55391 Date Property Acquired 1974 (month/year) I (do) (^ not ) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PEES - CONDITIONAL DSB PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After-r.he-Fact Fee - Double Current Application ree _______ $ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application $125.00 Residential accessory Use $150.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 Guest Kouse/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Credit/3ldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain - - Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule >THBR APPLICATIONS $200.00 $250.00 $175.00 $ 50.00 _ _ _ _ $250.00 $100.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation With Subdivision Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) Appeals Other — see fee schedule RESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District ^R-1 A Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail: construct'^on of quest hi Wp rpqup<;t, ronditlnnal ii<;p pprmi't fnr i. <• • REQUIRED SUBMITTALS Comp: 3ted 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 plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list ot any other persons you wish notified of this application. 3. 4. YOU ARE 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 tliis 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 r.ie applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff rime 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 best^f his^er )cnowledge. Applicant's signature ^ ^Date f-;io - OWNERS SIGNATURE . r ..u The owner hereby ac)cnowledges and agrees to this application and ..urther authorized reasonable entry onto-J;h«r7P^op®^^y City staff, consultants, agents, commission meml^jinrs,' and /Council members for purposes or investigation and verificatiohfof^t''^'•,3/ request Owner's signature Date Applicant must have all subm^Ittals into the City offices 25 days before th® 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 anable 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 f 1 RUN DATE 09/14/90 BATCH 002 ^ ' PROP ADDR.|V > (mier name TAXPAYER •V. NAME/AOOR A .,* \ PROP ADDR (»t€R NAME TAXPAYER ^ K V NAME/AODR ■‘i •• f • •• • I PROP ADDR ONNER NAME . TAXPAYER ? . . NAHE/AODR rrV N • »^ »PROP ADDA 0»MER NAHE >; TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR:1r ' r •r •> < ^ .'PROP ADDR .V • < OMIER NAME > TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR t ' T ^^ PROP ADDR OHNER NAME * ‘TAXPAYER ^ . ,) NAHE/AODR. (• HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0M4ERS LIST .■f. • o4ip’ • I 58 10-117-25 11 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIt^D SUAD H AZHARI SUAO H AZHARI 1745 FOX ST HAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 12 0004 00940 DROHN RO S CAROL SENN CAROL SENN 940 SO BROHN RD HAYZATA MN 55391 " * 38 iO-117-23 13 0008 01025 HERITAGE LA M J JOHNSON AML JOHNSON MARK R JOHNSON 1025 HERITAGE LN HAYZATA m 55391 M • 38 10-117-23 13 0019 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HELEN S MCKNIGHT DAVID M HINTON 4422 IDS CENTER 80 S 8TH ST MPLS m 55402 •f'. ■ 38 10-117-23 14 0002 . 00038 ADDRESS UNASSl^EO DAVID M HINTON DAVID M HINTON 4422 IDS CENTER 80 S 8TH ST MPLS MN 55402 38 10-117-23 14 0004 0112*^ MILLSTON RO ROONlV P BURMELL ROONEY P BURNELL 7901 XERXES AVE S , WlS ffi 55431 « : ( ^11 % ^4 . i .;1 : i* ! •' * t » . * ^ * if •t ? * 38 1C-117-23 11 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MCLEOD CNTY REG RAIL AUTH DAKOTA RAIL UK C/0 THOMAS LOVETT 1400 FIRST BANK PLACE W MPIS MT4 55402 38 10-117-23 12 0005 01005 HERITAGE LA D A A BEAL DAVID J BEAL 1005 HERITAGE LANE HAYZATA m 55391 38 10-117-23 13 0017 00038 ADDRESS UIMSSIG^^D DAVID M HINT0f4 DAVID M HINfOei 4422 IDS CENTER 80 S 8TH ST MPLS MT4 55h02 38 10-117-23 13 0020 DAVID M HINTON DAVID M HINTON 4422 IDS CENTER 80 S 8TH ST MPLS MN 55432 38 10-117-23 14 0003 01780 SHORELINE OR DAVID M