The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-21-1985 Planning PacketPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1985 7:00 P.M. 1275 BRGNN ROAD SOOTH - COUNCIL CHAMBERS (*)Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the Planning Commission under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Mayor Butler ATTENDANCE 1. CONSENT AGENDA* 2. 7:00 to 7:45 p.m. - Zoning Amendment IDLED PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. 7:45 p.m. #973 Steven J. Ruce, 4625 & 4665 West Branch Road - Subdivision of a Lot line Rearrangement 4. 8:00 p.m. #974 Eric J. Christensen, 900 North Shore Drive West Preliminary Subdivision 5. 8:15 p.m. #980 Richard M. Keaveny, 3423 Shoreline Drive - Preliminary Subdivision ROUTINE LAND USE APPLICATIONS - ACTION ITEMS 6. #971 Mark S. WaL ;erman, 1045 Linden Lane - Variance - Public Hearing 7. #975 Everaiid Geyen, 3572 Lyric Avenue - Variance - Public Hearing 8. #981 Philip F. Kalay, 1395 Brown Road South - Variance - Public Hearinc 9. #984 Joe Sawchuk, 4105 Watertown Road - Variance - Public Hearing ACTION ITEMS 10. #929 Lyle Rahn, ii4b Wiidhurst Trail - Conditional Use Permit - Second Review 11. #959 George E. Johnson, 365 Old Crystal Bay Road North - Variance - Second Review 12. #967 & 968 John B. Idstrom, 2580 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit - Second Review 13. #972 Shaver/Tearse, 1080 West Ferndale - Variance - Public Hearing I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1985 7:00 P.M 14.#976 15.#977 16.#978 17.#979 0 0•#982 19.#983 20.#986 Public Hearing #977 Jim Werner, 1408 Baldur Park Road - Variances - Public Hearing Public Hearing After-the-Fact Variance - Public Hearing . ■ Variance and Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Variance - Public Hearing 20. #986 George Rovegno, 2010 Shoreline Drive - Variance SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 21. #985 Balboa Minnesota Company, 3700 Shoreline Drive Sketch Plan Review ” PRD/Variance for Apartment ADDITIONAL ITEMS *22. Planning Commission approval of September 16, 1985 minutes. . 23. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the November 18, 1935 Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT 1 Planning Commission Council PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)>\DDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) rJ 7 ^ / 2^ ^ o J/A^rr S r /)l ^ >\ / 0 ^ L^fy)(jv n /.A| ZCS' Cfld 5JZ/ $7// OAt\^i iHiJL Aj ryi j? ^ hA" / ■ % aUL MA /O \A\, Jf''■-<t.|i'l^O"> d_KcjirJh (yyjf (A I^L Ol^^f r.^f{LtTH -/F/rXr ^iz ‘gwp|VJ^ />4T ^ 7 fc /:/-/7^> 977 177^ 1 \ Planning Commission Council PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETINC. DATE ••• i PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS, NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) t(f9yk^D/h //77l^/ //J ^ 1 ^ HO^ y>^/<L,hK Pcr^(:Jt ^j7// Y 5. 6, 7. 8. 9. LO. . LI. . L2. L3. L4. L5. L6. L7. L8. L9. 20. i v/i i-ri VI rtco 3 ■bJ.-I. -J. ^-H 3 -i. --I.—CL 3 —1 fD fD —I 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 fD CD 0 CD 3 d CD 0 -*• CD CD CD fD CO rt 3 CD 3 3 <-Hrt rt -i. rt 0 < ^rt —rt (D -H 3 fD < rt rt rt ma.fD —i CD (D n fD i CD CD CD CD -t> 33 CD —j.X3 3 m Q.*o fD ..j*rt -I. 3 3 CO 7T 3 CO —5 CD :zr> rt 3 0 CD 0 rt CD 3 0 0 0 3-3 CO CO fD 3 CO 3or2 CD 3 3 3 —• 3 0 rt 3 CO 3 3 3 fD —J. 3 -*.3. 5 3—j 10 3 B to —*• —1 0 3- rt -»•3 rt < << CO CD 0 0 Q •.i. CD CO 3 CD 3 3 CD rt 0 rt 0 3 1 fD 3 ^-t 0 0 0 r*0 fD ^3 3 33 0 3 3 -J*3 3>-h CD CO fD ''< -h -3 “h fD 3 3 3 rt '33 n —i.fD 3 rt rt fD *3 (>0 3 CD 3 T3 3 CO —ri* •i. mU,0 CO DJ C 3^CO 2: 3 0 rt rt 0 ;o -H i CQ fD C 3 0 r^__,to -H CO3 Q>CD 0 —* rt —1.Q -J.2: CD -h fD 0 C CO 3 3 < CD fD 3 3 .3CQ rt 3 rt rr=»CD 3 rt 3 tn rt 0 CO ^fD 0 —CD -h CD ri* 0 0 jCD ua :>3 3 CQ 0 fD -t| 31 3 0 ri* —0 Q. -h 3 0 ^<:r> 0 *X3 fD -ti 0 (u 0 DO 0 cr.0 0 CD f)rt —fD fD 3CO 3 0 3 -h -tj CO -Ocn c>o ■3m333T C -t>• j 3 CD j 2 3-'*0(O CD «-J. 0 CD 0 0 fD —- 3 3 CD -1.3 c<O CQ 3 CO fD CO 3 ft0 0 3 ct<-:—1. *0 rt —* 3 CD -0 fD —^T3 rt 1 1 CD 0.3“fD ton -t>3 3 3 CD -»• <3 —i to CO ' —h wmJ,ri* 0 ,—^ fD CO cr rt -J*3 0 0 0^fD rt C 3 CD 3 3 C>0 C3£D —1 3 (/)0 CD 0 -*•'< rt 0 CO 0 CO 3 r^ 3 3 rttC Q -Hrt 0 CO 0 C 3 fD n OJ ^ rt ..j.Q.3 0 3 3 3- CD 3 CO mmJ, ^-i. 0 c CQ fD 2 ^c-^= fD CD < 0 0 fD 3 <___ 0 3 <3 fD rt mmm •fD D-Qj CD •u, 3 CO -j. rt 73 r+ CO 3- fD n .3 3 3 3 0 M n 3“CO -f,mJ,CO fD 3“ CO ^fD CO 3 0 -j. -j.(O 3" CD fD —I.0 CD —i fD -i.ft 3 3 < fD CD rt XJ 0 CD CO 3 a« 0 3:CO «0 fD 3 0 3 CO 3 -1.0 1 3 rt CO CD -^CO 0 CO^c< to 3 3 CD -J. 3 CO •fD 3 CD O <m ZZL 3 m 73 m 73 o m o 2: 2 Q O O O < < (T n> fD &g-g- CD »T) fD -5 cn r>o —- ro cji I I I o n: m ;o m r- m o o o -H —I ►-H m o 00 m 00 Tl O 3D > TJ Pi o o mo O ■n T] g >r" 0) oo 2 (/)g oz m J3 </> > Z Z Z > (/) r- mi 3 CO 3T Sv CD C7* CD X3 »—«5:73 ----1 0 iO »-«3 fp 0 CD CD 01 T3 3- * = “J -J r+*a 3>rt fD rt 0 (D 3 0 3 —• 3 it:fD f 3*3 rr -h -♦> 0 3 3 -f|to 3 fP 0 rt fP fP 3T mmU 3” CD CD C 3 3 3C-I- CD rt C:CO ma»CD -4i 3 3 3.0 3 C CD < <0 0 CD O fp mmj -0 CO cr -"• C 3 fD mJI,(O fD —i^<3 fD 3-^ "<3 cr -.J ^ -4.XJ to 3 0 -h -*•fD rt fD CO 3 3 t>o to < •—1 0 3 0 -«• -rf.-O 0 0 n 3 —' fP 0 fP 3 g fP fD 3 3 0 CO rt -*• 3 zc rt »—4 CD CO C rt rt 0 3 C to IB 0 0 < 3 IP 3 3 CO Z. CO CO 5: 3 3 fD 0 CD 3 3 mU* Q CO 3 3 —• 3 <0 3 3 —< rt —j«3 -»• fD CO 3 cr 3 CO C -J. ^CO <0rt0 3-CO rt -i* 1 0 fP rt B.J. CD rt Ql 0 to 3 3 r-ri*CD 3 0 CP 3 fp CD cr 3 rr 3 -t> cr C rt rt 3 rt 3" 3 -t> 3- rt n 3 0 .-t -J*rt C 3 —- 0 3 <mmU •i^«m4« Ql B-J*3* (P 0 fD 0 3 2 CO 0 3 0 rt*3 ^T »< —* 3 c ro fP to O' Q.-h—*r+fP 3 0 0 3 “*'• 3 :>3 c 3 CD 3 0 _ 3 •c f+ ro c -<• 0 to 2 3 rt -s rt CO 3 CD 3 3 —c CD rt CO 7T 0 ^ C 0 fP JD CD r+ 0 = 3 <-►0 IP fD 3" • 3 3 CD -H fD mJ,fP -«• 10 -t| CO c to —J. Cl —.•O 3 0 3 3 fD fD 3 CO -r m • tm • If 10 3 -rf*to rt fp •• fP 0 3 -h ro ro 01 3 rt fD fD "5 CO fD CO -J*Z2i c: CO ?r to rr CO to 3 ro 0 3 V) 3 0 —^ m U3 <:> 0 CD -J. —»0 CO cr fp •3 C rt rt 3 7^ 3 (P CLtO 0 bbJb (O 3 fD CD —• rt —' 0 *<3 N •0 ID 0 3T 3> rt fp 3 0 3 0 3 CO fD —i 3 CO Qi CO 3 -tk 0 rt •rt 3 3" fp 0 0 0 rt rt 3 C CD CD ..i.fD 0 < 0 CO •I 0 <30 73 3 3 O 3* CD to 3 —-:£ 0 CO T3 0 ID ^ 0 fP rt g to 3 to fp fp —^ —*• IP 3* 3 Oi I ^ n-1 cu 3 3 in O < o> -I. 3 rh Q. 3 iO Ql 3 Cl. o> ^^ i 3 3 J. to C O) 03 CO o cr ^< o 3 -^•35 ^ (0 n o -fi c 0 3 3 3 n-CQ m.J» 0) O) CT 3 3 CL cr CO fD 3 O CO 3> O o C/> 3 -*• -j.tO 3 O T3 3 O. 3 fD O •O O < 3 n> O C/> “O 000 to 3 C 01 10 3 CO "1 H- fl) -•3 CO =* ^^ 01 rt CO CO 01 o»3 cr o 3 C CO rt- CD O 3 CO 3 CD O Q. —^ rC* —< • r^T3 CO -t> < CD CD CD 3| 01 .j. -<«c< 3 CD CD 333 »-«fD300 CL CO "O CO 3 rt CD rt* -*• CD CD CD —' 3* 3 CD rt O rt 3D 3 c -h «D CD to to CXCO —4 in CD 3 CD CD 0 CZ 3 rt -♦1 3 rt 0 «<—« cr -'• 0 rt 0 0 IP 3 3 zy -4. 0 3 3 IP rt % fP 0 3- 3 -h CD < 0 CO fD 0 CD to rt C 0 CO fp rt 3 -*• 3 3 3 7T CL *4. </) < IP ID to 3- CD 0 3 • 0 3 ^ 3D 3 > 3- -HI --fj ^ CD CO =y> -4.s 73 3 2 =It t t 0 —• IP 3 CD 3-fD 3 0 3 m CL to —1 0 fD CD 3 ± fD < (0-4*CO Q.XD CD X 2 3 CO <o* 0 to CD CD CD to (O -*S c —4 0 -4-co tV fD -4--4* rt -i <-4. 3 3>-0 fD CO 0 •CO rt fD IP CO —« 3 cr -4. fD -4* —^ fD 3 3 < fD 0 0 Ql —4X3 -4. 0 3 3 0 X 3 3 fD 0 < IP n 0 CD 3 —4 -4* fD 3 -4* Z 3 0 X)cr rt “O Ql rt 2 2-3 fD 3 3 TD CD fp C 3 fD CO —^CO CD fD tmmU •«« 3 0 Ql 3 fD 0 C 3 0 0 CD fD mU • C fp 3 3 3 CD :> CL 3 fD rt rt CO •—1 -—1 CO (D 3 0 3 3 0 —4 -i. —5 -4*3 3 3 to 3 0 3 —• -4 0 3 3 • -rt n> 1 H-4(<*H CD -4.-4. u) 0 Ql 3 3 -3 3 -4*rt PW 0 (P fP 0 -*•cr 3 C rt CD =1 CO Ql fD 3 -4. 0 rt Cij Oj —4. —J 0 fD 3 rt 3 3) n 3 C XJ rt 1 ► -H -3 Q.33 -J. -J rt to < 2 -4 CL rt 0 < 3 CO rt 0 -t) C fD 3 CO fD 0 1 0 .‘L'fD CO fD *0 0 -4*0 "3 3 3* -.>• rt) —4 0-4. X 3 X 3 CD C CL 3 0 CD —4 73 Z 0 C/i ^ fD Ql 0 fp 3 3 3 C rt* 3 fD fD ** fD CD 3 70 3 __(CL -3 3 3 -4«to -4. ::3 —3“rt /TN 3 fP to fD 3 ^ CO 3 0 <3 0 c#. •—*»—4 fD CL CD CO rt Ql rt Ql fD fP 3 rt 3 3 C 'X> fD n>—1. cr 0 CO 3 0 3 3 —•cr r** 3 CL fD **T* «B^«7JT3 CD rt •*h =3 3 fD rt 3 1 —*B»J. Ql —4* Tr fD Ql Ql -4.tQ fP (-t -4* to fD 3 3 rt CD CO 3 3 fD X3 10 3 3 CQ CL TZ rt -4* 3 ___t . 3 • C 3 CD fD 0 0 0 CD rt rt Q 0 3 CL CO 3 0 3 —J • \Jl mmm • -f> CO ol rt CD -J CO fD 3 3 CD rt 0 ID fD ^rt 0 -3 3 ft)C -4*W 0 rt fp “O fD CX 7T fD 0 3 0 -4*-H Q.3 C. Ql TT* cn 3 —4 _3 3 PF\ 3 3 fp 3 3 m 3 fD 3 2 CD ro <CO 3 C 3 0 CO fD (O fD CQ fD 3 0 CD -4 b ^ rp tr rt -4*3 CL 2 r*t CO fD rt fD 0 CL C 3 3 Ql im3 i p\ CD rt 3 to < TD CD 3 0 >»fD —rt CO c>^0 -3 rt <0 —*0 rt 3 3 I/I ___i ^ rt •4» •■J fD CD rt -♦> 3 0.CO CO 3 fD -4. ft 3 CD 3 Ql _______________________A________•____lOl___________________________ifc. 1 ________r“>_j Oi__CBl______-^4 __________=1 ______-* ■ X:_______________<0 rt__________0 3 < -c 70g m - i CZsm CO wo X rf 0 —^0 -i. o> O —J 13 —• 3 “O O •0 I I ci- -O PI rl“ -*• O 3 Qi n 3 O O 3ro "o lO -s%* ro 3- Pi Q fO 3 -S CO C CLiO CO O) -s -i. < O 3 0) C CO —'X3 O to O ci-no 3- 0) rt-O fO O PJ - 3 rf CO -O = ;:o m O < O r— GO cr p. CO' n> < PI CO to rO* pj CO 3 c --s: Q. cr c o PI CL pi -5 -S rt 7T CL < n> T3 to PI 3 -H CD ?=» CO i—I (/> 35 C3 C COr* o r+ CO r- ro <-h fo CD pi iO CO 3 -* - Q. CO CD «- D CL to —»• - < -i. CO Pi Tl o 3T Cl 3 to fO CO O O O fO 3 -h rl" a 3 cz:cc o ro :x:> C/) »—« o c:zr ozc o 3 C>0 “Oro n "O 3 O < 3 PI 3 O •u. di r'- rt- O 3 3 O o ;o O Pi Q. ri- C 3 O Q 3 vO Ol CO r- O 2: t;r :> n Q 3 PI CL CO o CO PI C rf D 3“ O 3 CO CO C (0 to o 3 to "O 3 cu Ol 3 —' rt- o: -< *3 o rvj o o 3 «rL' . m CD CD d -Hr- o > o oo 3 < (0 3 to Ol 3 3 Di 3 Pi < —*0) Pi 3 CL PI O 3 3 3 -j.-a 3 —I to PI 3 to 3 PI O CO :2 HH = o zz O CD O 3 C CD CO PI to Ol to 3 3 I fD O) o c: ro to 3 fD rt- t/i ►-H CO O I Z I “3 ZO O 3 CO i::: rt -h —*• 01 3 o n> 3 fD O CL O 3 3- O O fD C 3 to 3—I. to 3 to cr P' 3 to c o 3 Q. P O to -I* 3 “O O Pi C 3 •a rt CO (O m O r3 COm c: o O CO fD s: fD -h I to -I. -H'* O -»• to 3 rt rt O :s 3- 3 CO wo -H M ro •-« o O d 'O 3 > 2 o r- CD 3 c: r“ CO ro 3 fD 3, 3 fD to o CLI 3 0 3 3 3 fD o» C 0 C 3--0 rt 3 C or o pi P» pi 3 “ O —13 fD 3 CL CO M 3" O fD rt 3 ^ C -»• 1 3 3 Oro r""m cz o 0 3 1 oo 3 3 Pi rt m CO O 3 Pi CO O 3 to 3 rt O CO O O O 3 3 n B fD -I.T3 — 3 rt fD to —^ O CZ 3 to fD ^ to 3m 3 3 2 fD 3 rt ZZ (3m CO zz ro CO -5 O o o 0 r* CO 1 I 3 3 -H fD P to o zr Z2! 3 =3 fD 3 3 0 3 3 0 rt fD — O CO ZT P cz: fD 3 O O 3 '-j —^ CO ^-1 -i. o 3 < m —I fD —^ p n> -H 3 E O —» fD -*• P 3 3 3 3 rt r- tO - 3 fD to WO rt P 3 to :d> r" o zl: fD —t).o zz P Pi CD -t> 3 CD fD rsj 3 po P OD ro c o I —* O cn o cn CO ro CO ro —' rt ro o ro • rom p 3 CO -J. rt CD O < fD 3 3 3 3 fD CO O 3 rt ro I CO 3 O c 3 rt — rt P 3 or P cn ro -I cn c 3 < o c < Ql -i.C=> 3 3m 3 CO rt D> 3 rt ZT^ a CDm O o • PO CO CD .rt cr ft) 3 O 3 pD 7> O 3 rn 3 7^cx> 3 3:>^ rt 3 O 3 rt rt O O Oc 3 D > CO CO on CO o ro 3 m 3 3 - CD 3 3 P to H 3 3 CO XD to d fD o 3 3 (0 — rta. a> CO 3 3 .*D CO rt O O fD O 3 3 fD rt 3 O 3 O 3 fD 3cr (0 3 O oc 3 o rt rt O 3 3 -»• fD O.^ n> »* 3 rt 3 w* O 3 Qo ro ro > p r- O -h C 3 Qo 3 P 3 P 3 3 fD 3 O O 3m COo T3 3 O CZ cn “O o 3 > > C3 C-. O CZ 5 o zr -♦i CO -h p O 3 P CO —I CO to 3 O 3 P 3 CD fD 3 3 -t? 3 fD -h O CO fD n “O O fD O rt CP 3 -j. C CO 3 fD cr to -»• Z3 ^ < fD 3 O f - 3 D> ZZ d ►—» C-t zz cz CD CO O O -H 3 0 3 3 ZZ m n> fD rt rt rt ^ X) 35• •O 3| fD CO CO3 to O O 3 -f, 3 3 O Om CO CO zzm 3 5:* 3 3m O 3 -H CO O CO r- f— —• m ^ o 3 o t/> m 3 -H 3 - —i 3 3 3 -H m 3 :r> m 3 rt P 3 CD 3 rt rt O 3 3 P O 3 O rt) o o O P 3 0 —--0 CL 3 C 5 ^Q* O CQ —I rt 3 -j. -<• On =3 c to 3 o m s CO -H m 3 O »—< m —I 3 m CD ro o o 3 m pD o no —- 3 -I. o 3 0 C rt 3 0> P CL to ^ (D 01 CO • O O- —^ P (D rt P (0 to • rt CD P 3 CO o T3 P O. O P (0 ^ to P rt3 rt3 P Ozr o p p CP rt 3 P 3 rt ro 3 O LO 3 P 3 *5 3rt)to to rt 3 P rt 3 3 3to -!• P o < 3 P 3 rt P O -h O O 3 to o o C 3 -- P o.to O 3 O P O p s: rt O O 7T 3 CO to ZT O ^•XJ to cr CO P rt 3 P3 P O P O 3 < P O CL 3 P rt rt 3 P rt CO cr •to 3 r1 Ql «-i«*< r P O 3 o P CO CL P -t) O P 3 rt 3 P (0 3 to CO rt rt -»• P 3 3 P P • CL O P 3n p p CL 4^ 00 3 oc 3 CO p CL to 4^ 3 0 3 P X3 3 P rt -s CZ »—I -H o w l-v -n o 3 t-<T3 P ?a O -J* ^ 3 3 P 3 Ctto , 0 0.03 ^ 3*^ < 3• » o» a. a (0 < 3 C+ » «0 » . (P «-»■ / §§3*?^ ^ 3 3X3 i/» 3 P -5 P -5 P rt 3 rt —• “h P -S rr p -4. •.!. < C P CO P 3 rt 0 .rt 3 7T 0 CL CO 3 70 rt 0 _ to P zr 3 0 iC 0 P P 10 P 0 0. -h 3 3 C^ CL rt 3 3-^* P P 3 3 O -t. CL —• P O C P C CL rt P to P _ to —4 cr -♦> —J -5 rt ^ O P 3 C -S 3 O cTkCo c/» cr m “*• C+ 00 f+ 3 o» rs> * (o ♦ -*• “? o < —WT3 (D A^ a CD a *1 cn c c c tn 09 -.“S'-5 °* >1 “sf< c n A S 3 = 3-ff3 -n P to O •f.. XJ • p 2.5» » c j.*-nSfA = O. rt OJ «*<O. cn o —• a:0 « ro A •vj p —I to rt r\3 rt ^ O P cn 3 DC cn 3 3 1 P to O « 3ro aE 3 O S P 3 ro CJcn cn cn O < ro o 3 cr ^3 CO toc: p CO o p rt O 3 3 P -n 3 CL P (« 2 O —I :oo 01 o o CO 41 , W t '-x' • 4'. >*M ■(. , IT* REGISTRATION FORM NAMt Jurisdiction Title Piionef ) How long in this position? Address 1985 Annual Planning Institutes (Check One) □ November 15th — Owatonna □ November 22nd -- St. Paul □ December 5th — Brainerd City/State/Zip □ Enclosed is check for $ ($40 Pcr person) □ Please bill me. ($40 plus i2 billing cfiarge) □ Please send further information regarding Twin Cities overnight acconriodations. TO:Planning Commission PROM: Jeanne A, Mabusth, Zoning Administrator DATE: September 12, 1985 SOBJ: Zoning Amendment - Second Review At your August meeting. Planning Commission had a brief moment to review the proposed zoning amendment. Discussion did cover a request by one member to amend Section 10.22 Subdivision lA as follows: A. Shall be 75 feet for all structures except that fences under 42" may be permitted within that setback area. On lakeshore lots divided by a major thoroughfare the following structures are permitted on the lakeshore portion of such lots within 75 feet of the lake and require a building permit from the City; 2.fences not exceeding 72 inches but shall not exceed an average height of 42 inches above the height of the crown of the intersecting road. Purpose of first amendment use to specify type of permit required. The second use to account for variance in grades when constructing such fences. If members have any specific changes in mind, write them down ~ we should be able to move fast on this review. Please call before the meeting if you have any questions. ■; ! TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE: October 14, 1985 SUDJ: Ordinance Amendment ~ Third Review Review Time: 7:00 - 7:45 PM Please note that your October 21st meeting begins at 7:00 PM so that we will have adequate time early in the meeting to complete discussion of our ordinance amendments. If members have major revisions, please put them down in writing. I would appreciate your calling me prior to the meeting night if you have any questions on content or if you wish background on reasons for amending these specific sections of the code. Members should contact me by Friday morning if you have misplaced the staff amendment or accompanying memos. \ 1 TO:Planning Commission Members FRCMI: Jeanne A. Mabusth^ Building & Zoning Administrator DATE: Octobe*: 17, 1985 SUBJ: Addendiun - Proposed Ordinance Amendment I have enclosed a new entitled "Fence Ordinance" author unknown for your consideration. It has been suggested that this was drafted in response to a lengthy more detailed amendment drafted by staff. FENCE ORDINANCE Definitions! Fence Any structure, man made, constructed to define lot lines, or yard space or areas? to protect property, public or private from major thorough fares. Materials used include but are not necessarily limited to, wood, wire, bamboo, cement? the opacity shall not exceed 75%. Wall Any structure, man made, constructed to define lot lines, or yard space or areas? to protect property, public or private from major thorough fares. Materials used include but are not necessarily limited to, wood. wirs, bamboo, cement.A wall is distinguished from a fence by its opacity.A wall is 75 to 100% opaque. A wall, for the purposes of this ordinance, does not include retaining walls. Fence/wall is permitted on the lot line only when the heigKth does not exceed 42 Inches unless the property line in question abuts a major thorough fare (County Road), at which place the fence may be up to 6 feet in heig^th. Fence/wall at the set back lit e of a residential lot may be up to 6 feet in heig^th. i ' i^ijL f^JNo fence or^,^all may be const:ucted within the zero to seventy-five foot protected lakeshore area. No fence or wall may be constructed on the side lot line or side set back line lakeward of the average set back of adjacent properties Building permit requests for a fence/wall along a major thorough fare 7must be reviewed and approved by the City Council. .5 i To:Planning Commission Members From: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator September 4, 1985 #973 Steven J, Ruce & Scott R. Luse, 4625-4665 West Branch Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Zoning District - RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential 2-Acre 4625 (Ruce) 4665 (Luce) Existing Lot Size - 43,568 s.f. 107,045 s.f. Proposed Lot Sizes - 62,465 s.f. 88,148 s.f. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - (54,155 s.f. when road is excluded) Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey With Proposed Lot Line Rearrangement The applicant wishes to purchase 60' of his neighbor's lot in order to increase the size of his own property from 1.0 acre up to 1.43 acres (1.24 acres excluding road). The proposal includes the removal of an existing shc^d which would become non- conforming due to a 7' setback from the new property line. A septic testing report has been submitted for the western most property, which will lose area, and indicates that there will still be ample room for future septic needs after the division. The division will also give the smaller easterly property additional room for future septic expansion. The westernmost property was part of a recent plat, and drainage and utility easements exist at • he boundaries. No additional drainage and utilities easements will be taken since this is a metes and bounds lot line rearrangement. However, we will ask for a quit-claim deed of the 40' right-of-way along West Branch Road (County Road 151). I - Staff recommends approval subject to the quit-claim deed for right-of-way. I t /Date Mc'.d - r Sy wX-<-« .AfCL^Ju' CITY OF ORONO SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM APPLICANT Name ,'^TE\iEN J~. R(_l CF. Fee Rec'd ^9/) (Ui {p S' *V0 IX^po^^ T^ Mailing Address A*L?2jP> \NEjSv PROPERTY Name OWNER .scorr /? ■ UUL sg ______ Telephone A-H Z, '(o(o7F) (5rV\Nia-( R^^Ap . _______ Telephone ‘4T2''7T(oZj SUiSS<yAm,R!^Pr <nc.ANg PROPERTY LOCATION street Address 4<t»(>5 W&5T (VUmNin 6»4 Property Identification No. (P.I.D.) 2JZ GCiC Complete Legal Description to be attached to application EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all pcrcels Residential; no. of u:iits Other (specify) ^______ PROPOSAL _ _ _ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites; Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size; Proposed Use; (check) Existing Units New Uni s Total Units Units per _ _ _Acres Square Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) _ _ _ _ (OVER) /MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1, Application Completed Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey.2. 3.Certified Property Owner's list of owners within 350' (this list can be obtained from the Hennepin County Department of Finance A-6C3 Government Center 348-3271) 4 . Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10 ) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments) 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and acceptable form of security. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ Date FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivisions) $150.00 $250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) $300.00 plus 20.00/lot Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $150.00* Applicant has read the above and hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Date S&TiA J9M Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are usually held on the third Monday of each month. wr- I > I ll >I 1 ) H O TJz > >: ao> X z o 2 U m TJm > ;o \ -< >> m z o a ;a > a a rr x3 73 m mi'i o o -n ti VI 3 H 73 -< z m m * mo om 2 H H m M z -0 o > M r> nn o m •n >nH </) Qv U H o H 73a C/) os S c^ O' U1 O)no cm CO H IJ1 U1 04 O 4> CD (/I 5m O 04 X- 0>oovn o vl I 73a c (Am r •- m ^ ifi I H ro CD ^ 73 r> > f\> X O 73 O O 5®S5 > > Iro 04 73o M M 01 01 04 01 CO C/Io o z z IM oo HIoH >r- Gi X oo ooo z > > X 3 XI m > \ H 3> m O 73a 73 ^3Z z o m Tj 73 > 2 71 m Z H 3 Z Z > 01 M M Oi ZmCD>z n 13 >4 n n -<» m r- 01 z X Nm 73 m > >o >CD H n 73 z Hm M z o a a 1 >n z3> ni CD CD M M i>« r_ I- c. vj O O X 00 Z o > •*1 > 73 M C 73 O X ni O 2 C* oi m oi CO u 04 o o r* -< N- > D m C. O 04^ o» > a* rv» 73 01 os r m I— Z •- 0* m vj CO <- H CD 73 I 04 IMro o 73 R o 73a m > \ -< > m O 73 o 73 O 13 iS m 73 71 > Z O > O 2 73 m 2 ^ t.o a* o C ^ X Z m Sid > > 01 o ^ 01 X 04o z ^ a C. O 04S«• o <710 0 gsr, I- C/l I H IN> CD ^ 73 04 O X o o 73 0»o 0 1 I 04 04 ooo Hz > > X 2 03 m > \ -<> m O 73a 73 O 13s ^^ om Tj 73 > z o ? o 3 73 m 2 4> O OI S a® 3 Z CD 73 > 01 o 01 X 04 O 73 ^ O r- r- o 04 > > o o> X X ^ m m o < < oi o MM Q* m m Iz z ^ Z M <71 cn o O O 73 I I- H rj OI X ui 0 O > 04 01 -n 73 M 3 3^0 M H O O X X X o > > M M M 3 OI o o c. u > > n o X X 01 OI 04 O' CD 73 > Zn o o X •• O 04 ^ 0> oo o I > c.?s H 73 O X 73 CD 73 04 lo X o o Z 3> O I 03 > Hn X o o a > Hm o o \ 0 01 M H ZZ M mm ^o zCD 1 & HH ro Z H04m 73m i ism • n M M 04 OH OI To:Planning Commission Members From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date:October 10, 1985 Subject: #974 Eric Christensen, 900-950 North Shore Drive West - Preliminary Subdivision Zoning District - RR-IB 2-Acre Proposal - Divide 4.6 acre lot into two building sites of 2.0 and 2.6 acres. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Sketch of Proposed Division Exhibit E - Air Photo The applicant is requesting a 2 lot subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1 of Englund Addition, originally created in 1978. Septic testing has been submitted and both new lots have adequate areas for either shallow trenches or mound systems at primary and alternate sites. There are no designated wetlands on the property. A minor drainageway occurs at the north boundary of the property and enters the adjacent property. The standard drainage and utilities easements along the property boundaries will be sufficient. The applicant has not indicated where the driveway locations will be, nor has he submitted County driveway access permits. This is a fairly long stretch of straight road with good sight distance, hence it may well be approved by the County for two entrances. If not, a shared driveway access would be required. Rather than lock the applicant into a shared driveway, staff recommends that the driveway issue be left up to the County to determine. As is standard practice, the appropriate County access permits must be submitted to the City before building permits will be approved. Both parcels meet all requirements of the RR-IB zoning district. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Standard drainage and utilities easements to be shown on the plat. 2. County driveway access permits required prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Subject to park dedication fee for the two lots, calculated as follows: - 2 lots of 2.0+ acres each at $200/lot = $400 - minus credit of $250.00 park fee paid in 1978 for Lot 1, Block 1 of Englund Addition - total park fee to be collected is $400 - 250 = $150.00. (park fee credit authorized per Municipal Code Section 11.62, Subdivision 8) I 4 CITY OF ORONO #974 Date Rec'6 M ' AJx^ i— SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM Fee Rec'd p g '* PCc> ScU^. ‘Vc 1 AI»PLICANT Name ^UlC X. CM/9i5T^//5r>U i_______ Telephone ^ Mailing Address 5"7r/ QAKUiirUJ lAAJe Jf)lAj /UJS'T^/UKA &IAJ SSS^S' PROPERTY Name X. Ch gUr^A/Telephone il4-9yyi ,OWNER PROPERTY LOCATION Street Address AJdJ^TH S/40£^ bi^\VB U)BXT fi^DAJt) Property Ic^ntification No. (P.I.D.) OJ U7 2X O0o9 iS ^ 1 a. ^ t FAJCi^uA/d A6D/1) ^O^OAtOComplete Legal Description to be attached to application EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels / Development Size M, b ^CCeS.Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check)Residential; no. of units _ _ _ Other (specify) \JAtAUT LaAj D Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New BuiIding Sites Number of Building Sites:Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size: I Units per o2. Acres S Square Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use; (check)Residential Other (specify) (OVER) ry MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY# 1. Application Completed PT.ICATT 2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of SurveSt/ 3. Certified Property Owner's list of owners within 350’ (this list can be obtained from the Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 4. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certification by Zoning Department that. Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments) 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and acceptable form of security. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivisions) $150.00 $250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) $300.00 plus 20.00/lot Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $150.00* Applicant has read the above and hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Date 9/pIPs Date 9/uk^ Applicant must have all suqmyttals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Co.’.mission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are usually held on the third Monday of each month. J X '•V • • • ' • • •*• '•. •• f.*-- •• ?• . •• • •• • • •• • • • • • •• #• • % • • • • . • •••. • • • ,•*••• * S’ * M i ♦_____ • ____• ■'/7—i ^ •• CeUMTY-g :'SEC.i2j.li7,R.24 » • 9 • • , • ♦ -- Z^SliS/^es.... • • • -----------ROW)- «* lOlC 4 Worh9h CITY Of MINNETRISTA J K/*28'ty »' r*. CITY Of OWONO 400 •:S 476. IS • • j •• f<V6L(,NO • •• •I •• V • • • X • 476 21 i • I • •• • •• •.4 • • • • • • w - I K4 U6 % me I /K # M JLz jf/r I IS»• • «0 0» . \* • . • I «s • ♦ • % . / • • • *•^ •• * '5^•v : X'■'; ' ‘.’s f ‘ ^ "s:. I ♦ 4^ • ^ ^'IT"■ ‘fV^. %• %/ (i »w-\ il'‘iffi t y/. . r. - - — %K * "’V.: --------•—-------* •• ’ ■ .f»iV>,- V^V <*V, V PS* ^’vS'^'H :<'i ' *4^ ■* V.jv-'~»*<’ fik \T'; ^ • • , «^V J ■ Cf*; '• . .* /^a:2i~“€o.u ■b f ;• ^ ^ •4P •*l« .vv-1*- J ...............-X:,; ' vX:l'i '■ e K • V ( »• "* '•4^ •‘\Cv' V • . ^ V V X- ♦» « n L.- 1-1^ i.: i ■* iM ■ 4-'*•vk ^ T^.«' /r, : -^ ' ■ ‘ '•a • A I* . • X* -- '*• ... # • - wi • ‘ •• • ‘ -*4 4^ '"* V f **■ "if# ^ ^ w^^TTS •■'v . '’.'^'1a* \I* ?•?!«[ . ; r A* ' „.4>» .Ji • . ^ • f ~Tti 1'* ^ <r' - Ik,.. i^ V, ! ;t; J« 3 '4 ■ ’^tr • >^» I ;v^4. ~*'7 Vj 1 4 Ttf^— f .- i ^ jC. • To: From: Planning Commission Members Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Date:October 11, 1985 Subject: #980 Richard Keaveny, 3423 Shoreline Drive - Preliminary Subdivision Zoning District - B-1 Total Area - approximately 72,516 s.f. or 1.66 acres Application ~ Subdivision - plat - two lots - refile of application #714 granted preliminary approval by Council 4/25/83 - application expired 4/25/84 A) Lot 1 Required = 20,000 s.f. Proposed *= 20,000.4 s.f. Lot 2 Required Proposed 20,000 s.f. 52,516 s.f. ©r 1.2 acres Variance for existing structure on Lot 1 Required = 15' Proposed = 5' Variance =10' or 67% List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Application Plat Map Property Owners List Sewer As-Built Hennepin County Letter - March 24, Survey Dated January 14, 1976 Preliminary Plan 1983 The application involves the division of Keaveny's 1.6 acre commercial property subject to the standards of the B-1 Zoning District. Each lot contains the required minimum 20,000 s.f. in area and meets the lot width requirement of 100'. The structure on Loc 1 is five feet from the proposed boundary line - structural modifications will not be required as long as a five-foot setback is maintained. As proposed. Council is asked to approve a side yard setback variance of 10 feet (required 15'). There is adequate area and width to meet the setback standard. The future use of Lot 2 is defined in aiu^ther application #982 to be reviewed at this meeting. The existing building on Lot 2 shall remain as the principal structure. Both applicant of #982 and owner of property request the side setback variance to provide adequate width for parking and traffic lane for future carry out restaurant. In the original subdivision application, the owner sought a setback variance and planned to obtain an easement from future owner to allow continued use of loading area serving existing stores within shopping center. The lot line can be gerrymandered to satisfy both area and setback standards but staff sees no problem with plan as proposed. .J Zoning File #980 October 11, 1985 Page 2 of 2 Per the Highway Department's report, Exhibit F, the County asks for an additional right-of-way dedication of 7 feet providing a total right-of-way width of 80 feet for County Road 15. This request is denied by City maintaining the 66 feet of width for road classified as scenic parking. The request to close off eastern access will be upheld by the City based on close proximity to intersection of County Road 15 and Kelly. The controversal underground gas tank has been removed by Keaveny. All sewer and water assessments have been paid on the property. If additional units are required based on the proposed use of Lot 2, the future owner will be responsible for all fee payments. Park fee of $250.00 must be paid to the City for Lot 2. Review Exhibit D, the City will ask that utility easements be designated on the plat over existing sewer line and dedicated to the public. Staff Recommendation To approve the two lot commercial plat application of Richard Keaveny and a side setback variance for the existing building on Lot 1 based on one or more of the following findings: 1. All other lot standards for the 3-1 district have been satisfied. 2. The 100 feet width standard is minimal, any new independent use to be established on Lot 2 would require more width based on restrictive standards for corner lots. 3. There is adequate width available to satisfy such lot standards but existing use patterns and proposed use patterns re quire that lot li iO be located as proposed. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Most eastern access at County Road 15 must be closed off prior to final plat approval. 2. Future owner of Lot 2 must connect to municipal water. 3. Owner/applicant must either relocate loading berth or future owner of Lot 2 grant easement to Lot 1 for use of loading dock area. 4. Payment of park fee of $250.00 for newly created Lot 2. SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM CITY OP ORONO Date ijec'd 9' vV AJo ri K Fee Rac'd d l'79^3> by en APPLICANT Name /V' >../< u:</ /(( Vk' i. ^ t- / /Telephone '•''//" ^V<i’ 'T^ y 7^,( VxV Mailing Address PROPERTY Name OWNER /’/y/i-i r\'3v^ Mailing Address J 'C‘ \ i (Attach list if more than one) _______ Telephone v 7/• ^>'C- (9' ^ ^ /i 11- /i AV'-'/r* . y/'//v /' s'^3>' i PROPERTY LOCATION Street Address c' Property Identification No. (P.I.D.) 7o-in-'^'t> ^ ooSl/ Complete Legal Description to be attached to application EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) Present Zoning District ►ff PROPOSAL _ Division for Tax Purposes _ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) _ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per Acres Square Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ (OVER) (/ 7/ - S' Wj >V ( ' HInimun material necessary for complete preliminary application 1. Application Completed 2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. 3. Certified Property Owner's list of owners within 350' (this list can be obtained from the Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 4. Stamped f legal sized envelopes (#10 ) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date minimum material necessary for complete final plat application 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments) 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion.f P ff ^ 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and acceptable form ot security. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date PEES _ _ _ _ _ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $150.00 _ _ _ _ _ Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivisions) $250.00 _ _ _ _ __ Preliminary Review $300.00 plus (Class III and all non-residential) 20.00/lot _ _ _ _ _ Final Plat Review (Class III) $150.00* *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) Applicant has read the above and hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Applicant's Signature / \ - - -7^ Date ) Owner's Signature _ _ i /' ^ * Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are usually held on the third Monday of each month. I V V ^ \<? s >\> J z > 15 w > X o 3 T3 m u m > :o N -< >> m z a a ;a > a a 3 9 :a m 53 m M o aX 4> > O vO :o f— m %4 •< r* f- 0* </) z m M m r- o r- r* » r- (/) -< •• 3 w c Z > r- -a < S m n o-< n m fi 33 :o o (>i M M w O) n n X' z z rj > > w rvj :a :o o a o I 3 3 m rv3 0 a 01 m fj 0 3 3 0 10 0 0* 13 X C4 X > >05 X ^ m M 05 0 'O ni ni 0>n 43 33 33 0 45 05 n u 0^r- fV3 H < m Nj -< -<m 45 0 X 45 0 0 m Mr- ^ r- r-fVJ f“ 33 > 3 43 IN5 m 33 Z r>co X m m 0 CO X > m n 0 z n 0M m 1 M m X r* m 1 0 n 13 1 0 r- r- f-0 r- _ Z •-< r- Z >M-w r-33 r- r c. > X •-> Q 0 C -4 o 05 n n^ O M M -< X H H to -< -< H O >0^00 r* Ti Ti ss 2^ o rn ni i 3 O Z 33 o 14 > H M M M 05< -< o n X* > Z Z 05 33 ^ > > o ra 30 a :q 33 o mao I 3 w > > > o Z n Mi ►- o w > O CO to T5 01 < H H>33 30 o z z cn rv>33 > > > O m O H H I ^ ui CO Ml CD 05 Z > > > I Z 0 f\> \j4 z Z _ o > > z o < < a Ml > > vn 35 33r* 33 m m 3 -o 0 H CO H 00•<00 rvj M 33 rv> 05 Z M 0^0 z "Q _ CO CO O H H § W > H 0 13> s » X 2 0 -4 0 H Z > E 33 > X 2 0 H 0 3Z > E :6 > X 2 0 H 0 15 Z > E 35 > X 2 0 H 0 13 Z > E 31 > X z 0 CD > 13 m 13 3 13 ni u 3 u m 13 3 13 m 13 3 13 m u 0> 33 •4 > rO > 33 \ •< >m > 33 \ -< > m > 33 V -< > m > 33 \ -< >X rn Z 0 > rn Z C5 > m z 0 > m Z a > m z 0 035 > 0 0 35 > 0 a 33 > 0 0 35 > a 0 33 > OI 03 35 m 0 3 35 35 m a 3 31 35 m a 3 33 33 m 0 3 33 33 m Q T5 m r5 r- X m n O 35 m i\> o r- o K toS s ••o >33 r- n r- > 3^2 z ^ o SSlCO a o -H rv> m > u4 3 05z gi iMm %4 Z X I o X 1: EXHIBIT HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 935-3381 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth: March 24, 1983 _~v-. r-^ yv-' ... nil ^ ®M I kfTnF CR0fl0_J RE Proposed Plat - "Richard Keaveny - 3425 Slioreline Drive" CSAH 15 Southwest Quadrant Kelly Avenue Section 20, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 1075 Review and Recomnendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above pl< and found it acceptable with consideration of these conditions: -For future improvements to CSAH 15 the developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of right of way making the right of way 40 feet from the center of CSAH 15. -The developer must close the easterly access onto CSAH 15 near Kelly Avenue. All access to the plat must be via the existing westerly access from CSAH 15 and existing Kelly Avenue. -Any change in land use or any access revision requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any construction, our Traffic Division for entrance permit forms. -All proposed construction within Qxinty right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. See our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms. See HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer Ms. Jeanne Nabusth - 2 March 24, 1983 “Hie developer must restore edl areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. Sincerely Barnes M. Wold, P.E. Chief, Planning and Prograntning Jlf4/II3W:pl Planning Conunission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator October 10, 1985 SUBJECT: #971, Mark S. Wasserman, 1045 Linden Lane - Variance Zoning District - LR - IB, 1 acre Application ~ request to replace foundation under existing non- conforming garage. LIST OF EXHIBITS A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey Submitted E - Survey of neighboring property showing exact location of subject garage. The applicant is requestino to replace the foundation under his existing 2-car garage. The foundation walls are leaning and will become hazardous if left much longer. The garage opens onto Linden Lane, just before the street deadends. The standard for garages located with doors facing streets is a 30' setback, and in the LR - IB district, for any garage located in the street yard of a lakeshore lot, the standard setback is 35' from the property line. The existing garage is approximately 12*-14' from the right-of-v/ay, and approximately 26' from the paved road surface. The traffic on Linden Lane is minimal, and it i s not likely that it will ever be a through street based on the fully d«.’^eloped land use surrounding it. There is room to park a car in front of the garage without sticking out into the traveled road, and there is no problem with sight distance. The hardship in relocating the garage is that any relocation would place the garage downhill, leaving a steep grade for the driveway, obviously not desirable from a safety and maintenance standpoint. Note also that the garage is, at the closest point, 5.6 feet from the side lot line. The Planning Commission should ask the applicant whether the garage can be moved to maintain 10 ' side setback. Staff would recommend approval as proposed, subject to maintaining a 10' side setback if feasible. / - C CX *1 C/ C It CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ■! ■ ^"^>->10 Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each add'ition^ project) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 1045 Linden Lane_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 07-117-23 13 0095_ _ _ _ _ _ Please check one — Is the property _ _ _ abstract or J(_ torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - APPLICAIM^* Work: 332-2549 Name Mark S. Wasserman_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone Home: 472-6466_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Mailing Address 1045 Linden Lane, Mounds MN 55364_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ OWNER Work: 332-2549 Name Mark S. Wasserman Phone Home: 472-6466 Mailing Address 1045 Linden Lane, Mounds MN 55364_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date Property Acquired 8/25/78_ _ _ _ _ _ _(month/year) I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Use of Property _ _ _ _ _ Residential . ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Describe request in detail: i want ho repair pyig^-ing r-omonf mrtr’V- foundation under existing garage by removal of old blocks, putting in new frost footings and rebuilding block foundation in existing fashion. VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area _ _ _ Lot Width _ _ _ Hardcover \- Setback Variances ( X Front Side _ _ _ Rear) Other_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (OVER) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enrorcement of zoning regulations: slope to Linden Lane is too steeo to drive up in winter. Need acces~s to garage as exists for egress. ed DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Reguirements: Slope from Linden Lane is too steep to drive up in winter. Re-grading would be impossible without creating a dangerous drop-off along walkway to the honse. ■■■ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150 ’ (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Plat Map. 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. /APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE applicant hereby agrees to pYovi^e all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees/tp pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this applicatipiu and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best hisi^He^ knowledge. Applicant's signature //1 ()l/^,A- ———_ _ _ _ _ _ Date 1^"^' OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackno\yledge^ \and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry obto/Jthe property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, arid Co^uncil members for purposes of investigation and verification of thiis'' requesty ^ V ^\ '■ Date i ^ h 5^Owner's signature Vy ^ •• •• mm mm mmm mm mm 4 m mm mm mmm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 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. I 1 1 » ( ' 1 'V / : • CD >W M:a z 3 ^H XJmcn m O m ro VJ1 2 ^m tM U1 f 7Z UiiM U1w >Gt H>O > ^ ^ m m r- H >■S' t- O o a > X o:a > c.m o *o XI r- m o rv> S'^ >1 *'3 To: From: Date: Planning Commission Members Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator October 11, 1985 Subject: #975' Everacd A. Geyen, 3572 Lyric Avenue - Variance Zoning District - LR-IC Area - 6,725 s.f or 31% Application - Lot Area Variance Required = 21,780 s.f. Existing = 6,725 s.f. or 31% Variance = 15,055 s.f. or 69% List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Area Study - Navarre Heights Exhibit E - Site Plan The applicant seeks a lot area variance to permit construction of a new residence on undeveloped property. Per an inspection of the subject property, there appears to be no unusual physical features that would impede the proposed construction. The neighbor to the west appears to use portions of Lot 15 for storage of his wood pile. The applicant has not submitted a survey of the property for this review but has submitted a site plan to sdale. The proposed structure meets all setbacks. A drainage way has been noted on the plan. If the drainage plan is to work, the future home builder will have to fill and regrades around the proposed structure. Grading plans must be submitted with house plans upon application for building permit. Hardcover facts are as follows; House = 1,008 s.f. Garage = 360 s.f. Drive = 648 s.f. Total = 2,016 s.f. Allowed = 2,354 s.f or 35% Comparison of existing development I have enclosed a sheet from our common ownership study dealing with the Navarre Heights Area. Note that 56% of the developed lots in the defined area do not meet 403 or less of the required lot area. 97% of the total 1^4 lots do not meet the required 1/2 acre in area. Zoning File #975 October 11, 1985 Page 2 Sewer and Water Assessments Each lot has been assessed 1/2 water unit for a total of one unit. Each lot has been assessed 1/2 sewer unit for a total of one unit. Each lot has an assessed market land value at $7,500 for a total valuation of $15,000. The total tax on the property is $660.60. The lots are not combined so each lot is taxed separately at 330.30 each. Staff Reccxnmendation To approve the lot area variance application of Everard Geyen based on one or more of the following findings; 1. To develop the property as a building site would be consistent with surrounding development per staff area survey of the Navarre Heights neighborhood. 56% of the total developed lots fall within the same area range of less than 40% of the required area. 2. There is no additional undeveloped contiguous land available to combine with property. 3. The subject property has been assessed a total of 1 sewer unit and 1 water unit. Li-. 4. The market valuation of the land appears consistant with the land valuations of similar developed properties in the area. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to scheduling the application before the Council, the City must be in receipt of a survey confirming all setbacks and locations of improvements. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/owner must combine Lots 15 & 16, 3. All drainage must be directed as proposed in drainage plan and not directed towards neighboring properties. Future owner must not impede or redirect natural drainage plan. 4. Payment of park fee in the amount of $430.00 for single existing lot. "1 CITY JOP ORONO ~ VARIANCE APPLICATION / I^nitial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each addAtiio nal project) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address jjl 7^ -/- ^^7') iSO*^ V Property Identification Number (P.I.D. ) /7~//7- o ? ./3 /7~/i7-'2^ ^3 , Please check one — Is the property Xv.abstract or_ _torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Mailing Address Phone OWNER Name . / Mailing Address q Date Property Acquired Phone aC/j? - ^7.^ - _ _ _ _ j O'. / r! P T (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USB OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) Xi._V* - <.-feL6- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) Other (OVER) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: Hired DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS • * « • Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form.. O * JT ^ 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150 * (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Plat Map. 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. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best ' Applicant's signature OWNERS SIGNATURE Date / / The owner hereby acknowledges 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 investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature /Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. r V jf “ L. • O C4 3 ►- I n o uj vn Uv rn Vi Z CD XI > 01 r> m ^ ^ NJ ►- W w AJ ♦" m o m > N- •- «4 !n *.1 1 "1 AJ O X H -0 1 P“» r* H- %m^ Wl W"^ W"^ X z m G> r- •- M NJ < 1 W1 SJ ^J 01 •• rr < 1 •f? T* 7 fV9f>Jz ^ 01 •A ^ A» |>JSagas'- 01 ^a XI X3 0)•T — i 1 ••*1 Vi io «Jk Vl oi H > g oi m 2 0 i aJ 71 i > ^ Vi Saw GP 4> XI > ^ m ^ *ir Ah m W1 ^ -*• V’n m m -A * •• •••,,a* 4 «f M Ai«»eJT^ /UArV4<t/« 6" At* i; / c. •* ' k> - SLArffJ^ :»• AJ.— TCACK^ <L.pjyjr^ tSMf /t't^ • i I £ ^ D/€. ^iCT/ntr- ^Tt»TA<, >ov«ic:-j*-so ‘/oo 40 - ao «« ^0-ca 6ArK/e»« Pt.. /i C(i^iTM-;|jtA7 <U». a.<ir 2-' .z.Z 5* / •z ■ •V /5 :| P«-. /V /•6 y 0 .«o ).e>2-r UW a»C,^7T>M 2^O ^ .fo V ^ 2-tV / •Z- ••^ ■o /z / .•z b 9 Aye ;oi!o / .o o r SM^*1woo^ 3 o o o o & SK0tw|A^|£^ S c>o o f 1 1 /vy r //3(.1-^So 1 ft * k 1 ! /•«>*/. 1 1 3/.g/o 2S%ev. .rt J ‘i '! 1 ^"7^ CX<'5»7W<^ R.es ii r^ AC. (2ea. a/v* ir’S X>o AJOt^K mcv T* ;? &^‘/. fc» 1 jv.rrT TWe 1 STAl>ibAA\i • » To: From: Date: Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator October 9, 1985 Subject: #981 Philip Kaley, 1395 South Brown Road - Variance Zoning District - RR-IB 2-Acre Application - Setback variance for family room addition List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey/Site Plan The applicant is requesting a setback variance to allow construction of a family room approximately 37.5' from a lot line where a 50' setback is normally required. This is a unique lot located in the Crystal Bay area. The lot is surrounded on 3 sides by roads, and is approximately 0.4 acres in area. The house has existed on the property for many decad«‘s and does not meet any of the current setback requirements, nor do most of the houses in Crystal Bay, The proposed addition does not cause an encroachment that is inconsistent v/ith the neighborhood, and the location of the addition is the location requiring the least extensive variances. This property will be servjsd by municipal sewer when the Crystal Bay project is complete. The proposed addition will have no effect on the existing septic system or the sewer connection. Staff recommends approval of the variance as proposed. ; • ¥ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION 1^0.00 0>MCk^(L^ Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional project) After-the-Fact Foes (Double application fee) ** *"* *““* •• •• •• •• •iw «R* •• •• ■■■ W « * «■» «MB «a» mm mm mm mmm mm u-^ mm mm ___ ___ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 13^ Br<^ Ck:> n naa J S a (uTk Ua y T^alk- ^ ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) y/7- 3 "*> / oo^o Please check one — Is the property abstract or torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANi* Name k ' )^'.p H I Phone Mailing Address / ^9 S' Piv^oi<s>/f&CLrJ . Sc> LiJi>iy37 OWNER Name fl! )i'p _&. I\''=ik Phone ^71^ V 7 7 C Mailing Address RoctJ kJ . ry\ 1,n. 5“^3 Date Property Acquired (month/vear) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Use of Property _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) h ’•> DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ S'yoOtCo ^scribe request in detail: S-^T ApiJj U^r Fro ^ P €>gy ^ f^lyo in ^y'lr^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) (OVER) HARDSHIP TiT squired tuu 5“^3 Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict C?JC. hica W ^ ^ z^-y S ncr.^ <d ) rk ,'Cu rt ;fu •'X rI__ _ _ _ _il^!n_-C5il£l_?JlT£:5L^_Cri=^ l DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventin Requirements^: Ua»c4 <;!. / ^ ^ O g-Q 4^ U t/< %£> /.^ ^ :y conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code jHinOKii ^ STVecj^ e> ^ 7^—<, ! kj Gariu./ ]y REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150 ' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Plat Map. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Ot Ca O P*Lj^ ^<9 r"r> mm mm mm mm APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature OWNERS SI '.NATURE Date The owner hereby acknowledges 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 investiqation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date n 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 ebch month. f96 I ••f* \ J//4? H <^^l» 5 W/0 /ic (BHIAf^ s og «K- 160 r 2^ 3 ^ a IT «n >60 (ARBOR ^ A^, 0 e'SrJ “lo S! M •"•5 Cl le 62 STrS. lA____ Aw; rill«ST I 'I 58^ I BRIAR 'i* ARBOR 4^494- /tc BRIAR t =^nS - -I )R O O » M n “n m -o n2 H 30 m -< X m 30 m w H 3^ m M X X z *T1 O m H •«r z > f- 2 H -j m ni M X O -o O > CT M 2 H .> n ° ES dcM in K O f“ X3 M a 3 m m > TO:Planning Commission Members ■ i- FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator DATE: October 15, 1985 SUBJ: #984 Joe Sawchuk, 4105 Watertown Road - Variance Zoning District - RR-IA, 5 Acres Application - Setback Variance for a Horse Barn and Storage Shed List of Exhibits ~ Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Application Plat Map Property Owners List ♦Note - Survey has not been submitted as of this writing The applicant requests a variance to side setback for a proposed structure which will be used as a horse barn and storage shed. The horse barn use is permitted in the RR-IA zoning district, but the structure is required to meet 150' setbacks from the adjacent properties. Applicant's property is, according to the plat and wetlands maps, about 8 acres dry buildable but is only about 260' wide, hence the 150' setbacks cannot be met. As of this writing, applicant has not submitted a survey or a sketch showing the approximate proposed location of the structure. Applicant would be allowed up to 6 horses on the property based on the 8 acres of area. Any action on this application should wait until such time that a survey/site plan is submitted. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ^30S'^ Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional project) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^10^ \^) P C> /'rfiPLK PL/)nJ 5S35'1 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) H~71p O 3 \ 4| OOO Please chec)c one — Is the property y abstract or torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT Name ~3~/^ ^Auor H( j«-Phone V7iT -/oo ( Mailing Address /j Tct^'T(PUM^ ^i). //)APuS QlA/a J ? OWNER Name ZSbtz. £f\uoc.\lulC Phone 4/7^ - /(^o 1 Mailing Address ^No^' y7>L<jJO O /V7WPf£ pL/jjjJ Date Property Acquired 7 Cg»_ _ _$'£TPT (month/year) I (do) (fdo no^ al.'o own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Presenc Use of Property liL 7177 Residential Other (specify) ?, IDESCRIFTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 5^000 Describe request in detail: ^ Ai^>0 ^ 0 VARIANCES REQUIRED /O t\at^hot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front Hardcover Y side Rear) (OVER) A’- •JtT» IT37 •xir»i •air* ^f«r#i •liiT [•WMml [•am [•iirtrsi }I O O » M n Ti m zc H 3 r? -< X m » m (/) H X m M Z X Z ^ Q m H -< f- 5 H Hm ni M XP n g > ^ > SS 9 HCJ I >> -10 3 > 5 50 > X 2 om:o3 3 m > > m z a o ;a > a a 3 X X m o 0 01 o o o o 55^ 5m ► \ •< > m o :o a 50 O -0 5^z oJTI Z o > o 3 50 m ui oi04 01 •o 50o 50 04 H Q ^ o X o o o •o frt t/l W O H H O 50 > > -O H H m 01 m m » > 04 I P I fS> 04 X* o o o 04 04 I Pi M 04 X^ o o ox^ > m u 50 z > 3 -a m > ► m Z S 6 50 > a a 3 50 50 m -4 3 X^ 3 3 O P ^ M M X* P 3 O > •H ux'nn^-Zr- p X X X"r-m > > p pZ P ni m P z > r* r- 1 zr- -4 *-> m z z z ^r* >n M z > P M X Z H Z Z -4 1 Q r- r- m f\>z o X' p ssssssZ Z H I _ m r» ^ £ rn z 04H -4 ?-o la _ r- H #• O ^> m P ZM z m -4 > p Z H r* X H IM ► m r*ii z 01 pm p p p p i- X X o a o p 1 > H O 13 > 5 E O 3 U m 13 m > 50 N -< ► > m Z o S ^ & SO 3 X 50 ni P> Hn o p > Hni m m o p £ £ ®SfS'SSz z o Z o > P •- r- r- x»r- o Z oP P p X P o Pz z ^Z ^1 Z > X X 1 ^ m X S z n M 50 m m > p Z H p P H I Z m M Z 04 Hii> g Qzr- z ^z £o z a Zpop opz o p Z O p o o p o opPp 'O 3 m o p 5 »- o »- X* P Mf *ff #%rn p* f- p mo fOt LfV 1*1 M W ^ ^ *fl VI Vi Zz > z m 1 Z 5 X zr- H > •- ► m 3 P Z ^ f- -4 Q > m X znvMi z H p g H 1 ^ ^9 rvi m *3SSvx rn iM ii "X m Q ^ O X > z a P r- _ O Iff 91 rz p if!W1 AJ P O O W» P P X*P p I pI ro P o x^o m m o p > x^ 5 5 o m m ^ !Sl p Z P o «Xi X* r* r* o p r- p r- o P P ^ M m p p m m m o Pzz ►-z z z ►- >X 1 Z 5 H H 1 \ IMi Xpi p I isni • nM ^ P »iii) H J TO:Planning Conunission Members FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator DATE: Ocotber 17, 1985 SUBJ: #929 Lyle Rahn, 1146 Wildhurst Trail Conditional Use Permit - Second Review; Addendum List of Exhibits - Chronological Exhibit A - Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Exhibit N Exhibit 0 Exhibit P Exhibit Q Exhibit R Exhibit S Exhibit T Exhibit U Exhibit V Exhibit W Exhibit X 4-1-74 Rahn Variance Application to construct new home 4-3-74 Staff Memo 4-8-74 Council Minutes 4- 15-74 Planning Commission Minutes 5- 20-74 P.C. Minutes approving 4-15-74 Minutes 4- 22-74 Council Minutes 7-22-75 Renewal Variance Application 7-22-75 Staff Memo 7-28-75 Council Minutes 7- 23-75 Survey 8- 4-75 Building Permit 5- 22-85 Survey 5- 24-85 Application for Guest House CUP 6- 13-85 Staff Memo 6-15-85 Welsh Letter 6-15-85 Letter from Builder 6-17-85 Rahn Letter to Planning Commission 6-17-85 Planning Commission Minutes 6- 27-85 Staff Letter to Rahn 7- 12-85 Van Nest Letter 7-12-85 Staff Memo 7-13-85 Planning Commission Minutes 7-10-85 Letter from neighbor Sandin 9- 15-85 Letter from Dick Benson The Planning Commission reviewed this initially on June 17, 1985, and tabled pending rj«ijsipt of additional information. To briefly review: Rahn requested a variance in 1974 to construct a new home at 1146 Wildhurst Trail. Official minutes indicate the variance was granted subject to removal of the existing cabin. The variance was renewed in 1975 and a building permit issued under the same noted condition. The minutes never noted any permission to keep a portion of the cabin as a guest house. The upper portion of the cabin was removed, and Rahn has used the remainder as a guest house ever since. Rahn was notified of the need to obtain a permit for certain work being done on the cabin in Spring of 1985. Rahn was told by staff that he must apply for a Conditional Use Permit to continue the guest house use. In reviewing the Conditional Use Permit application, staff found that all file records indicated the cabin should have been removed in 1975 when the house was completed. 'j #929 Lyle Rahn October 17, 1985 Page 2 Rahn has presented testimony from various parties stating the the 1974-1975 Minutes are incorrect or incomplete and the the intent was to allow the bottom of the cabin to remain as a guest house. Staff has obtained testimony from the former and present neighbors indicating in general that the minutes generally reflect the action that did occur and that the minutes in this case reflect what the usual course of action would have been in 1975, In essence we have a conflict between official records and the recollections of a number of various people. The guest house has existed as is since 1975. The neighbors have not indicated any opposition to continued use of the structure as a guest house. A small portion of the structure is within the 0-75' setback zone, but the majority is within the 75-250' zone. The Planning Commission must make a two-fold "if-then" recommendation, based first on whether structure can remain or whether it must be removed, and secondly whether or not a Conditional Use Permit should be issued for the guest house use. The following are presented as three possible courses of action for recommendation: 1. Allow the Structure to remain, grant variances Conditional Use Permit for guest house use. and Appropriate Findings: a)The affidavits and letters submitted by the applicant are sufficient to indicate that the intent of the Council in 1974 and 1975 was to allow the structure to remain as a guest house. No neighbors have voiced opposition to the guest house use or to the structure as it currently exists. There is no record of complaints about the past guest house use. c)The structure is partially non-conforming in that it extends approximately 3' into the 75' setback zone. The intended use as a guest house will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, nor will it pose a threat to health safety or welfare or threaten the surrounding properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values, and the use as a guest house is in keeping with the intent and objectives of the zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. The variances necessary to be granted are sufficiently minor so as to justify allowing the structure to remain as a guest house. The following variances are required: 1) Lot area -2.0 acres requ^'red'f or guest house in 1 acre zone; existing lot area = 6.65,acres; variance = 1.35 acres (10.20 Subd. 3(G)). H, 1 1i #929 Lyle Rahn October 17, 1985 Page 3 or 2. or 3. 