H1NT»JN DAVID M HINTON 4422 IDS CENTER 80 S 8TH ST MPLS Mr^ 55402 38 1:0-1:7-23 14 0007 01075 MULSTOtJ RD IRHIN L JACOBS IRHIN L JACOBS 100 SO 5TH ST STE 2500 M4 5S40211PL3 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 2 4 * 58 10-117-23 12 0003 00930 BROFM RO S GARY 0 FRETHEIM ETAL GARY 0 FRETHEIH 930 BR0I«4 ROAD HAYZATA MN 55391 I ■ 3B 10-117-23 13 0007 0)080 P.’rRITAGE LA DAVIO H HINTON DAVID M HINTON <t<«22 IDS CENTER 80 S 8TH ST MPLS MT) 55402 38 10-117-23 13 0018 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DAVID M HINTON DAVIO M HINTON 4422 IDS CENTER 80 S 8TH ST MPLS Ftl 55402 38 10-117-23 14 0001 01700 SHORELINE OR IRHIN L JACOBS t HIFE IRWIN L JACOBS 1700 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA m 55391 33 10-117-23 14 0005 OlOOU HERITAGE LA H GUSTAFSON I L GUSTAFSON HAYNE a LINDA GUSTAFSON 1000 HERITAGE LANE HAYZATA m 55391 38 10-117-23 14 0008 01050 MILLSTON RO ROONEY P BURHELL ROONEY P BURHELL 7901 XERXES AVE S SUITE 201 MPLS MN 55431 » • • • • • < 03 M3 « « » • # /! . . I • i • N? ‘ : .li: / • •« *•1 : / . I 9 .I • I . I . ‘ J • t • tr: ♦ » 1 ‘Ml * * » i • * fll I 0 . <• • I 1 •( \ * •. • .»t HUN DATE 09/l<»/90 BATCH 002 PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER • NAHE/ADDR SB 10-117-25 W 0009 01000 HIUSTON RO RODNEY P BURNELL RODNEY P BURNELL 7901 XERXES AVE S SUITE MPLS W 55431 201 HEIMEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHTTERS LIST 38 10-117-23 14 0010 01100 UULSTON RD RODNEY P BURNELL RODNEY P BURNELL 7901 XERXES AVE S SUITE 201 MPLS MN 55451 REPORT TTO. PI435401 PAGE 3 38 10-117-23 14 0011 01100 MILLSTON RD RODNEY P BURNELL RODNEY P BURNELL 7901 XERXES AVE S MPLS MN 55431 ‘ • 1 4 . ? PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER ‘ •NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OMNER NAHE •V • TAXPAYER R . NA>«/ADDR 38 10-117-23 14 0012 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROONEY P BURNELL ROONEY P BURNELL 7901 XERXES AVE S SUITE 20i HPLS HN 55431 38 10-117-23 41 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED FOXHILL ASSN FOXHILL ASSN 1160 HERITAGE LA ’ HAYZATi. HN 55391 . r * . • i , . • * • V * J VA *• <4 I i * li ’ ! -. * * * f > 4. ' ^ t4 • ^ 1t • ? I ♦ ! * A ''I.; I • .4 i‘ i .'I */ »• * I' 1 • 38 10-117-25 14 0015 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGTTED IRNIN L JACOBS ETAL IRNIN L JACOBS 100 S 5TH ST STE 2500 MPLS MN 55402 5 10-117-23 42 0001 01190 HERITAGE LA ONEN A PARR A NIFE ONEN A PARR 1190 HERRITAGE LANE NAYZATA TtT 55591 38 10-117-23 41 0001 00058 AODRESS UNASSIGNED DAVID M NINTON DAVID M NINTON 4422 IDS CENTER 80 S 8TH ST . . MPLS HN 55402 TOTAL BATCH 002 00026 O I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AT® TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEttTEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATJON, TO WE BEST OF HY KTtOHLEDGE AND BELIEF./ / DAT-1 X* • 4 r . * f *f ' * * f . ■ • • !.i I I * 4.- 4 'V ,i i'4 ^ 1 . A*t ' ’ i’ - t i X. ■ ' €>-7^ /r. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE one) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000^*^. Existing Hardcover in Zone ti . (T \ A. /.•'~*** A. ■ House - X V; - -^ . \ LENGTH••WIDTH • X «S.F. , • X • • S.F. •• X •• S ■ r ■ • X • S.F. 3.Garage X • S.F. C.Driveway X S S.F. • ‘ * X • • • S.F. • D. • Sidewalk 'X « S.F. . V/S3 S.F. . X • S.F. E.^ATIO/ Deck X • ' »S.F. F.Landscape __X • S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , ...................X S S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X • • S.F. X ss . S.F. G. Other X 3 . S.F. Total Hardcover IN Zone 34c S.F. Total Property Area A 4 IN ZcNE •/Z7,oc^S.F. oaO X 100 -27 • m . • • •• • • •• • . •«» W< Xo X.7£^S£a -fH •SC- rdcc ^ ARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7E' 75-250' Existing H ardcover in Zone 250-500' 500-1000' A. ■ H ouse 3. Garage c. D riveway L. I ^ATIO/ 3ec:< F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN 3Y , . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other LENGTH D.. Sidewalk _ X X X . X X width 3a Total Hardcover in Zone /Zoo 3/U> S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. S.F. S.F. Total Property Area in Zone - Z^"/, o>oo— s.f. |_^ I ,Oi»3//,o Z^7,oaO_ X 100 “ • • • X. T^coes HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SSTBACX zone : (circle one ) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' E xisting Harocover in Zone « • A. ■ H ouse • X ■6 39 S'. S.F. • •• fic '.^ssor\f LENGTH X WIDTH fg£2.S.F. • • X • • S.F. •• X • •• S.F. • X • S.F. 3. Garage X S.F. c. Driveway X 7Zfo S.F. X • • S.F. • • D.. S idewalk 'X •S.F. X =3 433 S.F. , X S.F. E. Patio/ Deck X 709 S.F. F.Landscape X s . S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X s • ? • PLASTIC SHEETING A A i X • • <Q wa/^s 1 X &o S.F. «•, Other * X •M*BS'S.F. \ • Total Hardcover Total Property Area IN Zone SB, 63^S.F. : IN Zone S.F. A 6S 4 — R I X 100 ea L. -. J p- 1^- zone. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE one) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone • • A.•m1• , X = ■ S*f-2 S.F. • • • • •a-/ . LENGTH Sz •X width a Z/<^4 S.F.• •• . X 7^/• • S.F. Ten.cr^• ’ e^o • • X /zo • = . 7ZCO S.F. •jhc-e!3(, •X Z4^3 • = 72^3 S.F. B./Z X /c =S.F.• ‘ • Cl Driveway f4. .X S^o . .- 77ao S.F. •Tirrce^ /Cp • X Sz SSZ ss ^^8 • S.F. • D.. • S. Sidewalk ^7 X /. r = • 4o. <r S.F. VthUU ^ t* z. /7^X z. 5" /. T" ze> = d^S S.F. cotfc, ^rounj -^rtaecs.po^/- ' 4oust.’X S • r • E.^ATIO/ Deck r/*M. • •X m » . 7£8-S.F.• * • FrL^HDSCAPC 57^n4a t*^uu 9o X /S • = ■ /5^S.F. •ARCAS-h • = S4-•or 1 X «S.F. ACTT^^. • \4-*lS X = .?^2 S.F. X rs S.F.• ^^utp- k*X, G, Other X 6.^=S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone ^206*>S.F. ^7Z, coo S.F. B a]^^7Z£>0£> X 100 <•-.39 ^ //s<. r84^o y portico 3! 1 ^ S>r->UfiS ................. 5.?5 % % • ■ •« •••• • ■ V*•a •aw' . • • 7^4 N’. •. • •. '.V i • •. •. •. '. \\ ; . •. \‘ :1 : . ’. ' '. \ •• •. •> ;•. •• •.’. •. •■• !1 I 5 N \ ' :L* ' '**»*,**'•«'**' ■ r Js ** \ \ \ v^\ •;v^^^;^ ^iF {rsKj3Ma‘4.- fCniTCCTA -r r>. tx 1 «T I M T •- M VJ >*» C^>U^T \\ { \» 1 1 \w\ \'' \W \ \ N ' \ V ' W ' > ' ' e»>4ri4u . \ ^ \ 'n ^^ '\' ^ \\w\ \\\\ \\v\\\vv:/ \ \ \ \ ' ^ ' \ \ ' \ \ 'n ' \ ' \ ' \ \^ ^ ' \ V ^ \ \ >----^ 4^ *k 11 ^ Hi **pli •••<' iJ llllLlUll ^ii j ^ryr ^iXV^r>J yp*»I-o" y » » N ! \ ^ r ‘ ,iA -■ r. Am ^ mr fV/lf li^ ft U' 1 ,.. JEjMti . tt’Oik. i^k -tr* i'Siai *7J.« liijl p. iPC. i A^*» 1'-^ ,^uecr HOKC. r<5T!-'' AK 5»rd. HR^. P-VV ACOb^ ft^t'r-tiUAiLf f*pT- ill* HoKiE^^ INo.w ScHHiTT t A--.* c. - AP^HIT^O'^s --a l • lie ELevATi^^N ♦ <4t*6 r»^ TUMi, to^ i^o^cr Ft*.- ^K, 4 MSS PSWIN JASO iVtLlMlrW'T ’^*,1'^ P£7V|-,il »JA^ I f^rr/7, nV EKJap kL j^_L)^g ty, .‘^lIIIIII , Atigji irSc^T^ TheVail M J M|u irc itcwl l-liiiii; ui jll N’lIXUS i/u\v joJ |)url»ii wmiipuncnu uUli/*-j lug’i itfcni;t!i galvuni/wJ iUwl. he rigid frarr.c Vail fca« turcs main sinjctural members made of square galvanized high sircng:!i steel lubing, the sirongesi on ihe market. Safety column caps and i:u:ter saddles are made of hiiih sircnsth TENS-ALLOY, ar.d are designed to allow for fu ture expansion in either direc tion. Trusses are factory welded to offer consistency in dimensions, maximum strength, and case in erection. Wid: span trusses can be manufactured in two piece sections to minimize shipping costs. Tl.e »4fc:y colunin cjp 3r.iI ia.lj:,'. ..tc .1 .Ml.'.-wli ir-.e.-nuri. .ti..1 super s'.rcna TII.%j-ALLOY. ll.cy aUu .illou i.ir luiurj ctpjnMon. Tl'ic Vail is designed to be covered with metal decking, fiberglass, or llic newest in polycarbonate and acrylic structural sheets. All necessary aluminum and galvanized steel Hasliing is in cluded. Partition walls arc available to create separate climate zones. Th.e oplion.lI all aluminiiiv vem systems can be single or double, and can be insi.illcd on the gable ends, sidewalls t)f roof. The versatility of the Vail makes it ideal for garden centers, retaal outlets, aitd Spuu.il .j.'c wpun mct.il buddings as well as for growing. And il-.e Vail can be designed and built with live lo.iil ca;>.ibilily cngiiiceicd to meet your building codes. SififGge MtaM tm STnuCTunAL TUUC UV ALLICO I09S3 LEROY DRIVE, NORTIIGLEMN, COLORADO SU:3.T. 30.v.t5?