2) Hardcover in 0-75* setback zone = 52 s.f. = 1%; 0% allowed (10.22 Subd. 2, 10.55 Subd. 8). 3) Structure in 0-75' zone; none allowed (10.22 Subd. 2, 10.55 Subd. 8). 4) Average setback from shoreline (10.22 Subd. 1). Allow the structure to remain, but deny variances and Conditional Use Permit for guest house (would have to remove plumbing)• Appropriate Findings; (Rework findings from Option 1 to fit your recommendation). Recommend that structure be totally removed. Appropriate Findings: (Find the reverse of a and d above to be true, and find that the variances are too extensive to allow the structure to continue). - f-i . . .i 0 /IV .'l / ]J OCT I6SB5 July 10, 1985 TO: Orono Planning Commission This letter is written at the request of Lyle and Joan Rahn to testify to the following points: 1. That I reside at 1186 Wildhurst Trail, Orono, MN. 2. That I am the next door neighbor of the Rahns. 3. That I attended the City Council meeting where the Rahns received approval for a variance to build their home. 4. That I have reviewed Gary Welsh's letter of June 15, 1985 written to the Planning Commission and find his statements to be true and correct. Sincerely, V / '4 - 1186 Wildhurst Trail Orono, MN 55364 Dick Benson 4365 North Shore Drive Orono, MN 55364 472-2101 i L> LI ocri6» \! 1 _____________J'.:y Ci'l Y OF ORONO September 15, 1985 TO: Orono Planning Commission Lyle Rahn has asked me to write this letter to help validate the points made by Gary Welsh in his communication to you on June 15, 1985. I have reviewed Mr. Welsh's letter and as City Manager during this period, find his statements to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I hope you find this letter helpful in your deliberations. Sincerely, DB:JL # ■ rr 1"^ i« I If m -■ I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING C IISSION MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985. PAGE 8 #906 SHIRLEY MCWILLIAMS Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that this application involves a lot line rearrangement. It was tabled pending the Crystal Bay Sewer Project. The new line is 29' from the old line. There is a 15* wide utility easement. McWilliams sited that the driveway will not be shared. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated for this review the City is asked to grant a permanent variance for either a detached or attached garage. The City has placed additional limitations on this property with the creation of a utility easement along the realized shared lot line. Chairman Kelley concurred that one option is to build a detached garage to cut down on required setbacks or add an attached garage with a 25* side setback variance, which will be taken care of right now. Chairman Kelley moved, McDonald seconded to table application #906 Shirley McWilliams, 1120 Willow Drive for a subdivision so applicant can discuss with City staff the issues. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). 1. LYLE E. RAHN HILDHURST TRAIL iITIONAL USE PERMIT SECOND REVIEW #934 ROBERT TSCHIDA 1300 FOX STREET VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:21 - 9:24 PM Lyle Rahn was not present. He had requested to have his application tabled at this meeting. McDonald moved, Taylor seconded to table the applicatio.. for a conditional use permit for #929 Lyle E. Rahn, 1146 Wildhurst Trail. Katherine Tschida was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. There was no one present from the public. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the Tschidas were proposing to enclose a small entryway, approximately 4'x9.8'. To: From: Date: Subject: Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator July 12, 1985 #929 Lyle Rahn, 1146 Wildhurst Trail - Conditional Use Permit - Second Review to List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Planning Commission Minutes 6/17/85 Staff Memo 6/13/85 Rahn Exhibits Submitted at 6/17/85 Planning Commission Meeting Copy of Survey Dated 7/23/75 1974-75 Variance Documents Van Nest Letter 7/12/85 Staff has investigated further into the Rahn matter in order to discover whether there ever was an intent by the Planning Commission or Council to allow the structure in question to remain. Our file search unearthed no "working minutes" as Mr. Rahn alluded to, and the fact remains that the official minutes and files, including staff memos, applications submitted by applicant, the 1975 survey, etc. all clearly discuss removal of the existing cabin. Mayor Butler was on the City Council at the time (and in fact seconded the 7/28/75 motion for approval based on removal of the structure) and has stated that the official minutes on file are generally very accurate. A letter to the Council and Planning Commission dated 7/12/85 from Brad Van Nest, who was chairman of the Planning Commission during that time, states that he recalls no stipulations, conditions, or approvals other than what is shown in the official minutes and that removal of the structure would be consistent with the City's policy at that time. (For the record, official minutes show that Van Nest was absent from the 4/15/74 Planning Commission meeting this application was re viewed ). Staff has contacted former Building Inspector, Mike Scheller who stated he would have to visit the site in order to recall this project. A1though he has made tentative arrangements to meet with Jeanne Mabusth, the meeting has not occurred as of yet. Based on all the information contained in the official City files and submitted by the applicant and other parties, staff would suggest that the following are valid conclusions; 1. Official City records indicate clearly that the structure in question was to be removed upon completion of the new home. No where do the records indicate that any portion of the structure was allowed to remain. No official record exists of any actual detailed discussion which may have taken place at Planning Commision or Council meetings at that time. Zoning File #929 July 12, 1985 Page 2 2. There are confli::ting statements on file as to whether the official minutes are accurate and whether they reflect the actual intent of the Planning Commision and Council in 1974 and 1975. 3. The structure was not, in fact removed. Only the frame cabin portion was removed, leaving the foundation and basement portion remaining. 4. The remaining structure has in fact been used as a guest cabin on occasion since the main home was constructed, and con tains plumbing. 5. Regardless of whether or not the structure is legally existing on the property, the guest house use requires a conditional use permit per Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G). 6. Mr. Rahn's "withdrawal of the application for a guest house conditional use permit suggests that he intends to discontinue the use as a guest house. Regardless of whether a guest house conditional use permit is granted, the structure, by virture of its location partially within the 0-75' setback zone, is non- conforming and subject to the pertinent ordinances. A conditional use permit for recognizing any continued use of the non-conforming structure would be appropriate if the structure is allowed to remain. Based on the facts you have been give, what is your recommendation; a) Should the non-conforming accessory structure be allowed to remain? b) If it is allowed to remain, would you recommend a conditional use permit for the guest house use? c) If you do not recommend granting a conditional use permit for guest house, note that staff must inspect the structure to deter mine necessary alterations within so that it will not be con sidered as a second residential unit (i.e. plumbing removed). Brad Van Nest July 12, 1985 Orono City Council & Planning Commission Subject: Lyle Rahn Variance Application Dear Ladies & Gentlemen: Because I was a member and Chairman of the Orono Planning Commission during the period that the original variance was granted to Mr. Lyle Rahn for the construction of a home at 1146 Wildhurst Trail, I have been asked to review this file. I have reviewed the file and to the best of my recollection, can remember no other stipulations other than those that are clearly stated in the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of April 18, 1974, the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of April 22, 1974, and July 28, 1975. The granting of a variance to allow a home to be constructed on a substandard size lot when said lot was in single separate ownership and connected to municipal sewer was consistent with the actions of the Orono Planning Commission and City Council during this period. All of the information that I have reviewed and my recollections of this matter indicate that the approval to grant a variance was based on the agree ment that the existing cabin which partially lies within 75 feet of Lake Minnetonka would be removed after the construction of the new house. This requirement was also consistent with the Orono Planning Commission and Council’s actions involving existing structures that are within 75 feet of the lake. To my recollection, the City has never approved a lot size and width variance for the construction of a new home that would allow the continuance of an existing structure that was within the 75 foot lakeshore setback. I hope that this information is useful in your deliberation of this matter, and if 1 can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Yours truly. William B. Van Nest 3295 CARMAN ROAD, EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 1.CITY OF ORONO CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 65323*Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka June 21, 1985 Mr. Lyle Rahn 1146 Wildhurst Trail . Mound, MN 55364 Re: Conditional Use Permit for Guest House Dear Mr. Rahn: This letter is to clarify for you the City's position regarding the status of your lakeshore guest house. A search has been made of the City files and has uncovered no new evidence other than that presented at the June 17th Planning Commission meeting. All existing documentation refers to "removal of the structure," with absolutely no mention of a partial removal or cosmetic treatment as described in Mr. Welsh's letter. Additionally, we have been unable to uncover any later application or approval by the Council which would have allowed the structure to remain. We are continuing our investigation into this matter in order to gain input from other parties involved in the original variance application review. I will refer you to Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G) (copy attached) which requires that a Conditional Use permit must be obtained for continual use of the guest house. Again, there is no record of any previous approval for this guest house use on your property. Therefore, it is the City's position that a conditional use permit is required for your continued use of the guest house, if in fact it is determined that the structure can remain on the property. Your application will be placed on the July 15, 1985 Planning Commission agenda for further review. Any further information you can provide prior to that meeting will be accepted. Please contact Zoning Administrator, Jeanne Mabusth if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ci Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Enclosure BUILDING A ZONING - 473 7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1985. PAGE 12 [) 1C€8 #928 PULA Goetten noted that she personally could not approve the (Cont.) application regardless of the sepric information received because the existing lot is less than on»i acre and is located in a two acre zoning district. i» Kelley stated that he might vote for approval after the additional septic information is received. Taylor concurred with Kelley stating that if the septic information received was positive that he would be able to vote approval for the application. McDonald noted that approval would set a precedent for future applications and that she was undecided at the moment as to which way to vote. Sime also felt if the septic information received was positive he would be able to vote for the application. Rovegno stated that the City should consider some new standards for guest houses since guest apartments are becoming more prominent. Chairman Callahan stated that he would feel hesitant in approving a second dwelling on this lot since it is under an acre. Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 9:59 p.m. Chairman Callahan moved, Sime seconded, to table the Pula conditional use permit application pending receipt of the additional septic information requested by staff. Motion, Ayes (7), Nays (0). ^9^ LYLE RAHN rTiS HILDHURST TRAIL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 10:01-10:17 PM Chairman Callahan called for the public hearing at 10:01 concerning Lyle Rahn’s conditional use permit application for an existing guest house. Assistant Zoning Adminis trator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Lyle Rahn was present. Harriet Morgart of 1103 Wildhurst Trail was present for this public hearing but had no comments. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the applicant has been asked to file a conditional use permit for a guest house located in his lakeshore yard. Gaffron stated that the structure existed on the property since prior to 1974. Gaffron stated that the applicant submitted a v^ariance application to build a new home on his lot in 1974 which was subsequently approved. Gaffron noted that as a condition of the variance approval, applicant was asked to i\ MINUTES OF THE OROHO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1985. PAGE 13 M929 RAHN (Cont‘.) remove the existing guest house. Gaffron noted that the applicant never complied with the condition of the variance of approval. Gaffron stated that the original building inspector retired and followup probably never happened. Gaffron stated that the applicant made repairs to the illegal structure after receiving a building permit for the repairs. Lyle Rahn submitted three letters to the Planning Commission (1 from previous riu'iii'iin'g Commieel-on member Welsh; 1 from Thomas Shillock of Shillock Construction Company; and 1 from Lyle Rahn—all letters are attached to these minutes). Lyle Rahn addressed staff's memo and comments. Rahn noted that he purchased the property in 1972 but because the property was in estate they never closed on the property until 1974. Rahn confirmed that the Council did grant a variance but apparently the records do not show the conditions that were also approved in terms of having the cabin removed. Rahn confirmed that he did receive variance approval and the variance expired before the building permit was issued. Rahn stated that he reapplied and was granted another variance. Rahn stated that he did obtain a building permit for the home and a final inspection was made by Mike Scheller as testified in the letter of Shillock Construction Company. Rahn stated that a bank would not approve a loan for a new home without a final inspection. Lyle Rahn stated that he did do remodeling on the guest house structure but that he didn' t know he needed a permit to change carpet and change bathroom appliances on the structure. Rahn stated that he has since learned from staff that he cannot do a single thing ou his home (except paint) without a permit. Rahn stated regarding staff's comment that the guest house required a conditional use permit, that Tom Jacobs caught him in a soft moment and went along with applying for the conditional use permit. Rahn stated that staff' s comment classifying the guest house structure exists as an illegal structure is false and incorrect as testified in Welsh's letter. Rahn stated that those of you who know Welsh know that Welsh would not let an illegal structure remain on his neighbors property. Rahn noted that he was instructed to remove the top part of the structure and noted that he conformed to that condition to reduce the structure to ground level. Lyle Rahn stated that he formally withdraws his application as setforth in his letter to the City submitted tonight. Rahn stated that apparently the minutes back then are just the published minutes and not the "working" minutes. Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 10:17 p.m. Callahan asked if the applicant has used the structure as a guest house. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1985. PAGE 14 11929 RAHN (Cont.) Lyle Rahn stated yes he has used the structure as a guest house for 10 years. Rovegno moved, Sime seconded, to table the Lyle Rahn application until staff can research the history of this matter and get legal counsel regarding this matter. Motion, Ayes (7), Nays (0). #930 JIM SHAVER 1080 FERMDALE ROAD WEST VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 10:20 - 10:27 PH Chairman Callahan called for the public hearing at 10:20 p.m.< concerning Shaver * s variance application. Zoning Adminis trator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Jim Shaver was present. Jim Thomson was present representing Alan McDowell at 905 Ferndale Road West and R.C. Bagley of 1105 Ferndale Road West. There was no one else present from the audience for this public hearing. f. Tr. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the applicant seeks a rear setback variance to construct a new home. Mabusth noted that sewer is available to the property. Mabusth noted that this is a very limited building envelope. Jim ;^>haver noted that he discussed his proposal with the most affected property owner (Lowry) and the owner had nothing negative to say about proposal and does not object to proposal. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron confirmed that Mr. Lowry visited the office and affirmed his approval of the application. Jim Thomson was present to note the McDowell's and Bagley's objection to this variance proposal. Thomson noted that the applicant purchase the property in July, 1981 and a letter was written to the applicant in May, 1981, confirming that a home could be built without a variance. Thomson noted that the applicant has not demonstrated any type of hardship for the granting of the variance. Thomson noted that this house obviously is more marketable but this is not a valid hardship. Thomson noted that the applicant was made aware of the limitations of the lot when he purchased the lot. Jim Shaver stated that this is a very modest house plan (in consideration of surrounding neighborhood). Shaver noted the total square feet of the proposed home is 3,600. Chairman Callahan stated that the letter the applicant received was in error. Callahan noted for the record that the property owner objecting to the proposal lives across the road and this is a rear setback variance. Callahan noted that the owner objecting is not the most affected property owner. Callahan closed the public hearing at 10:27 p.m. • ja J PATE: TO: FROM; f June 17, 19S5 Ofiono PZanvUng ComrnciAXon Lytz Rahn J.a L SUBJECT: Pubtcc HzoAifig - June 17, 1985 fiwed o»' -tAe documentotcon I havz pAJ3vidzd you and on thz advZcz o{^ pz/uoni zxpzAt in tkzJt>z mXXzfUi, including Gcuiy Wetifi and my tzgaZ council, I hzAzby j^^kfOraw my A.zquz6t ^OA, a conditional laz pzAmil, Ba^zd on thz appoAznt lack zxpz/JtUz, bad advicz, and nU^in^oAJnalion on thz poAt 0^ thz building indpzctoA and zoning admini^tAoxion ^oA thz City 0^ Oaoho, I have incuAAzd co6i& o^ ovca $600.00 and CliAzz daij6 oi my allom.d vacation timz. Gi6zd on thz above, ^acti, I Azquz&t thz {,otloi^ing action itenh f^Aom thz Planning Commission: 1. That tiiz zoning adminixtAation bz diAzetzd to AztuAn mij $100.00 ijee ^OA thz limited vusz pzAmit. 2.That copies 0^ documents ’ I havz submitted to you bz moAkzd by sta^^ as Azczivzd, dated, and AztuAnzd to me in one and onz-hal^ woAking days [the same amount o^ timz I uti/i atloivzd to Azact to thz sta^^ Azcommzndation). 3. That thz sta^^ tiiz zoning o^^icz and thz building inspzctoA bz diAzetzd by thz commission to czasz and desist ^Aom any ^uAthzA action on this mattzA. Lastly, I uiish to state in mlting my stAong objzc^on to thz oAAogant and casual attitude o^ the zoning adminis ViatoAS in thziA Azeormendatton to you that. I dz>stAoy a poAtion o^ my pAopeAty that I have been using and paying taxes on ^oa moaz than 10 yzajvs. By thz loay, even thz IRS, that vuz all knou) and love, do not AzquiAz you to keep AzeoAds ^oa 10 uzans. LER:Jl cc OAono Council MzmbzAS LzUandzA, Zimp^zA, lotalzy, and Vandex Linden r ti*. > 1. f'* V T. P. Shillock Construction Company June 15, 1985 To whom It may concern: This Is to verify that the following points are correct: 1. 2. 3. h. 5. T, P. Shillock did construct a home for Mr. and Mrs. Lyle Rahn at 1146 Wlldhurst Trail, Orono, Minnesota, during the summer of 1975. A variance was approved by the City Council before a building permit was Issued for this project. Before final Inspection, the small cabin which existed would be torn doim. Mr. Rahn did tear dnwn t.hft r.ahin In 197S. The building "Inspector did sign off the final approval In late October, 1975. The Rahns moved Into the home on October 31, 1975. The bank where the Rahns secured their loan required a copy of the final approval before they would accept the mortgage on the above listed property. Respectfully submitted. Thomas Shillock, president Shillock Construction Company I TOTMi'rii-HiMa'ftffiinrrrt' jaiiMi June 15, 1985 To Orono Planning Commission: This letter is written at the request of Mr. Rahn to confirm my recollection of the following points: 1. that I was a member of the Orono City Council In 1974i-75. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. that I reside at 1214 Wlldhurst Trail, Orono, Minnesota, and that I am a neighbor of the Rahns and very familiar with his property. 3. that I was the maker of the motion to approve the variances requested by the Rahns and was very familiar with the terms and conditions of their request (see attachment). that one of the conditions was that the Rahns remove the first floor of the small house so as to essentially reduce the structure to ground level as viewed by the a Joining neighbors. that It was also verbally understood that the Rahns would now and forever paint the structure In earthtone colors so as to blend Into the bank. They would landscape and shrub so as to D5"as Unobtrusive as possible. Therefore, the motion did not describe the complete terms and conditions as It was understood the first level would be allowed to permanently remain. The motion as snown in the minutes of that meeting oTTVlously Is Incomplete. that the Rahns would use the structure for family uses only and would not rent out the remaining walkout level structure. that as a neighbor of the Rahns, I hereby testify that they have met the written and verbal terms and conditions as set forth by the council In 1975. Therefore, a conditional use permit application Is not needed because the council understood that only the top of the cabin had to come down and the lower level would remain. It appears to me that Incomplete record keeping on Orono*8 part Is causing needless harrassment and expense to Mr, Rahn. Gai^ Welsh 1214 Wlldhurst Trail Orono, MN 55364 G W/cb Att 1 cc: Orono Council Members P.S. If you have any questions, I will be available for a phone call Monday evening at 472-4438. TO:Planning Commission FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator DATE:June 13, 1985 SUBJECT: #929 Lyle Rahn, 1146 Wildhurst Trail - Conditional Use Permit Zoning District - LR-IB Request - Conditional Use Permit for an existing guest house List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Application Construction Plan and Request List of Property Owners Plat Map Survey 1974 Variance Application Documents The applicant is requesting a formal conditional use permit for a guest house located in his lakeshore yard. This structure has existed on the property since prior to 1974 when the applicant purchased the property. This structure was the only structure on the property when the applicant bought the property. On April 1, 1974, Mr. Rahn submitted an application to the City for a variance to build a new home on the 0.838 acre lot in a 1.0 acre zone. This variance was subsequently approved by Council on April 22, 1974, conditioned on the existing cabin being removed. Mr. Rahn did not obtain a permit for his new home within the one year time limit, and his variance expired. He then in July, 1975, reapplied and was again granted a variance on July 28, 1975 under the condition that the old structure be removed within 30 days after occupancy of the new structure. Mr. Rahn subsequently obtained a building permit on August 4, 1975, upon which appears the notation "approved by V.C. 7—28“75 conditioned on removal of existing house". The building inspector at that time was Mike Scheller. The house would have been nearing completion about the time Mr. Scheller retired on January 16, 1976 hence it is likely that no followup ever occurred to verify that Mr. Rahn had indeed fulfilled the conditions of that approval. In the spring of 1985, Tom Jacobs became aware that Mr Rahn had already completed some remodeling on the structure, and convinced Rahn that a permit was requird, Jacobs being unaware that the structure was illegally existing. Rahn obtained a permit for $25.50 based on an $1,800 estimated construction value (no plan review was required). Ik_.. #929 Lyle Rahn Page 2 June 13, 1985 Upon inspection, the inspectors noted that a deck had been placed in the 0-75' setback zone, and that a conditional use permit was required for the guest house. Rahn was notified per the inspection slip to remove the deck and that a conditional use permit was required for the guest house use. Other construction items needing revision were also noted. Mr. Rahn applied for a conditic^ial use permit in May, 1985. My file investigation today revealed that the structure exists illegally per the 1974 and 1975 variances, and per the conditions of the building permit that was issued on August 4, 1975. Staff recommends that the conditional use permit be denied based on the above related facts, and that Mr. Rahn be ordered to remove the structure within 30 days of Council's final action on this matter. It is our opinion that Mr. Rahn has no legal right to keep this structure on the property, and furthermore, it can be considered a non-conforming structure because portions of it are less than 75' from the lakeshore. CITY OF ORONO GENERAL lAND USE APPLICATION \Jf I /o> v "7 <: ‘ • a 4 lU #929 PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address UJ . /7.A^cyw: “^Hyi SS3^^ Property Identification Number P.I.D.) f) / -//7' -o? y ~ 0 0^ *7 Please check one - Is the property _ _ (for Conditional Use Applications only) abstract or X torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on, required survey. APPLICANT Name J^aJi Phone X 0^ Mailing Address OWNER L.^J^ .<Vyv^ ^CQ,Phone V 70- 0S8S ddress /// Date Property Acquired 1^72 (month/year) I (do) (do-not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS X $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use _ _ _ _ $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) _ _ _ _ $150.00 c) Duplex Credit/Bldg _ _ _ _ $250.00 d) Commercial/Industrial Use _ _ _ _ $200.00 f) Land Alteration (grading, filling) _ _ _ _ PRD/PID - see fee schedule Other Applications _ _ _ _ $250.00 Vacation _ _ _ _ $250.00 Rezoning $200.00 Appeals Other - sec fee schedule ^ c . -- PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST rens? uded on, Describe request in detail: ^ucriul^ 1! REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10 ) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Xl 4. Certificate of survey. Z2X 5. Construction plans, if applicable. 6. Plat Map. 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. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature OWNERS SIGNATURE ■y N -.W Date /j The owner hereby acknowledges 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 investigation and verification of this request. Owner' s signatureo^^/^ J"Date ^ V' 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. the ’’^■i, ^ y^t^'X^t — ^ #92 I/I 9 ^ ,<rC'rie(‘ -^. ~ ,^x^<Lcx cylct Kr€^t^ .X4yc^~c/ jp,'tx-ru^£^^^ JiJ-Lc£iuc^ • y" 'j^t^, . _ . . I 6T*] ^l^'C-U.'L yZJ^'ti^rLp J lJL^I-A^ ^y/^Ccdl*o X^t'’^ ^ -\ oJX ^i-tL^ 'yyve— ^ 1 I 797*^ y * ^^yL4’\^ .j‘^-^i/i^j A^Aj-i^J^"^ J:l^t^^^r-f -t-tf- f{iPtf .' XM^ X^ XEii jEXr'AHn y£c^^'^ (r^ cP^/ ,y/i4-«yaA * jOo AAy» ,‘^yty6^<ry\X (n'i yCXit'l ./Q^aXE^ X4j .^AyiiX Al'iyL Xy i i’-^-i^ « A/6 b-^'XuXf the lird I < * -i * > t ' i f i 4 • <* , V* > ' < I-a'! ;l : ~ r ** ■* ■ ‘ " i" iii. 6 f» » »; ‘ / APPIKATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT AND ORTIFKATE OF OCCUPANCY vuiAOE or oaoNO, Minnesota OmECTIOItS: SPACES NUMBCREO 1 THRU 13 MUST BE FILLED IN BEFORE PERMIT 1$ ISSUED (PUatt Print or Typ^l 1 SITE ADDRESS ^ H4fy UJiULiAA^i (fh^ PERMIT NO N9 3112 2 DATE 3 Ly3AI. DESCRIPTION L i iM _ **>iAT ***WCR^^ <g*PARCEL NUMBER (Addrtsi)ITtl No ) S ARCHITECT (Namo)(Addrt%i)(Tfi No I « BUILDER (Acklrttt)(Ttl No I 7 TYPE OF 1NORA A SIZE OF STRUCTURE (Naii^ll <Wi 11 COMPLETIONOATE 14. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 9 NO OF STORIES 12 PROPERTY DIMENSIONS 17 FRONT YARD IS PROPERTY AREA SO FT 10 estimated COST ¥.c C> o 13 NO OF families Ilf ApplicaOltl 19 REAR YARD 16 LOST AREA PER FAMILY SO FT 19 SIDE YARDS 1-y^-lT- ^ otcAarVuC^) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE: Tho imdersi^ed hereby represents upon all of the penalties of low, for the purpose of inc'ucing the VILLAGE OF ORONO to take the action herein roquestco that alt statements herein are true and that ail work heroin menx oned will be done in accordance with the ordinance of the VILLAGE Of ORONO, tho State of Minnesota, and rulings of the Building Departnent. SIGNATURE APPROVED ^^■Ei p i HI ■ Niiiiit-uis^ I OO PERMIT rcr / ^ STATE PEE «^-3 • O /ta^y-CL f7,S'Cnrim er-eeP ^ i * kJ TOTAL FEE C to . 0~t) ZONING DISTRICT FIRE ZONE AGGREGATE FLOOR AREA //CO FcOOR AREA RATIO material fu e with cffstreet parking CONSTRUCTION footing __ FRAMING FINAl CERT»FICATE OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED OATf- ri4v X'' T %* ■ ' ■..y-f':- • : Zt ':l! 'i-A .11\ a ' - n V' . ‘■4 * 1.1 OBONO COUNCIL HI2ETE1G HELi) JULY 28, 1975 Butler moved, Paurus seconded, approval of the conditional use permit for Dennis Sullivan, 3133 Casco Circle, to rip rap his shoreline residential property, conditioned that rock is used as a rip rap material. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0), Mr. Henry Muhich, Building & Zoning Administrator, discussed the status of the Cheyenne Land Company proposal to rezone their property. The Planning Commission has agreed to table the proposal for lack of information until August 4, 1975, or until such time that additional information is available. Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERI4IT 3133 Casco Circle THIS ITEM HtS BEEN MKMfllMED REZONING Cheyenne Land Company Mr. Henry Muhich, Building & Zoning Administrator, informed the City Council that Mr. Ralph Burnett, 2040 Shoreline Drive, has submitted a platting proposal of the Scott properties which will appear before the Planning Commission August 4, 1975 at a public hearing. PLATTING 2040 Shoreline Drive Paurus moved, Butler seconded, to deny the request submitted by Muriel Senn, 4448 North Shore Drive, for a variance from the 75* setback and hardcover requirements as recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). VARIANCE 4448 North Shore Drive Mr. Henry Muhich, Building & Zoning Administrater, discussed the proposal of the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, 3745 Shoreline Drive, for a Day Care Center. The Planning Commission has scheduled a public hearing for August 4, 1975 at 7:00 P.M. Butler moved, Paurus seconded, to approve the subdivision and lot area variance of Lot A and a conditional use permit for fill for Mr. Ed Lehman, 3525 Shoreline Drive,conditioned on submitting a topogr 'hie map and the City Engineer's approval in esi ^dishing and maintaining an easement and drainage. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Welsh moved, Butler seconded, approval of the variance from the required lot area and width for Hr. Lyle Rahn, 1146 Wildhurst Trail, conditioned y on removing the old structure within 30 days I- after occupancy of the new structure. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3745 Shoreline Drive SUBDIVISION, VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE 3525 Shoreline Drive VARIANCE 1146 Wildhurst Trail Mr, Muhich, Building & Zoning Administrator, reported that Mr. Louis Oberhauser representing the Herrick property has not submitted his request to rezone the property as originally agreed per Council meeting of July 8, 1975. HERRICK CIRCLE For Official llao Only \ Name • Case No. ! • •V :N- • »•' ‘rV* ‘ ^ K ->i ■' i: -■ : •■/ j •• • "t'.-.' r- 'v-' ^ t'. i * ■ - {’ 1 1, • ; '? . is", ' ^9 ;. 1 ’ • V •V.;< ;V '•• V, .;^ •'. ■ .•.:*5'.-•■• ■ ■> . S'- ^ •P'- :: . s • ' -r . • • %. ■■ V. 'Vrt i ^ • I : ' ■ > 7 r • >' ' *; • V [• V-Hv > .A*' • ^ /V rJ \ -,v«\ w nffl KftS BttH mmmRD ^’•sections lis :V ^ 11 . V/hat aro the requirement a of the ordinanc Item 10? 1 Acre (43,560 sq. ft.) and 140 ft. Lot v/idth Actual = approximately .84 acres(36,525 sq. ft.) listed in 12,State exactly what is intonded to be done on or with the property which does not conform with existing regulations: ^ • Build single family residence on sub-standard lot - no other land available. 13. lias an application for zoning variance on the same property been acted upon by the Village Council within the last six raon-ths? If so, state the date of the Village Council’s action* No. However a variance was approved in April, 1974. lifOTE: The law requires that the conditions set forth in the following Lhroo items 1lj., 15, and 16 MUST be established before a variance can be granted. Explain in detail after each statement wherein your case conforms to the requirements. lit* Difficulties of Hardship to Ovmer. Strict application of the provisions of tho Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the ov/ncr of tho lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within tho zoning district in which said lot is located. Granting of tho variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyUiGnt of a substantial property right of the appli- 4*cant and to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty and will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant Explain in detail. -■/i ' / ' . <^4 Mo adjoining property available for sale k the enins • * r'^ : v.j 1 THIS ITEM HIS BEEH MICROFIIMED Exceptional Conditiona of the Lot:There are special condi tions (narrovmosa, nhallownoas or shape of a lot, exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot) applying to the structures or land in question that aro peculiar to the property involved or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in vdiich said land is located. Explain in detail. Lot is 64' on the lake, 90' on Wildhurst Trail, 465' and 509' deep. ; V *• .•. i ’ s '• •-• p .j ... -I ; :• V-" 4 f • •''6 16. . fet^fect on WeiRhborhood and Comprehensive Plan; Granting the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congeation . in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger ‘the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and any applicable comprehensive plan. Explain in detail. This residence will be consistent with surrounding homes and will in no way impair established property values in the surrounding area. 9' » • ; ‘ ‘ THiS llfcl H4S been MICfiOFHMEO HOTlS: The A in&p or plet showing tho property effected end all lands within 150 feet of the boundaries of the property affected by proposed change. ( copies) * An abstractors certified property certificate listing the names and addresses of the owners of tho land within 150 feet of tho boundaries of the affected property as those names appear on the records of tho County Auditor of Hennepin County. 19 Acknowledgement and Signature! Tho undersigned hereby repre sents upon all of the penalties of law, for the purpose of inducing the Village of Orono to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are time and that all work herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the ordinances of the Village of Orono and the laws of the State of iiinnesota. i . Date Signature For Official Comments Only: nns ITEM m been mkrofiimed TO:Hide Renson FRO>!: Hank ^Mhich DATE: July 22, 1975 RE:Lyle Ralin - 1146 V.’ildliurst Trail Variance - Lot area and v/idth ^^r. Ralm is requestinii a variance from the required lot area and width of his property located in a LR-IB, 1 acre zone - lot area of —7f055 sg, ft. from the required 45,560 so. ft. to the existuig 56.525 sq. ft. and lot width from the required 140 feet to tlie existing 80_ _ _ft. Mr. Ralm obtained Council approval of a variance on this lot in April, 1974. He was unaware of the fact that our ordinance provides for a one year limit on tliese variances. He has scheduled con struction of a nev/ hone on tJiis parcel, but now learns another var iance is required. 'llie same situation exists as v/licn tlie previous variance was granted. No other adjacent land is availal^lc. Mr. Ralm also agrees to remove the old structure within 50 days after accupancy of the new structure. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 22, 1974• _ _ _ _ ^ Councilman Butler departed the Council Chambers at 10:55 P.Il. and returned at 10:60 P.M. Welsh moved, Searles seconded, to approve the variance of David Slavik and Donald Schultz, 1921 Fagemess Point Road, Plat 42220, Parcel 3700. I4otion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0) . Page 7 THIS ITTIil H/t$ BEEH MICROFILMED VARIANCE L 1921 Eagerness Point Road Paurus moved, Searles seconded, to approve the variance of John Anderson, 4191 North Shore Drive, Lots 53 & 54, Highwood Lake Minnetonka. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0)• VARIANCE 4191 North Shore Drive Welsh moved, Butler seconded, to approve the variance for Larry Berklemd, 3550 Ivy Place, Plat 43480, Parcel 500. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). VARIANCE 3550 Ivy Place Welsh moved. Butler seconded, to approve the variance of Lyle Rahn, 1146 Wildhurst Trail, Lot 26, Tonkaview Gardens, with the access being off of Wildhurst Trail and that the setback on the property will be similar to others with no side yard setbacks being granted. It is also understood that with this approval goes the understanding that the small house that is standing on the property now will come down. Motion, Ayes (4) > Nays (0). VARIANCE 1146 Wildhurst Trail Butler moved, Welsh seconded, to approve the variance to Arthur Ahlm, 3550 North Shore Drive, Plat 42500, Parcel 6600, Lydiard Park, and that a building permit also be granted to this property and the granting of this building permit is a variance to the moratorium and that the hardship in this particular case was considered to be a home already existing on either side of the property and just a few 100* were involved. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). VARIANCE 3550 North Shore Drive Butler moved, Searles seconded, to approve the variance for Wanda Rehmamn, 4105 Oak Street, Plat 42620, Parcels 3300*3350, Minnetonka Summit Park. It was realized that there was no more land available. It was bounded on three sides by streets and that the septic sewer system is to be approved by the Council when occupancy occurs prior to the sanitary sewer line going in. A variance to the moratorium is hereby granted in this particular case. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (1). Councilman Vfelsh Nay. VARIANCE 4105 Oak Street .......... I O ..ans OF THE REGULAR FUU0..HG «0..OAY. HAY 20. .07«. 7.30 R.H. 0 • |: «I \ MI Bs atar* F«;»y |.f ?* .tj \Nay*li51i —— bo opprovod* Ayoa MaY» i0i« ------------------------------ . Ch3.~n Varttet op«n«) ♦:» ’ ,r,g 0 .u»0Wl8l» »♦, * f percol U'2. T*)? !TSluIrg o subdivloloo "^ho Zoning *t**5!?^ H^rln^ tbo Cortificoto of «oII- ^;^7^^AMiSl?of Publication. Horold Andortoo Subdlvltlon ; i.aiAK manci that a sloplo tuMWla*®h ® Tha Planalna and for a t.9 acra lot U SoiortY oanor. .11 f • • t full '<“"'‘"30 '^^,^'2, tS la.. I« ««H«W crcato o lot with p-rc;n3 wwf Itirlng «33 r'- . • •<, 1 •'* * . a • > ia •f. • •» t •.,« ;-.i. .>. I'w^irifiQ iMj wi Kullboro owed. Curt'» J ytJ™*^4'SSdVw'lil2o“™» O ?or a itahl. “ grontcd^condlt^^ .• * * ^ * • . ;. *: -V « • «'«■ » ^? ‘"/i?o<‘‘;otto=Mor%'iUl™^ srontcd^condlt^^ \;.D rc;ulrcd 1-0 sot^ei. cn tha 2 aera alto, andthat o!{ “=;« to ea-^lr.=d -1th tho property to tha yv \ •.• ; h-f* -W- • ^ * i 4 #• » •. * J:it. Ayoo <7) IC^ya <0).00 \9 9 ivjyv^ Chalrtan Vonltost ^{J,? 5l02o74rellio0o!' TM prcr;rty.lC9’"^y_i:"[!'„~i„^rt t-.ia Affidavit of Puhl.ltot!???.rr? :rty .cgon; J}S«l?’Fito.»tirn. ir;r&Hco "c r3H"r: cto%ho crtlt.c=to Of Hailing. ^Ka PlnnnlriQ COSWlOSlO*' Hush Harrlwn Subdivision wldanad from 30* to 50*. • • r ♦ i ? • • • ► Uhti - iihot -ould -0 «;^to o; "r“oiJs;’thT P~- “ot“lo1''=ro?a fro to f-Ol'c r'9ht^«*toy ««» prcLCint tirr.j by o privoto cac—n^? oi5tc<tdlrig Long Lako tirr/j i>y u privuiw w ^ ,v. r.rr.con . SIr.co 1 <=’ ;?lln" to'Sinr.3'to -Idon tto 30< strip, tot I «uld life « r»^ir»ar‘r••! nO D33Stbl0s I llko O’ •:-o Uzz? It 03 norrcv# oa poos!bio. i ,»lntroumCe-.loslonor Gocc!. • |S?''oMotoch^“»*''»'"0^^^^^^^^ ir;rch. ostabllahlng " ‘^"“SVj-g'tto norch lohoohoro proparfy to Ito ollo;.wd tzzm rcoconoblo. voluoblo. It would sccsm opprop- cct of tho 30* strip of lokoDhoro. rlo-fO that ij3 rcqulro J.r. ^o^rlL^^ to . • . a> *-• ••'•*• ________________________________ _ - •• •• • • • . d •#T#» - : i •. *CITY OF ORONO V .r MINUTES .A i • f. I : i '0:4 . . 1 r ; ' A *>L r » f * . Regular I4aatlng of tha Planning Comnisslon April 15, 1974. t H»i<«7 Ha«l»r» «fcson»r^^ an* (^mn VanMaan^^miZ________ tsssisz s'ssr’-’iiss %1’Si ws. fffl»‘siMS3.rss.:K,ri' MS'J-K.'irii!: s’B.ryyK.iSKi' nnd tha Cartificata of Mailing to thaart. After all membora present aaro ^ opportunity to be heard, the hearing was closed at 8*10 P.M. Tha lonlng Admlnlatrator Informed theSS.S: R'la v.!«:s s St~7ferra-sTT -.sr R!^.49*uRs!* O) soma racommsndatlona regarding ‘P®!**;",I** 3 and 4. (4) The City Engineer foela thathas boon submitted In order to make a proper Judgment on tha proposed plat. Pesek laovad. Kallostad seconded that tha Planning Commission M^ova the proposed subdivision ahich Includes a for Lot 4 conditioned on tha Engineer’s approval. The var iance should bo granted because of the unique shape <>♦ property and slnco the entire lot Is 1.9 acres. Ayes (4) Nays C3). KaUo, Gosch, and Kal lasted opposed. a • 7:30 PM. ’.I '** f ■ *r • ; i Kermtt IQwtson Public Hearing Subdivision .* - ’ % ■ / *> •• »' .{•• ....................... , y r:f ► * - '* • f I I «•4« t: ‘ » • * •*. ♦ . i • 4 •' I * • * .V >*«viv ... ■■ -*■! ■ •mf «'^ *1 * •*' ► / •«% •r. ,». V ..w If- • } it. • I j . • -1 / * .. t* • ** i ?■ ‘ ►' u f- u*- V' •■ * •} 1 -•^;j •, •• tot*. TM Zottina '*'"‘"‘t!'M^S,o'^i?nppncI!Ton'hl"«2 C^issicn that aopl icnrton under the present ° nIriTrd.nlicerdtr tne^p^^^^ oenershit ." ‘^'! (°rOratt a now section ;:,^ir:rJ:rnct'?Lt^wou.d spnclf.ceuy app.y to ,^ ; this particular problem. So**r*t s«rfo*«tlot £"’^I«r^'tt^«-’y wi^Jo's-w*r;r.'i:o:r,s..'„ ...*.»-»■* •' create the need for se%#er in the future. : i Gasch i.ioved , Ku11 berg J^the^May^20?" 1974, Planning ,:Ksir:a??^0 - ^-|n;M.nlstrator > ' III II subiftlt a rocDi;vnendat»on. ■ t Tho porltioner hos f— •, . which V/3S 'rrjnted a variance last tan. derstsL that no side yard variances will bo approved. Ayes f7) I'lays (0). , KuMterj „oveJ. Kallestad TydiarriWk!'”' . hundre.; '-P. tt. bo api.roved for Lot 2a of Lyuiaro Ayes ^7) ils/s (0), ■.ir. FrevaPdoft co-.ta.ted the 2on..y, '■ ■’ tod n.at z.is .[.Piieafion be 1 dil-.-a unt, | h'. h-s .m cpp< ’ to ^ r> t'> * • 1^4-#- A tr\^i I loci\ linn^Blonkc;•r .^ch I'jnn purciuTSBcJ Lo1s 4 ‘jnei ^ ir OOJ.Mf. i.cn uin v/ldo and approxi .kitoiy l,l.;l i.,,.e i arH. iho ^Tj^ | .„;re with a sn -^t. Thu o.inirr.u.t lot size in tin , *ire.. >s r ordinance and none of the lots records. Most present zonin.j be approximately 16,000 topeople own 2 or 3 lots which wouu ue ^^.‘^d^n.;n^^ siou If hav?r:^a%^^^^^ .V'- ..■■,■•• .V-'/tx : V • , ;•.' .. a;, *e.-t,.' . . , ■ .. '. 1 6 • A IB WCMOUKD •»/ . t , rV< ■'’■a, -i 'r ^n'tc ;■ ‘V . , 7 >f. * yZ'r *^r f. ^ /f ■• * ♦ ^ 4 |^ v • • t -z , , f -• .• • .-'T f* sgW ■* e'r ' n ; , » 0 I*.. \ 4 • ..4 ? K • .A Lyle i^hn Variance V I » iL’s *N i Arthur Ahiu Variance •MIe ’i Fredondali '/variance s\/et lantiS) ‘..'ando >^eh ann Vari ancti m v:| ■ •«» * *t ■•i • * y V. : .;i»- iSi ^ . • . CITY OF ORONO Regular Meeting of the City Council, April 8, 1974 The City Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Searles, Councilman Butler, Massengale, Paurus, and Welsh. ’ WlTEM HtS BEOi MmfllMED r" 1 ‘m ‘H't f ^ 1 tv Butler moved, Welsh seconded, that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 25, 1974, be approved. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Mayor Searles opened the Public Hearing concerning the water project in the Hackberry Rill area at 7:40 P.M. The City Administrator presented the Notice of Public Hearing, the Affidavit of Publication, and the Certificate of Mailing to affected property owners. After all members present were afforded an opportunity to be heard, the hearing was closed at 8:40 P.M. Paurus moved, Butler seconded, that the variance for John Anderson, 4191 North Shore Drive, be referred to the Planning Commission. Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Paurus moved, Butler seconded, that the variance for Frederick Riebel, 440 Stubbs Bay Road, be referred to the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING Hackberry Hill Water VARIANCE 4191 North Shore Drive VARIANCE 440 Stubbs Bay Road rl**- Paurus mcv«sd, Butler seconded, that the variance ftL«^ I^rry Berkland, 3550 Ivy Place, be referred tc> the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes (5) -> Nays (0). VARIANCE 3550 Ivy Place * ium Paurus moved, Butler seconded, that the variance for John Zimmer & Melvin Dale, County Road 46 and Watertown Road, be referred to the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Paurus moved, Butler seconded, that the variance for Lyle Rahn, 1182 Wildhurst Trail, be referred to the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). VARIANCE County Road #6 and Watertown Road VARIANCE 1182 Wildhurst Trail EOi Lve Planning Commission Dexter Marston, Zoning Administrator April 3, 1974 VARIANCE.- Lot 26 - Tonkaview Gardens Present Zoning: R-IC I Acre Proposed Zoning: LR-IB I Acre THIS ITEM HUS BEER MICROFILMED PETITIONER: Lyle Rahn LOCATION:1146 WiIdhurst TraiI STAFF REVIEW: Lot 26, Tonkaview Gardens, is 31,600 sq. ft. and varies in width from approximately 65* to 90' wide. The lot width at the building site would be approximately 70' wide. At the present time, there is a 20' x 20' cabin on the lot. Mr. Rahn proposed to remove this structure and construct a year-round home. To the south is Tract A of Registered Land Survey No. I I 16 which has a home loca ted on it. To the north is Lots 24 and 25, Tonkaview Gardens which was approved as a building site last fall with a variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Because this lot ex.'ted before the existing and proposed zoning ordinance, and due to the fact that there is a home to the south and an approved building site to the north, a variance appears justified. A stipulation should be attached to this variance approval that no side yard setback variances will be granted. DM/ig Jms im m biu 11. V/hat are the requirements of the ordinance sections listed in Item 10? Building site should be one acre 12.State exactly what is intended to be done on or with the property which does not confom with existing regulations; To build a year around home on approx, 35.525 sq. ft. (.838 acre) vs: the required 43,560 sq. ft. (one acre) 13.Has an application for zoning variance on the same property been acted upon by the Village Council within the last six months? If so, state the date of the Village Co\incil’s action. no NOTE:The law requires that the conditions set forth in the following three items 1^, 15, and 16 I-IUST be established before a variance can be granted. Explain in detail after each statement wherein your case conforms to the requirements. Difficulties of Hardship to Owner. Strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of the lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally pemissible within the zoning district in which said lot is located. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservetion and enjoyiJient of a substantial property right of the appli- -?.\CSnt and to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty and will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. Explain in detail. We would not be permitted to build a home on this property because of the one acre restriction. acre) TS. ^ceptional Conditions of the Lot; There are special condi tions (narrowness, shallovmess or shape of a lot, exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot) applying to the structures or land in question that are peculiar to the property involved or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Explain in detail. Only problem is lot is less than an acre. It conforms favorably to adjacent property. Lon. 16. Effect on Neighborhood and Comprehensive Plan; Granting the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion . in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the Intent of the Zoning Ordinance and any applicable comprehensive plan. Explain in detail. Our plan should add to the value of adjacent property - (vacant lot on the North side) - our plan would be similar to the home on the South side of this lot. It would be an asset and add to the value of adjoining areas. %THIS ITEM IMS BTEN MICHOFILMED NOTE: The following material must be attached to this application. # 17. A map or plat showing the property affected and all lands within 150 feet of the boundaries of the property affected by proposed change. ( copies) 18. An abstractors certified property certificate listing the names and addresses of the owners of the land within 150 feet of the boundaries of the affected property as those names appear on the records of the County Auditor of Hennepin County. 19 Acknowledgement and Sjgnatiare; uhe undersigned hereby repre sents upon all ot the penalties of law, for the pui^ose of inducing the Village of Orono to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the ordinances of the Vmage of Orono and the laws of the State of Minnesota. .Ci Date Signature 1^'or 0^i*icial domments Only: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commision Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Admistrator September 9, 1985 #959 George E. Johnson, 365 North Old Crystal Bay Road - Variance ZONING DISTRICT - RR - IB, 2-acre Single Family Rural Residential. APPLICATION - Request to construct a 1620 square foot pole barn for storage of vehicles and equipment, (maximum allowed accessory structure is 1000 s.f.) LIST OF EXHIBITS A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Construction Plans The applicant is requesting to construct a 30' x 54' pole barn for storage of vehicles and equipment. The property consists of 5.0 acres in a 2-acre zone. The proposed building will be located 150' from the south lot line, 126.5 feet from the north lot line, approximately 225 feet from the east lot line, approximately 300 feet from the west lot line, and 114 feet from the existing house. The building is not intended to house animals, so it is not subject to the 150' setback requirements. It obviously meets the 10' side setback requirement. The Building Inspector notes that an accessory structure of this size must meet certain building code standards which will apply. Note that one of the reasons we restrict accessory structure to 1000 square feet is that they tend to attract other miscellaneous type uses in residential zones. Any recommendation for approval should suggest language restricting the use to private residential storage, and suggest the following conditions; 1. No plumbing may be installed in the building. 2. This building may never be used as a second dwelling unit. 3. This building may not be used as a stable or to house animals, because it is less than 150'fromthe north lot line. Use for animal housing would require a variance. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ^/si> - Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional project) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ' /0/.D /("}). Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) — //^ 3 C' Please check one — Is the property y( abstract or torrens? Please attach legal description to application'if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Gj^£>jP<je Phone ^7 S — Mailing Address Ai. yfiP /.4/(£ //Ay OWNER Name Phone Mailing Address Date Property Acquired . J907 (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parceljlc of land. _ _ _£'Jioeesjy...xo£juc..ai(iti&£A.i..sAziLij:2ii..AL..cpj2j. PRESENT DSE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property ^ Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 3^ 6^7s /S' Describe request in detail: 3/i^eAj : 3c?X 6 ^ X /O ‘/O As ^/z>je/Qr^/£ usj: ^>/^ S/x>i^^rn/^s " ^7rA/£jVA D z TEAM'S Af/F/f/4/^o S£//c/0//t/d ^'fsr^TiS. w mm mm w mm mm mam mm mm mm mm mm mm mam mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm m— mm mm mm mm mm VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances (Front Side Rear)4 Other Si//i/y//ifX, Pr (OVER) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: /^c/C S/z>^ya3c, DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: a/^A^/E. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you can obtain this list ^^rtment of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3. Stamped^ legal sized envelopes (#10) pre7addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. f s Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. £lat Map. ^ The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your vaxiance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SlGNA The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information ii^quired or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual exp* nses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the informat Lon supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowlej^ge. Applicant's signature OWNERS SIGNATURE Date If'-S-Q-ffS-' The owner hereby acknowledges 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 investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date ‘S'^z Applicant must have all submittals into the City cfiices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. \ list 3271) )n the ember IS not ted by lurred s true irther :ants, jation :e the third % v\ \ I \ •'0 A* Wc r zo H tHr>oo • V» ••►44’ 1 -: ;oLO- --*—' iJ:TU '' • .><•'. . o • k •?■.. Y. i • 'rf- “ “ <S^ ^ -V 'ii- c>^«*. —^ ♦ • /> -V ..v ‘v V. \/l * i i. » *• . 'V k* u> )• I !uV- 5 'J I •« ! ? lib »f O'fov 4k «» < ■ f -r*“ /:r.sr.‘> -rn---- ?“fe X . ^ K. f't; .•. * i» » t ^=«= V 0*?IV| ,CIMCULN * # )> HO•V v« §rn So :o H > X > -< m 90 rn X3 So z > 3m >oo ;q H O ^> >• :oX o U rn “O> :o -< >m n o o 33 > o a 2 » 33 m m \ > Z > m > \ •< > m O 33 O 90 o -a 33k o m *T3 33 y> z o > o 3 90 m 09 > Hn X 33 § O O o 3»Hm r* 33 X X O 04 Q H 04 CD Z o. c- ►- Q m UT U1 04 U1 O- *0 -0 O 04 > > 04 C 2 •!-to cn c z > H m m 33 H H > O r- z r- 04 O Ts> tn Cl r-o o 3 > 33 0» I fv> 04 04 rvj > o n t: ^ m n wt 33 CO 3 -< m 2 CO z H CO > 3 O 04 > O 09 33 04 r- ro o tn 04 04 C9 I r-o 04 0 rj 01 o 33 O O O cn 01 04 oi Ch n > CO COmz CO □9 > -< o r- C9 a I M n 04 33 -< 04 CO ►- > m s > HN>H> 33 33 O O U 03 m m 33 33 H H o 04 0 fv> 01 04 CD 04 04 Ini m > > t: ^ J> 09 - 04 33 C3 > On o o g04 H Ol 01 04 CO 33 33 -< -< z z 33 a a o §5 > > CO CO > rv» rr. ^03r- o INJ o 09 N fs>o \ 03 VO Xm rrf•u M Z no S’2, S’? r « M fy' c: ..• M- o •■'• ‘-.I T» c H* I--* KJ o :-i’ !-• b ''t r *-f r*- :r<^r, |_.. c • 1o •1'm *-» <2 q_••> 1 <♦CO '*J »:c •r .-VI p: C V' 0 1^o 1 J ’ 0 »’o •li D • |i.r-^•i 1-4 :t o Q 'jr 0*•-^V • <o •0 i; (t Id H* o «* C*! t-'i c> S' tJ* o »-*. j jr: *-r o fO -•' f I O ’T' »-• r* p M o ' *>«: o LT b r* U- *1 I :> a a* V*} < »» n» .:> • a* t? c* o b H W .A •>'c o O C "> ‘J’ 5 EPf a b M* t/* T> >'* r*a* •!> sr .'