-yl>.)9 322 CROSS STREET. DARL’.NGTO.N. .SOUTH CAROLINA 39532. S03.Oy5-.-j9 From Date: Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator October 12, 1990 Subject: #1599 David Eiss, 1635 Concordia Street - Sketch Plan Review Zoning District - LR-IC, Single family lakeshore residential, >5 acre, sewered Subdivision Proposal - split existing four acre parcel into two lots. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Discussion - Application Plat Map Sketch Plan Additional Staff Hardcover Figures Staff Memo & Sketch, 1/5/89 Fagerness Point Area Road Configuration Connecting Road Conceptual Sketches The applicant recently constructed a new residence on this 4 acre parcel in the *5 acre sewered zone. He is proposing a lot split to create a second lakeshore lot, with both resulting lots being of a long, narrow configuration. Applicant proposes a shared driveway to Concordia Street, over an easement, although he would have legal access to North Shore Drive from the northerly lot and legal access to Concordia Street from the southerly lot without the need for an easement. Hardcover figures indicate that pre-existing hardcover is 1.1% in the 0-75* zone, and 21.3% in the 75-250' zone. Hardcover figures on the sketch plan indicate that the subdivision would result in excessive hardcover for the existing house, because the creditable 75-250' area would be greatly reduced. Also, the proposed house for Parcel B is shown as being quite modest, with a very limited driveway and no landscaping. It is unlikely that such a limited amount of hardcover would be practical or realistic for this property. We would expect a bigger house, a wider driveway, and significant landscaping. ,Zoning File #1599 October 12, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Concordia/County Road 19 Connection - In a recent discussion regarding this sketch plan. Public Works Director John Gerhardson indicated that he would reconunend that a corridor for future connection of Concordia Street to County Road 19 be considered. Exhibit F indicates that 62 single family residences are served by Fagerness Point Road and Concordia Street, with a single access outlet onto Shadywood Road, From a public safety standpoint, there is no question that a connection from North Shore Drive directly to Concordia Street would provide an alternate access to the point in the event that Fagerness Point Road was blocked in an emergency. Two obvious connection possibilities exist, as shown in Exhibit G. The westerly access would abut the Sandy Beach Resort property; the easterly access would extend through applicant's property abutting North Shore Drive. If the City were to require an outlot corridor be granted as part of the subdivision, this would likely result in a third lot east of such corridor, which broaches the issue of actual construction of a road and who would pay for it. Staff Recommendation - The Planning Commission is requested to give applicant direction in the following areas: 1. Will variances be considered for hardcover in the 75- 250' zone for either the existing or proposed building site? 2. If the subdivision as proposed is acceptable, will the City accept the easement driveway configuration? 3. In any subdivision of this property, will the City require dedication of property for a connection between Concordia Street and North Shore Drive? 4. If so, then at what level of development will construction of that road be required, and what share of the costs of road construction would be borne by the applicant? 5. Would Planning Commission prefer to see this subdivision as a standard plat, or is there merit in allowing the flexibility gained by a PRD development? (A PRD might be developed that would allow the City to set unusually restrictive building pad locations in exchange for allowing the second lake access lot to be created, for instance.) 6. Planning Commission should determine whether any other issues need to be addressed. M /;;Yf e^A OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION — — — — — — — — — — — — — PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ____/6 ^^ _ N. ^ Attach legal description to application. KECElPi-^nf^JS, __ ^ __________________ ^ ^ ^ ^— — — — —^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ I I T • 7w__________ — — — — — f?x/i. —V'V' uvvx nv X rxw ‘*w ‘V Phone (home) Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _/_2——<^£j/cP Please check one - Property ^ _ abstract or - - - torrens? .•▼TV —... -** . . .• TW-wirT* -J7^r-r r XiT/lilkX. i.‘l I XVil , TC*/* T/“1/>AAA X A./w'X.'X.V'X'VVV 'V '“i J"’ i"u*j*t* *1 *;,i^iiuuy li. inWmknfc«rr r t •• T- • /.v vr-» t applicant Name 1 • • • • •• • ii .* v4/fv Phone (work) SS~3-62 j^ Address: l.'__ City: -------- Zip:_££iii OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (hone) Neune Phone (work) Address :City:Zip: (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 4i c,' Present Use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total/ all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ O • ; C .Present Zoning District t i\- PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites:Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) J_ _ Units per Acres U ' .-cn) Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) • • « • ilMlMUM 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). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. • • :ertification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is :omplete. aning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, •ewer and water assessments). Signed certificate of survey or mylar cc. j.es of formal plat. Title opinion. Easements, Covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. ‘ertification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete, oning Official's Signature___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2SS Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $150.00 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision)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* "he applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or equested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, ianning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and •urther agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. applicant's Signature r - r ■ <Date /a - / - fo Owner's Signature A /"•*Date /o- / Xpplicant 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 *eview meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is nable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an uthorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning office of this change prior to the meeting. GOVT LOT 2 ^ - m ,r* im !• m la j* 3 l>* '■ GOVT LOT 2 baifeMi i<ail »iaiHa«ii**Ma«HVi I ' I 1 ( I II t I I • t I 1 I KVT l:t 5 • — ___________'V^ ■ tm I f ny :>i _ • J f<^n» a I.I ^ ri^ <U1---------y • ‘y a* a^a —< m .i <5. '.V 5» =s.t3*’ 1 r‘» /■> .-r /' , r:^~ \ *“'\*- r/TS»- ■ / » L* . ^ af r •' ’•-:'< ■ >:-----^ . . ,C-<;\-3w'a-jC -\ * =*^ ' ■ ------------------------------------------------------ El'S AOOl SUOT700P •»sc* .S-^/% i ^ *i7 rl* -4^ I ii •• I • »A ill ^ P'^Pr/) (tf ’■' rs 7.. aa »\ ^ •. \ V* l d -------* -a.* « » ■ \ ’-N I ' li . a -‘N—^\1-T iiT - Vk»- ^ Vi ‘V i \ • \ •■j-'i GCVT lot 3 (25) -z-of^e AAjeP>2o/''^ C_ .. _^/V •75’' Z-^oL^l ^i>YOH'^. 2-/... 