> < H* r» 0 M r»'3 rr*•; o ^ o a !? •D O t «» 5 '”S-S !f9 o ^t-: M*o c4-(5* J* tD U) ;d 3- uj or O' n ^ (b M no a i’)o t» w q ^ o M» ^ m T i h-^ ^ W4* \o 2L ^o t" rv* rr u ;c: n* X *-*• p tO ’V ^ •r< V-^ O tn ^ *r- n M O o M O P o "i o u> q ^ M :.T" ^ Cl C3* CT O o o g ^ bD. » 6 O to » ^ M r> '0 M* *1 CO (b nj o ^ t:. ^ M- tj QD M) H (3> *< <ur D o> r** VJ n> ••3" •. O O <1 ‘4 M- .V a c+ f.n o r»- 3 tr o h- [d c/) fo O ^0 M» (0 <} 'r *0 .0 •<: Oo ^ 4rr Kb ^"srr4‘“ 1 I I ’U- \ K % /I 5 I! I V!f I •Sk |: '*' 'SiI ._______________J <»■< n t !i <»a tr -ife V. 1 ' V;-:: - f\S C4 ’'rsy^'i s^*' /■ 0 V VJi. >• '•-f 'Iv • ^ ?» CO Qw<« C^ H,o r: *i 0 O \r: O 0 o •-> • * f/>b M» 9 roc c b:rn 7^ 'I M Ul 3 1 T-r •/ 1^- __fl i/i ________ 1?1 ll 0 '1 ## OwfMT qI Imprawd Propwlyr 8al—wwn Nnw: This pfoposaUs tof a M«Wl» •’•chaje Sy«i". THE BY MCNAMM TO B* UBf 0 FOB COMMlBCiAt OB iMDUBTBiAt respoMibl# lof the workmanship, consifucuon or complelton ol thecoma.??ihe^ntity and type 01 materials required to compwa your building Because ol the many coniwuciion procedures that may be useo. Iioor plan , . „,dinances will allow vou to build this building. Purchaser is responsible lor checking with your local buildinp does regulations, and specilications lor materials to construct your Material Package Buildtng^ inspector IS) regarding the buildings, site location, perm IP .huranHiithtriorcBs or delays beyond ifcWAIlOM control 18 WBlTTeMBOBJtCT Thisproposal.swr.tlensubiecltostrikes.availabUityolma^Js.aMiden^wjattwamlomeM^^^^^^^ TO TMf AFFBOVAL OF THf MOMl OFFICt OF 8«WIAAI>. IMC.. IN MU <^BI, WBC ^ pofianiT . Inc.. within thirty (30) days from this tBBiTTBN MOMi OFFiCf AWOVAt null and vold. and your down payment will be relunded. II this proposal Is accepted, you WB.TE IT OOWN-OML STATEMENT. -----____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Color*: OaMo Trim rnammd Qabl Door Trtm ^-------•oaet* My* Building Oeacription Xi2. 8p«ciflaitloM i Width Height Root . •IMingOoero ComorTrim . Track Coyer Bov*Trim , 'Bottom Trim .Ovortianga: Poda. Aecont SlrlpoB Shllltm_____ Bidge Cep — -BaHIt . •t i. . » * TERMS AND CONDITIONS t. Delivery dales are esiltnales only and this contract shall not be subject to cancellation by Purchaser lor lateness in delivery. 2. This contract is lor the purchase and sate of materials only. 3 In the event that Purchaser reluses delivery of the Material Packags. BMHuuiolnc.. may dispose of the Material Package In any commercially reasonable manner, and Purchaser agrees to forfeit any payments made hereunder, up to 25% of the contract price, as liquidated damages, or rri-*"" Inc., may at its option, pursue any of Its other remedies at law. 4 This Material Package PropoMl. front and back, constitutes the entire understanding of Ihe parlies and any other oral or written statements ar« void, unless in writing, and written approval from the Home Oiiice oi eeBieann Inc., in Eau Claire. Wisconsin. 5. The Materials Package will be ordered based upon current iniormation available from the supplier. In the event that some of the materials needed for the Materials Package are no longer available, or are available only at a dillerent cost. Inc., may cancel this contract, and refund to Purchaser any monies paid. Furthermore, basmard Inc., makes no representations concerning the future availabilities of the maierials. 6. frtBHABt* Inc., makes no representations ?s to variations between the appearance of the buiding or materials depicted by catalogs, brochures, color samples, or other printed materials and between the appearance of Ihe actual building or material. 7. It is mutually understood and agreed that the terms and conditions in this proposal, front and back, are severable and that in the event any of them shall be held to be invalid by any competent court, this contract shall be interpreted as it such invalid term or condition were not contained herein. 4 • y i • A. i c!-»v i'J r.. -1 . u t % » U f •1.' • ■3 O ^•J i »v fEAjl. I g------------I DBtlrBdDBUvBry OatB -X TOTAL MATERIAL PRICE $. delivery charge f. STATE SALES TAX $ -.V o TOTAL PACKAGE PRICE $------S-fc 5^—---------------------- MOIARO Inc. will furnith matBrl/ile In Bcr^ordanc* with epBcIflcBtlone. for the sum ol: ^ r ^ j. . " i.' I • • ($ —La) Payment* to be made a* follr.w*: Down Psyitient 25% (to 8ale*man)$ BtlMCS on Oollwory (to 8ofn|.Drtver) VCn <gg- MAKE ALL CHECKS PAYABLE TO BABNAIkD. INC. Bv alonlng thia propoaal, the undereigned agreea to aU terma, conditlona, and llmlletloit* eet forth on thia paga and •t STATED ON REVISE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT. • 4 ^ ^ r ________ ' Oatad thia Accaoted by General Office ^y ,19 ,Purchaeer. TItiA MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 16, 1985. PAGE 8 #958 VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTER INC. continued Kelley stated that he would approve of the mixed use, but would have a problem approving the variances. Senior Building Inspector Jacobs stated that he would like the City Engineer to review the traffic flow. The Commission briefly discussed the traffic flow and parking spaces. The Commission noted that because of the incomplete application it is difficult to approve at this time. It was moved by Kovegno, seconded by Sime, to table this matter upon submission of a complete application. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. The Planning Commission gave the applicant some direction regarding their views of granting the mix use and setback variances for his consideration. C19m1x;BORGE E. JOHNSON 365 NORTH OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING It was moved by McDonald, seconded by Sime, to table this matter in order for the applicant to appear before the Commission to answer questions. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. i960 & #961 LAKEVIEW GOLF COURSE 409 NORTH ARM DRIVE VARIANCE 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 11:28 - 11:30 Grant Wenkstern was present for this matter. The certification of mailing and affidavit of publication was noted. The purpose of this public hearing was to consider the request 1) for a variance to construct a storage building in excess of 1000 s.f. located 47 feet from a lot line 2) for a After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit to clean & widen an existing ditch area, excavate a low area to create a 20 ' xl75' pond, and excavate a portion of a designated wetland to solve a drainage problem. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that Key Peterson, a neighbor, called to voice his approval of this proposal. There were no persons present objecting and the public hearing was closed. Per Commission's request, Mr. Wenkstern agreed to locate the proposed building 50 feet from the lot lino rather than the proposed 47 feet. Ill 8 but ike and ete ion ack 0. CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONING FILE NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice 9/20/85 TO: George E. Johnson 365 N. Old Crystal Bay Rd. Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance Date of Meeting: 9/16/85 Vote:For Against Planning Commission recommends the following; Tabled: For reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission tabled this item because applicant was not present and they had specific questions about the need and use of this large building. The item will be placed on the next Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, October 21, 1985. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission 10-21-85 If you desire copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder of City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. ion ial. >lic the the TO:Planning Commission Members FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator DATE: October 18, 1985 SUBJ: #967 John B. A. Idstrom, 2580 Fox Street Preliminary Subdivision - Second Review #968 r Conditional Use Permit for Driveway Crossing Wetlands List of Exhibits - Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Staff Memo of 9-11-85 Exhibit F - Survey with proposed driveway location and culvert data Exhibit G - Septic Report (Portions included for clarity) This item was tabled at your September meeting pending receipt of the septic report and information regarding the driveway and culvert; also pending resolution of the question of access from the adjacent private road. The applicant's engineer has submitted a soils report indicating that suitable areas exist on both lots for shallow trench drainfield systems.. He has also provided information regarding the necessary culvert sizing for the area where the proposed driveway will cross the designated wetland in order to access the rear building site. This information was received too late for the City Engineer to review it. Note also that applicants engineer will be bringing this driveway/culvert ap ication to the MCWD for approval at their November meeting, - h no problems anticipated. We still have no written confirmation that access can be gained via the private road immediately west of the proposed division. Although this is still a possibility, applicant is requesting approval for the driveway to access onto Fox Street directly, to serve both proposed building sites. Access easements across and in favor of each lot would be required. Note that with the proposed driveway location on an ei'moment over Lot 2, only the area west of the driveway easement is consj-dered in the contiguous dry buildable lot area. Assuming a 20' wide easement centered on the driveway as plotted, the area west of the driveway easement would still be about 2,0 acres. Staff has suggested to the applicant that a driveway along the east property boundary would cau.,less restrictions for Lot 2 and any future division to the south. As it stands now, the proposed driveway would negate the southerly portion as a future building site because the area west of the easement is less than 2 acres. (See 10.03 Subd. 6(B) and 11.03 Def. 24) Both lots meet all width and area requirements of the RR-IB zoning district. 1^968 Idstrom October 18, 1985 Page 2 Staff would reconunend preliminary approval of the proposed subdivision, subject to the following conditions; 1* Final driveway access location on Fox Street to be approved by Public Works Director. 2. Submittal of driveway access easement documents between Lot 1 and Lot 2 as appropriate. 3. Dedication of standard drainage and utilities easements at the property boundaries. 4. Dedication of conservation and flowage easements over the wetlands on the property. 5. Payment of Park Fees in the amount of $200 for the 3.4 acre lot and $100 for the 10.1 acre lot. Staff would recommend tabling the Conditional Use Permit application pending the City Engineer's review and the MCWD approval for the wetland crossing. Note that when finally approved, the Conditional Use Permit would include a variance to Section 10.55 Subdivision 15(a)(1). n- ikJ- #Q<olCITY OF ORONO SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM APPLICANT Name 70J^Ay J8 . A. y // 7 t." / 'O fi-* \Pec' d 5^ ~ ^ 3 -cAvS“ By /fUn^_______ Fee Rec'd ■7^ /yr _________________________7^0 • *'■* Telephone Mailing Address S7Pf:'6r , CLfAi^PArA 7^3^/ PROPERTY OWNER Name SAaip.Telephone Mailing Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Attach list if more than one) PROPERTY JXICATION Street Address 2BPO S7/iCfT £*^j4r7Jt7A ^JT9^/' ' - - - - - Property Identification No. (P.I.D.) V-!t'l Complete Legal Description to be attached to application EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size y Present Use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. ol units _(2. Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District ~ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites; Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) 2 Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per /3, S Acres //S^ZPO Square Feet Dry Buildable CoMT*G-t^tfuS Land X Residential Other (specify) (OVER) MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Application Completed 2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. 3. Certified Property Owner's list of owners within 350' (this list can be obtained from the Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 4. Stamped, legal sized envelopes {#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature Date MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments) 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and acceptable form of security. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature Date FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III)$150.00 Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivisions) $250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $300.00 plus 20.00/lot $150.00* Applicant has read the above and hereby agrees to provide all information reguired or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature /KOwner's Signature '' Date 4//? //sr 7/If Applicant must havi all iubmittals into the City offices 25 days before tte Planning CommissionXg^Jwng. Planning Commission Meetings are usually held on the third Monday of each month. m >o o H o -o > i: nj X ::: o 13 n > X3 -< > m 2 CJ:o > a rs » m o o -< -< ui ?: 5 Q a a o o o r- r- Z r > a _ in w ni n :o in in oio> 0 1 3 -< H H2 in > 03 01 f- in in in in CD Nj rj in -< O" 9 m H ► Ooo (N> -H O H > CD Hn o oo> o o o z > 3- Xz *o m > \ -< r> mo ;oo ;q §5om :0 > z or- O Z X3 3C ro > O' -< ro N o > H -n > o X O H O 04 z ro (x> c» m O' > O rs>-< o o i: ^ Q* > I in H in in U4 o H O -n H- m o -si r- Z X I Cl fv> 03 H in w 2 m ^ » Z m 30 1.u -Im m r> O' r> in H -n > o X a o > < »• Ma m i 13 m in in 1/4 m m H m 13 in um H m 13 in O I/I ro 03 O' in o § •n »- O ^ X I rj in iH o o o -< N > H > r> o O' m S in ZM-n c) O X 11 a o 04 fN> 0» •• O' O' 03 in o X in H 5-I- r- O %l M X •z r» in I/I 1/4 in in i/4 'O o o (I I t # M 1 H O 13z > >: »X *2 o Z 13 rn U m > 13 \ -c y* > m z a O 13 > o o z » 13 m r r> o r > O' m M -< 1/4 > r" N o z r- > M -H 1 13 >> o z X r- 3 Mm2 in 1/1 CD 0 1 -«i8 in in C4 'D 03 _ . 13 O > Q Z I rvj 1/4 m H ►O O O r3 13 O' O X' Z o O •n o 3 > > 13 13 13 -< m r- X Z o r- O 1/4 rv> 03 o o I H •- in in 1/4 m •• M in s M -n >- O <^4 X I IN3 in 1/4 •'x' r3 cn Xm 13 o o o 03 I H O 13 Z > 3* 13 > X li O 3 13 m 13 m > 13 \ -< > > m z a a u > a o z 1? 13 m in CD H o X 13 > 04 C 03 53^ > m 04 CD O 3 m H m X m in in 03 m cn H O > •n H m 3o5^ O X' I in 2 in M •- > in r- in o ■n m Mnm in 13 in H m 3 in M Si> m in "4I ro 04 O H O O o in r- O Q r- inoin o a > X m r M M M ii i O 04 O 0> in o in o X* I o £ in in 04 in <^ o 13 m m 13 13 in in 88 3C MM ^ r- IP- Mgoi X' O M 13 o in o o 5^ -< in N O 5-n ’"S X X m M X X t* O' ino o in H in in 04 o X > m M U X in r- o m Z m m •-* O %4 X I fN> in 04 " I mno o o o 04 > m \ > Cl o 13 m 13 13ru O 13 H > % 0 /*% 13 >•< m 13 > a Z 13 m > z o 13 C3 Cl r- r3 -< 04 l. u 3 ►-o o o C > O O H 13 O O X n o a Xis 04 03 O X' I in § 01 m x« X' n4 •sJ I fV3 04 O O fM f 04 o o Mim o an in S in 04 ino^ o o o oi > O 03 Z 13 04 M o m o in o r- > X' 13 I 13 13 M m £ •- n z M >1 > H f- I 13 M r- fN3 13 m g 04 m 13 £ Z N ►-» H O O X' M H m3 o 11 mo n o > fV> 13 U m M m 13 X' n o X £ r- M m m n o m X o S > X* 13 o r- in o m X* m I in in 04mo* o ^13 O M m m 13 C- £ M 3 13 22t5 §P a r- n £M riu m I fM 04 O o o 04 I 03 > O o 0> a > m o 03 \ fV3 O N 03in £ mI Is m • £ M X' ri3 i«i in X' i >) O O XI M -Ti Ti m 3 H 3 m •< X m XI _ ni t/i H?? m M o m 5 5 rn ni M sS 5 I •! • •¥ a -n Q > Cl M 2m X o H n -w X> n -n IgM 0)^i>o >p-^83HmM O 3 01 m m > 3 d 2- \ 1 • ^ ?233 m ftt #ii <*- 1 • wV 5:i . >s-’a \3 ^ S m fti mXI i/I Z _ n H M n lol M H nl o m •si m z niw nm Q i/I 35 H o i/I I I I roo Ca O O S ro Ol rsi Ql^ :n -n -n Ol o (11 rt m Ol c-i C-.a. o o o o zr 3“ 3 0 3 3 Ol w ro CO 3 3z m CD Q. CL o i/I cn o <-► €-► cn < -5 -s ^ ni o o cj 3 3 0> X5 CX I I Ca> 00 0 1 ^*4 I CaI 00 0 1 I ro (a> o o 0 01 I 09 > Hn X 3 i o 0 01 o > Hm 01 M vn • X Ol 01 23:^Sm3 CO r+ r+Q XIZZ rt- r* c* 1 (0 (D5 -* -5 mma JO M(D (/> (/> Ol <-► O O ‘"i Ol 3 3 U> o CO M S i/I 3VOC5H j6 —J *—• »—1 Cl -1M 2 i/I-4 ni 3 JO 111 i ism • •oM ►- 4^ V/4 Olso i 4 i #9 4 5>. ^ /C. A’K /yt/ fj 047/1PAHT M I Cortificato of Survey for John B.A. Idstrom, II of Lots 13 and 14, Auditor’s Subdivision Ko, 229 Hennepin County, Minnesota >' 75^.00' East corntfh £dC.4 ‘tn-2J I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lots 13 and 14, AUDITOR’S SUBDr/ISION IRJKEER 229, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, using plat distances from the East line of said plat to establish the East line of the property, and using existing Judicial landmarks,set in a registration proceeding,to establish the West line of the property. It does not purport to show improvements or encroachments except the existing travelled road. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Gordon R. O'*ffin R^g. No. 6064 Mark ?. C -.irg Reg. No.12755 Land Surveyors and Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale: Date : « 0 9 1" = 200’ 4 “2”84 , 8 “23 -8S PfOfojTol £o7 Iron marker found Iron marker set Judicial landmark found i AP€A - /S. 5 * ACAt'S 3./£ 4C/f<J i*J€r /o. yt /tc/ijj /3/tr Pot 3-^recf-^^oad as travelled To: Date Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator September 11, 1985 Subject: #967 (Subdivision); #968 (Conditional Use Permit) John B.A. Idstrom, II, 2580 Fox Street Zoning District - RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential ~ 2 acre Af^lication - #967 - Subdivide a vacant parcel to create two building sites #968 - Conditional Use Permit request to construct a drive way through a designated wetland area List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application - Subdivision Exhibit B - Application - Conditional Use Permit Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Plat Map Exhibit E - Survey The applicant is requesting to subdivide a 13.5 acre parcel (10.4 acres dry buildable) into two new building sites. Proposed Lot 1 - 7.3 acres dry (3.6 dry contiguous acres at building site); 2.8 acres wet Proposed Lot 2 - 3.1 acres dry (2.6 dry contiguous acres at building site); 0.3 acres wet Each lot meets the minimum area and width requirements. Note that the building site for Lot 1 is at the north end of the property. Septic testing has been completed but has not been submitted as of this writing. The site evaluator notes verbally that trench systems can be ^ used on both lots. Access to Lot 2 appears to be via the private gravel road on the west side of the lot. Access to Lot 1 has not been designated; 60' corridors have been shown to ^he west side and to the south, leaving the driveway options open. In either case, the designated wetlands will have to be traversed, requiring review by the Watershed District and requiring a conditional use permit. No information has been submit’ced regarding the amount of filling to be done for the driveway, nor information about the size of culvert needed, etc. Staff would suggest that Planning Commission hold the public hearing for both the subdivision and conditional use permit applications, note any comments by the public and make your own comments, and continue the hearing to your October 21st meeting pending receipt of additional information from the applicant: T.r-wrr ft.. i ^ /Ot t, Zoning File #967 September 11, 1985 Page 2 1. Septic testing report 2. Proposed driveway location and other engineering data regarding the driveway construction in the designated wetland 3. Written confirmation that the owners of the private road will grant legal access to Lot 2 The plat will, of course, be subject to the standard drainage and utility easements at all property boundaries, and is subject to conservation and flowage easements over the desgnated wetlands area. ./> / ^ A 4 I I 4 \ • • 3-0- - V,- wio 3 3-0 - V . 4lL \ N ( i -.*.h / o '^r ■v" r ■ ' ■' 1 ' < /Qtlh-' ^ 1. CMor:~M.aKi i f»1 -~1 ' '^m •• ♦ •' -i \'%• ?.»' • "Tk >p-. •- i» »|t—-•« n • :.i>! ' .»♦ ■ • . ‘V *^1 * ■'. *i‘ '/•* «v ' * • , * ! A > ♦•‘t(X .• *v z' ■ -■ V. r€A_%JA.>. 