2>_ ^5D-S5o' 1^Y o7 Vy/i>S.3% SZO -)ooo' 3T 5(^g,.S'^ X To: Prom Date: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator January 5, 1989 Subject: Future Development of Area Between Concordia Street and North Shor^e Drive David Eiss, who is building a house on the former Howard Johnson property at 1635 Concordia Street, has requested an access approval for a driveway and apparently for future subdivision purposes, on to North Shore Drive. He has purchased the Bergquist Tile Plant property just west of 3895 North Shore Drive, which provides a connection from his existing property to North Shore Drive. Since the City approved his site plan for the current house construction with driveway access to Concordia Street, and since that is a legal access, the County intends to deny his driveway access permit for North Shore Drive at this time. Coincidently, I recently received a phone message from the owner of a 2.5 acre parcel directly east of the Eiss property, addressed as 1635 Shadywood Road, with questions about subdivision. Although, I am still playing phone tag with that caller, I am anticipating that they wish to consider a subdivision. In order to adequately address the subdivision concerns for these uniquely situated properties, I have done a preliminary sketch of the area in order to determine how roads would generally be laid out in order to serve these properties without creating access safety problems. Dave Zetterstrom from Hennepin County Department of Transportation has verified that the North Shore Drive access site proposed by Eiss is a relatively good location if the City wished to make Concordia Street a through road. This sketch is merely conceptual in nature for discussion purposes, and has not been seen by the property owners involved. Perhaps we should discuss this as a group and define a formal policy regarding where we would like to see roads and accesses for this area. r/.v; 7T*»'x:»'^ IIS'*'•z^iTl* W-- r ifi - iV .,': v-i'v^jr \*;; m fi^ •■ ••■>/-•. rv /. C «. Vvjv'^T/ • *. /I ^ • |r • o * *.,'* L . , •' \ •n.>\‘T; ^I rr'l . . I ^-, » r /. V / / V vS O - •I V: -i* vr*.A -4. r * V la i~. '* («\« :l »1T7F .1 T^To 1^. il Iff Vj . m-k -.'. -f t.KV ID V'«v • * •• f#7^^ >4 . n S —. .1 ^ 2 5^ S'?;. .. • -".VS s 1 AA »• ' • ^ 0 • •• • #✓> •• . f/^ a(v\ ko vsG •0 = ‘£1 jn •- • ti #•• * f •m •S tiu 3 i;u "•— ■»{:0«? j• >. V C IU»*ui r •J «*' y 1^ 2Am m ^ 1 . ✓ f• '>'■ (1 »u '■>Jp^ \ I or c I * a ’% V '"V « J ; T j " / •*; ^ ^ ^ 2»1 i*PO — N 1 ••s ^ if S'^ ‘ - V » ^ ............ 1 * % /= 9ni4^ iM tOf . • -V- % . * • ■ . . '.*1 .. . ... • ..•** ,, *J..:< .;.r'«iVV -.* ;• ...*.'• ' • - • • - * » • . .* - .. - . - • . i........K •... .^ •^* * * .* • *%••% • .. ,• -,.’w ..«•*—.'^r. .•.!>« w*.- • . *-.A, .. «• .•••m:d.-(;-.,r-^» GOVT LOT 2 (n)I • • • • ?It lio 9 i f^;j<rc 1 (69)(6a)' .J (67) w .*• w* c T ’?0 J a 11 (T3)I 15 ! '6 (•a)31 t? ”1 1 . 17 h n (2J)^0 '•4 « l9i6.CO RES l(49» (S) /C. 91. C6 »6S *c :«/. ;>v ~:CwAK’ ,‘,C ..'5,—,A-~ -_____ __________ w « • • * w .1# / ......... f i.. ?2 n 24 22 26 27 29 (60)(2)|iU)\(2?)(26)(27)(25 ^ • *...^ V* %n UJ j: /Vi C» 00 .i- • • •* • • ' ' ■ *—1. - '. '■ 7* -•• • ‘ ; >^4rr •'% • t . ^ # • • • ^ • • • . # • - JL • • y ♦ a. ’ ^ ^ ^ ^ * ^ V • ‘A--;. • .:. • •.' . • «• • •'- -v. • - • f •«/' •-••>••.*• ■ *^«•• '••v**---- • •• • ■—* __.*• •; UC GOVT LOT 2 (ri)1 1 ?(Vxr: • % 1 (&9) 1 II 1 (U)i 13 i 1 J(6T) •. ./• s. X .* ^ • « 1^ • «n 4 « *z: :>»;,;,C • • w “ I . * • vnw X ci 90 L_ ■0 f a 1 1 •%3 a • ?a•ao a nij 0 •A • ‘ .. • V.#’ 1 rLA-r 1916. CO HZ I IL.l.......— V f<9) !(S)(2) i *®ni-sriT3)'>iT3) (2^ (12) <1 sj(^:s> i.Wf}vri^' a B « ■&. ‘-i iiS^ (3)8 • a 1 .->—'S .11 1 8. (34) j vmjvV m "(3, ■■•••0 •(S—3«------:------ N : (^9) i'J5<a gj_28)__I ^ T» j2 5 .- "51 •4 • • •• < r - - TO; FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members Cihy Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator October 11» 1990 Subject: Preliminary 1991 Meeting Schedule The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed 1991 meeting schedule. Note Planning Commission meetings fall on the third Tuesday in January and February because of conflict of the holiday. Alternate dates in July and September may create conflicts because of the holidays in the first weeks of the month. Staff would suggest leaving the dates as proposed for alternate meetings noting that at no time during the 1990 schedule was an alternate meeting called for. Formal approval is requested of the Planning Commission prior to presentation for formal action by the Council. 1991 ORONO CITY MEETING SCHEDULE JANUARY $ M T W T F _S 6 7 8 ^ 10 11 12 13TTI1 15 16 17 18 19 20 27 .23 24 25 26 30 31 EEl7:00 P.M. Council Meeting 2nd & 4th Monday CZ)7:00 P.M. Planning Commission 3rd Monday <3 (May through October 1st Monday as an alternate date) Park CoiTinission 1st Tuesday >C Official Holiday 1991 MARCH ^ M T W T F S 2 9 16 23 30 3 4^670 10 M 12 13 14 15 17 ® 19 20 21 22 'S.SS 26 27 28 29 MAY S M T W T F S .12 3 4 A 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 P 22 23 24 25 .29 30 31m JUNE 2 £D/^ 5 6 7 8 9 nmil 12 13 14 15 1607718 19 20 21 22 M 25 26 27 28 29 ^Sc.vAi'>r»>. P \jev'T\(iH SEPTEMBER S M T W 8 ES 10 11 150© 17 18 T 5 12 r 6 13 S 7 14 19 20 21 PI 24 25 26 27 28 r 4 11 10 OCTOBER 5 M T W T ^4^ 2 36 CS B 9 10 1301115 16 17 20 op 22 23 24 25 26 2712B129 30 31 S 5 12 19 NOVEMBER S M T W T F S 3 4 A 10>tU2 170gl9 24\23 26 1 2 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 20 21 22 23 77^^ 30 I !• AUGUST S M T W T F S • • • 4ir 18 25 ■ m m A 7 13 14 20 21 27 28 1 8 15 22 29 2 '3* 9 ‘10 16 17 23 24 30 31 S i 8 DECEMBER M T W T F S lllZk 4 5 6 7 la 10 11 12 13 14 15 d© 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 >r 26 27 28 29 30 31 * • ^ V4 4**i o _____-«y_________II mm l .' :f.- ! • . ^ . al-^ ^ ^ 3^#*Iti* v-* -'»U * -----J:.\ '• - i!.:. ::! .: ::a-, "Ti- - cm or ooaaamam nwiw ■Mnn aeiam it i»m i,»» r.m. m - larMr* rvtarrai 1. ti*« ^.a. rraya Canfrakaativa flaa I. tH7t I. tilt* MU »aai;*/Baa Mnm - 4Ioa MraiM 1m4 - l>»2iaiaarr ••Miriataa - talarraO kaat t* OlUHliM CMaiastwi far (artkar tavtaa ky CawMii. a«r^ 4 lUfia tvaraaa - 44>l karik Mara Sriaa • 4ltar-«ka-ra«t Varikaaa - kafarraa kaak ii4*taa tar futtkar rartaa'k'r CaVfiVil''-*ia*"aSItrayaaa^ •Mart kakaat - 1444 Lmm Aitar-tka-raat Vattaaca Li«4a iraaM • •aaiit kaar4k« cirv^.^a fiakar • 1]0« raa vtrMt - Caaditikaa; um karart - kMitr RMrtk« ••4th Bar Narikk t Tacat c:ak. . ;*t| tkaraliaa 0f4»a - taaaM^ Vatit a aM - •akiia MMtiat •k4i44 laiay • t]»l kratai kaa4 kaatk • VariancM - raklta aMrla* jMaa Laka - itai kartk ahara Mira - tartaaaM • Maiic aMria* Jaka aM Maria nartaatk - laai “atanaan BaaO • Variaaaa - kaalit Raariaa Baryia L. Bkhalt - ia»* aaiiy kaaaaa • Var4aa«a - kakiic aaariaf ■a.kh r. Mraaaa. Jr. • Mia ■••• lafayatta laaO • variaara - kakUa kaarik* tntim Jacaaa - iTaa tkaraliaa Mira - Caaaitiaaai Bm karait - kakUr Baariaa U. 4U»» Mra Mm - lail CaraaMia M. - •katea klM aaviM l*tl Cal caaaikta af kiaMia* eaaataatM ravraaanaaiaa at vaaacii aaatiaa at Oatakar I, 1»M. kiaaaiaa ^Caaai^a^a^aa aaararai at tka aiaataa at It. a. a. I*. ••ktaakat IT, l*aa aMMiat klaMtaa CaMiaatM ta aalaat a ra* attaaa tM Maraa ka i IJ. 1*M aaatiaa it raaMttaaiaa ta If). -i—;.. .jr'5 5&V.«!j-«dt.V. t |P,y^ 'i • ■ ■ . Ccyyf>-P/*^ 2> /d-/S"' 90 Pc. ^ ^ A f mp>«;*• ^ — »2rjT i ; ^ *r--j>...J. 0#0M0 ^1000«U!S4 ij (L>*- tsi TS» % I f 0^ IS I ¥1 ^~ \ *>'-r ’-*•;.*:'i. . ■ ffiSKA’rj • •' ■-:'. • fnu%m f LiA/£ *$ -• • ^ '* ” •v**'-*.- e^.i^ \;. *.-■ ’■ r-i's>ii9.. I - /... . : i.,»-w - ________ yw-.v ___ PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BAYSIDE WOODS OWNER-DEVELOPER DAN E RUTH PARTEN lois tonkawa road LONG LAKE, MN SS356 p.C. s: z: 'll"? Hansen Thorp PaWnen Olson Inc «Mir:r^ tm itMa t»M rf~-- kycr f I « L ^ /V -/., w >“*1 SITE LOCATION \ «:4.i «• BAYSIDE WOODS 2. ;, r; r \l"r Hansen Thorp *' ' Pellinen Olson Itk. r f«ifp«ee'S • ^sa# W lepsrs Ki««e fe» «« «%X4 iee« # ; i»»a l-:^ I I shost a of a .»*'••*• lo-is-fc PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BAYSIDE WOODS N OWNER-DEVELOPER ■U. KNAPP naO« MOUSTRUU. park blvo PLYMOUTH. MN 55441 WA LOT 1 BLOCK 1 13 AC MCA lOT t BLOCK I 10 AC A«t A lot 1 BLOT* J ? / AC total area z 17.06 Acr«* I 1^*'mm* ^mmmrmrn nwi • ff 11^ Hansen Thorp -I Pellinen Otson Inc. I L—»—**■*<» 9~^*<mmt% t t.*>4 W . f* 0»*<m »-*f < -**« r («»n ►f*- .• ^'>44 f«44 f ♦ ‘’ #4 Sh««i « of 4fi««U I I #1584 /0’iS-9o P C‘ LAKE MINNETONKA (MONTH *MH) t't r-r— ~>re /^tf. f0‘ TUI* larvtjr ifionj locitlon df tht tilsting *b«rdco»#r" In rtt«tlon to tri« boundi'tot of/ tfit tbo** dttcriboO proptrty <i 6«i«d on flitting aonuatntftIon ' This difffrt from dittanctt tfio«n on tnf ro-rord pi*t as Meatgrod o»#r frof tho ttctlon lint, and It ■ajr bf ntcfttar/ to judicially dottmint tnt boundaritt. I ntrtby cortify that tnit twrvty «at proparod by or undtr ay diroct tupfriiilon and that I aa a duly rogiittrad land tuntyor undor tho laut of tnt Slatt of Kinn#iota. coma • EboaBfRE. tac. to; i7f5s Inginftri. Land Survtyort. blanntrt Long taa*. ainnotota Data : 7-27-M Scalt; I’.ZO* 0 : Iron aarktr found Btaringt mown art battd on an atsuotd datut. I I It.............. '■••••• Sl.trttf* •••■• I. If.. I • • I ,« ll. I. « • » • ‘ ■ • ' #■5f.91 i*t€f 1'^, • nn •» »i‘- tail ..».•» «*•«• »*• 1. i.«. •*< •• •— **' I xfo, t.fiiii «»*< ^ tetf IW • toina I 1*4. Wr*«r** ■r" rrm fUMNrrt $4i» • M M Vi 1 ' * *♦' • Ui#« i«i«a i»«tt Ai i _r...\ "'ii * f«w^ /»T^_ ^ /0’/S-9c> P<^- N jy)4o—n»^ m»^ XI 'A:?J \trt:fiztH <tt . [Cmnti tj ^lui I »i •• tf' "" 14 / . S ^iuf 1 V . ’^1 if] Sf»A%TlA »AMltl4% lU^ U± '—-— ;» M<« ^>4«** s ^ ^H,' iuiltu^ i '* 1 ’ 9 ^ ♦>,i > » 1i 1 i "Twsr^ Fi^- Mr ‘L^n n rtw# £mt at art* sit.tai ^itlt ;#-»»- . •* pmfrmnt -• M «r>^»ri . ... A &.<• I ICfiS-^o pc. f7)f^!'- Ctrt I r lc«tt of ;«r»#)r for Darjrto 1. UpOoff Of tot 2. Block 2. mllori Port Honnrpin Countjr. Mlnnosota /b /^ 9o S 1. Av«-' D«to Uolo 0 t-I*-00 I- . JO* Iron aof l%*«f .lu ■UC #1596 toga I tfoacrii:t ”:.i tot 2, Block 2. Nallart Port I KoroOp can iff ^na* iMi \m' ■at proparod Of ’»• o under m$ direct tupervisien and tPat I an a duljr repiatered tend aor- »efor under trie ' aui of too State of Ninneiota .re. no. T?r55 Ingineert, Land Suf«e;ori Long Lake. Minnetoia C*rllfIcat* of Survey for Deryle l. uphoff of Lot 2. Hock 2, Miltcri Port Nonnepin Couoty, Ninnetotp /0-/S-90 =. /;»f r./v it. 3^^ ► ^ IV Nis^i*** J Out!o1* 3 o«to Scolt 0 «.|»-P0 r . 10* Iron mtf #1596 Legel &#»crlptt3n Lot 2. Slock 2. Mol tort Port I nerePy certify lOet this tur. •«t preperetf Oy oe or under ay direct lupervition end tOet I «a • duly regiitered lend lur- veyor under the .'4»» of the State of Minnesota corns » OSONSCkfi. IRC. MefTl«fTTr"5r5n5fFfl1 Ingineert, Land SurvefOri Long Lake. Mioneiota 771^ #1428 ’ ©C L OOULTCR a ASSOCMCTES, NC.— MMM • OMMH »«MMI • «r« * aMMM •%t «t »-»'»!mmt * ir» r ~1 sidewatk patio dock tandscapa hardcovar Sf^ea<^ root L-«r t» ivv-? % Hardcover | :? s i i’i" « Saue: 1 I .....___n*®® - SVi**^U.*»fc.tiruJt.j -----55!&.o»4o^ f,S* • D«uU*«-N/ca1 Rv^«.t '^f Ccix.Ti East t^AMu«c-TrU}&S7 0) n f M « 5 -p; •!4'^ (*»W-TC p *Tl!Ui2*^ o-t- C>«M<*»* LL» JOpsf i t 51 Crr <'ri« 4) .Cf>Ww»C S ‘ I • I Co**c,Ptf« JL lii j "Typ^tcpsL Sec •7-o‘^w77t~ !f' ~ ----------- S»»*M Auy. I 'Ji; 61^ 1 I N #t Scuth ~T?»Su E. GrRECHHOOtC ^ ^ ALBERT J.LAUER. INC. H700 CHIPPEWDALE W. (HWY. 3) R(»EMOUNT. MN 55<»a ,«(912} 429-16S1 mm»n$ H M V I •• • «M9 "DS-- BO 1^ -i*- *1^: 0 ^ M’-O'>.t*» "EJ75 j -H h \ iC 7k -®- T k VfcSiok vfciJr u>/ e>K (Uyit pkri:^:i<n} GUti *'••'** S'il- - i\4 'An % r.. ?^v- S='«-s •w.S-; i 1 V4i 'o ^-7-^ N -------------- *^«Av7>f &-1Y , , 0»«*» «l?vo<.c. t 4'-i'± ta_ r»-o cj -jf c ..I CC .'^Q'-O** ^.'PoaTS. puA»M iRWfM Jacobs V/Av'T-a.ATA* 1*200 5i>«%^e.li’k« D»^k7t ,Mn Ssi"}! '/to l»i * l’“0 * <c»k My HRS. Kiw.. Mffkk'u r«v.i‘-f? ciRTiriCATi or tufivtv roo wm. A MRS. IRWIN JACOBS C/O JKNUN CON«THUCnOM or urr a. wjoch t. county (I IOTA tftunvmA-'mia. MBti I •« am w a. eorrmti MUMS LMI iM t I