4 i ' I >p' _/l Cl/.\. /• • ^s?■' ID kl._;/.'5 • / $ ; \ V V\ V. '\ \\^'- ' '\ '• \ '^'•!• \ A\ \ 'A \A\ V \ _A_ . V, \ /A > I 1» rn f\\. t I r. A“x*-*»r7Y7 • w,N •.{Pf ^ >0 t >-. ,'• %■ V Af*' /l- r^i ''"' c::- /■ 4 ^“\4 i rY ')]] 1 y V • *1 ' Z''—'•D f ■ r-\:'. '£mm f ♦ ) ' , U /mP tA ij)'''<*'■ J '•\\ ' /' ) 7 'A \ V. » ..'W^ /. I ,J>» o"^. ■• Z i-*"^ :Y k » ■ /» /./ i . r , . «/ ci * •' %-/r \ • • • I » k . .. A 1 1 'v-D I' • ■ 7/ . / . ,DA u Js—|,v #/ .■.••.• - • >;•;•::••-.1 R*‘‘.v.v-• •^* :;t/ /•:•/••'.* *i / SITE EVALUATION REPORT FOR JOHN B.A. IDSTROM, II IN LOTS 13 & 14. AUD. SUB. No. 229 rORONO, MINNESOTA • » ! • OCT I 6 iggg ®.OFOROf' 10-5-85 On August 29-31, 1985 two proposed lots were tested for both primary and alter nate drainfield sites to determine their suitability for on-site drainfield sys terns. Testing was done in accordance with Individual On-Site Sewage Treatment System Standards(WPC-40). Lot 1, the north lot, had an average percolation rate of 7.7 minutes per inch for the primary site(holes 1-4) and a rate of 10.4 minutes per inch for the alternate site(holes 5-6). With the possibility of a moderately high seasonal water table, shallow trench systems would be needed for both sites. Lot 2, the south lot, had an average percolation rate of 21.6 minutes per inch on the primary site(holes 1-4) and 15.2 minutes per inch for the alternate site(holes 5-6). Because of the high seasonal water table, shallow trench systems would be needed for both sites with some fill required over the trench es or an interceptor draintile used to lower the water table. Additional information follows. If any other information is needed, please contact me. Sincerely, PERCOR, INC. ‘’'^Mark S. Gronberg, P.E.^ PCA certified ■"3 m //J .) / A'i) /^f S* ^t'K 7 ’ y r / : /o-sr~^s xcal € : / ' Ae^c./^occi /»-/ So/L S3-‘/ eiBi/: 93./ ^Ar//M : ATT£/Ai££> HlBA Lh^-•. k- . :i • fir L i”-r?' r#; /V - ' y « / • ,/ ✓» L/i / / Aar z ■-1 ^Are : /o^s'-sr fCALe : / *s /oo ' A€Ac Af0te : T^/C ^a^t*A/6 ‘ : TA" / JAar £c €!/ : /^4 y ; ASrat/nit/^ & rL MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 16, 1985. PAGE 2 #963 WILLOW PROPERTIES/#962 LAWRENCE C- WADE continued Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that this school is an permitted use in accordance with the objectives of the RR-IB zoning district under a Conditional Use permit. It was moved by Rovegno, seconded by Sime, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use permit to construct a Montesorri nursery school subject to staff's recommended conditions and upon availability of adequate sewer units determined by staff and Council. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. suit 6 #968 JOHN B. IDSTRON 25HD FOX STREET PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 7:47 - 8:52 John Idstrom was present for this matter. The certification of mailing and affidavit of publication was noted. Staff recommended that Planning Commission hold the public hearing on this matter but table any decision by the Commission pending receipt of engineering plans for road and septic test and design information for 2 acre lot. Dean Lindbloom, 2630 Fox Street, questioned the need for the conditional use permit, which was explained to him by Goetten. Darrell Plucker, 2640 Fox Street, was present for this matter but made no comments. There were no other persons present for this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to table this matter due to an incomplete application. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. #966 CLIFFORD OTTEN 2445 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH ZONING AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING 9:09 - 9:24 Cliff Otten was present for this matter. The certification of mailing and affidavit of publication was noted. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider applicant's request to amend the existing zoning district standards to permit commercial uses that do not require municipal services and that will be compatible with surrounding rural residential development, specifically a "garden center" at 2445 Sixth Avenue North. 1 1 ■USK To:Planning Commission Members Pn Date: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator October 15, 1985 Subject: #972 Shaver/Tearse, 1080 Ferndale Road West - Variance A) Variance to Section 10.23, Subdivision 5 A to permit construction of an accessory structure (dock) on lot that cannot sustain a principal structure. B) Permit required per Section 6.07, Subdivision 1, City will require a written permit to permit structure on unused portion of public right-of- way. List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 - Exhibit 2 - Exhibit 3 - Exhibit 4 - Exhibit 5A ' Exhibit 5B • Exhibit 5C Exhibit 5D • Exhibit 6A - Exhibit 6B • Exhibit 6C - Exhibit 6D • Exhibit 7 - Exhibit 8 - Exhibit 9 - Exhibit lOA Exhibit lOB Exhibit llA Exhibit IIB Exhibit 12 • Exhibit 13 • Exhibit 14 • Exhibit 15 • Exhibit 16 ■ Current Dead Survey of 4/4/85 Survey of 6/26/85 Plat of North Shore Cottage Acres Bagley Certificate of Title • Ritz Certificate of Title Kingman Certificate of Title Garske Certificate of Title RLS 441 RLS 397 RLS 1123 RLS 1350 Tax Statement - P.I.D. 02-117-23 43 0011 Plat Map Copy of Abstract of Riparian Tract - Zoning Administrator's Letter 4/28/82 - Building Official's Letter 5/34/84 - Staff Review of Old Survey - Location of Shoreline on Same Survey Memo - Walter H. Rockenstein 9/8/85 Statement of Facts and Argument - John J. Taylor LMCD Letter 8/8/85 City Attorney Radio's Memorandum 9/6/85 Council Minutes 9/9/85 S' 4^ Many issues have been raised and addressed during the Council's review of this application. We have had formal opinions from the applicant's attorney, a neighboring property owner's attorney and the City Attorney (review Exhibits 13, 12 & 15). At their meeting of 9/9/85 the Council directed the Planning Commission to review two of these issues as follows: A. Formal variance review to permit construction of a dock on a lot that does not contain a principal structure. B. Right to use unused portion of public right-of-way for private dock purposes. ing lot fate Zoning File #972 October 15, 1985 Page 2 A. Riparian Issue Back in 1981 the applciant and previous owner had been advised by staff that the land portion of the property was buildable and that the lakeside portion could sustain a dock as soon as the house was built. Staff never looked upon these parcels as separate but as one unit and based their opinion on old surveys of the subject properties - review Exhibits llA and IIB. In our recent review of application #930 (rear setback variance) for the same applicant, new surveys revealed that the riparian lot was submerged and approximately 18.5' of the 66' right-of-way of Ferndale Road was also submerged. The two parcels have separate P.I.D.'s. Throughout our City, we have similar lot configurations where home stead parcels are divided from independant riparian lots - for example the Pink Palace properties, the Greentrees Plat, the many registered land survey divisions along Shoreline Drive and numerous others. You have just recently approved conditional use permits and variances for small tracts of lands that sustain docks and which were originally designated to provide safe riparian access for separated divided neighboring properties. The 25'x25' tract is located within a protected lagoon. The applicant stated that he will meet the required 10' side setbacks and proposes a 3'x 10' dock. The dock as proposed will not be connected to shore, users must step onto dock structure anchored in lake bed. The parcel was cited as an exception on abstract in 1945 and in 1954 joint owners applied to register title of the property. State taxes are levied and have been paid on the property. I do not have the facts in my record, but the attorney for the applicant confirms that Lot 6 and that 25'x25| part of Lot 9 have remained as one legal description on the Certificate of Title for several years. At their September 9th meeting (review Exhibit 16), Council noted riparian tracts like this one are common around the lake and that it is important to establish controls on their use. Staff recommends approval of the variance application of Shaver/Tearse to permit the construction of a dock on a lot that was not designed to contain a principal structure based on one or more of the following findings: 1. The homestead lot is located 66 feet from the riparian tract divided by right-of-way of public road. 2. The property has been recognized as one unit on the Certificate of Title for several years. 3. Previous owner and current owner were never advised of the need to apply for a variance to construct a dock only that a house must be built on Lot 6. The Orono staff had always advised the property was riparian to Lake Minnetonka. by ict Zoning File #972 October 15, 1985 Page 3 4. A dock built to standards of the LMCD can be constructed within the lagoon and create no navigable hazards to public. 5. The two parcels cannot be legally combined because they are separated by public right-of-way. 6. The use of an independent tract for solely riparian purposes by a neighboring property divided or separated by public or private ease ments or public right-of-way is consistent with current patterns of use of the lakeshore within the City. Approval is subject to following conditions: 1. Applicant execute a special lot combination agreement recognizing use relationship with homestead and riparian lots. 2. Dock to be constructed per LMCD regulations for existing lot (prior to 1970) with less than 40 lineal '’let of lakeshore. B. Permit to use portion of unused public right-of-way. The City has approved various improvements within unimproved public rights-of-way. I can remember the City approving the following within the last eight years: 1. extensiv")n of private sewer lines 2. private driveways 3. retaining walls 4. existing structures within right-of-way Each owner or developer was asked to execute a hold harmless agreement with the City. The applicant has asked to use 18 1/2 feet of submerged road right-of- way to construct a residential dock. The City Attorney advises that the owner may use that portion of the dedicated right-of-way not currently used by the City for construction of the dock. The applicant has advised the dock will not be connected to shore, the dock will be anchored to lake bed and user must step from shore onto dock. There will be no portion of the structure located within dry portion of right-of-way. Review Exhibit 14, the LMCD has stated that as long as there is written agreement among the owners, they will approve a permit for dock. The City Engineer has noted for the public record (Exhibit 16) that approximately 6 feet of the 8 1/2 feet of unused shoulder is needed for adequate maintenance. Zoning File #972 October 15, 1985 Page 4 The real issue is to determine whether this use is compatible with the P^^lic*s use of Ferndale Road* Will the dock create safety concerns or hazards for the public roadway. The City would ask that no portion of the dock ever be extended into existing shoulder area of road. In addition, the City will not allow parking of cars in the use of the residential dock - pedestrian access from homestead lot is only permitted. Dock must be classified as temporary structures as City may be asked to fill and widen access if necessary at a future date. The precedent setting by aspect of this request poses great concern for the City. Staff has established a list of the following issues to be addressed in each such case: 1* Title History — the parcel has been legally recognized as one unit since 1954 when owners applied to register the title. _Platting History - original Lot 9 was platted in 1902 - the 25'x25' portion of Lot 9 was created around 1945 - prior to formal City wide zoning. 3. Physical Characteristic of the Property and Surrounding Properties - Tract is located within a protected lagoon. The 25 feet of lineal footage abutting the roadway would provide adequate area for a residential dock. LMCD standard allows a lot with less than 40 feet of lineal shoreline to construct a dock to 3 feet of water depth but not to exceed 60 feet in length. 4. Taxing Records - the tract has an individual P.I.D. and is taxed by the State. 5. Public Safety Issues - if dock is constructed per LMCD standards and dock use is controlled per City's guidelines there is no public safety problem. 6. Interference With Use of Public Property - the dock will not be connected to shoreline. There will be no structures located within dry portion of right-of-way. Pedestrian access only to dock. City Engineer has confirmed that 6 feet of 8 1/2 feet of dry shoulder area is needed for adequate maintenance. Staff recommends approval of a permit to Shaver/Tearse to use that portion of Ferndale Road not used by the City based on one or more of the findings noted above. I a iliilkyinaii mi. Zoning File #972 October 15, 1985 Page 5 Approval is subject to following conditions: 1. Applicant execute hold harmless agreement. 2. Dock to be constructed per LMCD standards. 3. City will not allow any portion of structure within dry shoulder area of right-of-way. 4. Pedestrian access to dock allowed - no parking of vehicles within the right-of-way. 5. Applicant is placed on notice that dock is temporary and may have to be moved at some future date if City plans widening of roadway. EXHIBIT 1 I M-NANMANTV DUO 10 1%) MI#Ak« lintoi Ha. % * • M-*v \ ^ boo No cJrlintjuenl laxt*n ami !rji)<ff*r rryiTinl; (Vr!ifu*al<' of Hfal K%laiv Value ( l/f'filrii i / pWl rrtjuireil I Orlifh alr of Hr*il Rxtutr Value No. ^ j inJ'52 9i» /■ 4822222 iuC2rl3 2 2 2 2 Si CC5.000o Viilli T. HQPPt . in f»• . \ |.;\Si is ♦ V . H __________________ . . _________________; ST/Vn: DKKD TAX Dl’K HKUKON: $ , I 't«vL» ^ n«tp: Augu0t_...................f ^ .15)J3_ t)(reicrved for recording dala) 1S83QUG29 PH 11= 26 4822222 . .. /;„.4U.cc »[«?.''(9 (igdMla) / i M FOK VAU'ABl.KroNsmEUATlo.:. Douala8_jL_glmrp «nd-J<»rnigce A. Slca rp^ hua ba nd __________________________ ,Cranlor(aK ^H9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Imantoiitaiud hereby convey (H and wmani (» to ...Lak^v^llg ElgvfttOI-Compa ny . a Hinni>«ntfl . - ^ COrpor&»i<.n ___________________________________________________________.■ Grantee (». real ptopeny . - H«nn>pln____________________________C ounly. MinncsoU. detenbed a* foUow$: ^ic«i HaiWPln ____________________ C ounty, Minnesota, descnbcc! a* loliows: That part c? Lot 6, North Shore Cottage Acres, Lake Minnetonka, lying North-^^ westerly of che following described line: Coiwnenclng at the most Easterly corner of said Lot 6; thence Northwesterly along the Northeesterly line of said Lot 6 a distance of 40 feet to the point of beginning of line to be described; thence Southwesterly parallel with the Southeasterly line of said '' Lot 6 to the Southwesterly line of said Lot 6 and said line there terminating. And that part of Lot 9, North Shore Cottage Acres, Lake Minnetonka described as follows: Conewncing at the Northwest corner of said lot 9; thence South along Westerly line 25 feet; thence at an angle Southeasterly parallel with Northeasterly line 25 feet;thence at right angles Northeasterly parallel with Westerly line 25 feet to Northeasterly line also being the County Road; (continued on back) t.i mo#, «>"«•"«§ on i>«m . . tngvthrr with all hcrfdilamfnt* anil appurtonancA#; Ivlonpnit thcroto. lubject '.o the following exception*: STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF Henneoin AUQUSt .19. U-, KOTAXI a L tTAMf OX SEAL (OX OTHBB TiTLE OX BANK) tor(i). bilC s t.rzsw’wSB? itONA rr riASON takiko ackkowlxpomcnt *a Tti tuio«i**ii f#t lilt >rpf tfir dj^i«y«4 lA Ulli itat !• (lacludf iiaais am addrais orOraiit#*): Lakeville Elevator Company 1254 Grain Exchange Building Minneapolis, MN 55415 •MiiM TNIf ISITRUMCNT WAS QAAflED iY |K AMC AKD AODRCHI Allan T. Quallo 401 East Lake Street Wayzata, HN 55391 • 3,- -* *«A . I . - t ^*• *: , 9^ A4 •--L lit . ^ ft i fl ? e ^ m ^ 9m m* . « ^ ^ ^ -■ (Continuation) thence Northwesterly to point of beginning. % ■ , ' S'-V .c .< ' r f V.if I •J, • • • •• • • %• • • jla^mm i i'j EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 5-A mC CERTIFICATE OF TITLE Tranktcr t roa Ho. bl-*^*'* A. D. 1VS4 Volume No o^**!*:^ O'itmCT COU*»T h* l2J7tf Ori»;iDjlly r» >:i*»trred the 3l»c ddv of l»« enber f'4iK« .»:7bi5 aggaassBag S9 645075 $:in n Mnuiu Conn g Humm Thti it to corlily lh«t REGISTRATION Kalph C. Bj|;ley oi lernJale Hoad Wegt, City ol bavutu. County of lltnnopln. Stale of Minnesota ig flow fho ownorft) ol an ottatt in loo limpio ol and in fht lollowing dttcnbtd land tituaied in fht County ol Honnepin and Stait el Minnoteta. to wit: Tract A, Keitlitcred Land Surv«v %*». i-.!, Flic* of Rci;i»tr.)r of TUlve, County of Hennopin except that part vobraced in Registered Land Survev No. V02, and Tract* A and C, Registered Lend Survev No. V02, rile* of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. l» subject to caseaents for driveway purposes as shown in deed Oo» . No. riles of Registrar of Titles; See Inst; Part of Tract A,Registered Lsnd 632264, riles Ol Registrar of Titles;Sec Subjcc t to a reservation of full See Inst; SubfOCt to the oncumbroneot, lions and intoioftt noted by tho memorial underwritten or endoned hereon; and tub|ect to the following righti or encumbrancet tub^'sting. at provided in the twenty lourth taction ol *'An act conctrning the regittration ol land and tht titia tharoto** ol tho Contral lawt ol tht State ol Minnetota lor the year 1905. and tho amondmentt thereol. namely: 1. lient. daiim or rights aritingunder the bwt or the censiituhon el the United States, which the ttof met ef thit ttale cannot reguite to apptar of record. 3. The bee ol anybos^oT'ii^^itl etteswiieni ter which the land hot not boon sold at the daft el the certificete of title. ). Any leeie ler a period not eaceeding three years, when there is actual occupation of the prermset under the lease. 4. AM tighn in public highways upon the land 5. Such right ol appeal or right to appear and contest the epplKation as is allowed by law. 4. The rights el any person in pouestron under deed or contract lor dood Irom tht owner ol tho certificatt el title. 7. Any outstanding mechanics lion rights which may oMist undmt sections S14.01 to 514.17. That the said Ralph C. Bagiev i» of the arc of 68 vear*. is oarrlird to Mary Jio Bagley and is under no dUablUtv. * IN WITNISS WMIRIOR, I have hereunto subunbod my name and alfised the seal of my oHict this Thirtieth day ol January 19B4 R. Dan Carlton Megistrar ol rttles. In and lor tho County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, •r uJ MIMOMIAl / O# ISfATIt. lASIMINlt Ol CMAtCIS ON IHI UNO OISCRltlD IN iHl CliTlFlCATI Of TlUl HlifTO^ACMlO oocwwcnr nwwtce ”[ c* V» S»emo or iNSTNwMCnT ' M.«i* Os$ *• •!* 0«f *•*'• — . I* ' r OATc or fuciSTAATion amount euNMtRiC III rAvoe or Order of S7«0dl . ._C‘^urt Directing that the land d«»c of the second easeoent created over a pt of | May 9 1967 'Mv 10 1907 ‘ 10:18 Tract A. KL5 So 6^1 b> Heed Doc So "632:B- I* rvvi.od t aoondiid to read as fol: Also'an ea.eocnt for drivewav purpose* over the foUiWing part ol *aid Tract A, Registered Land Survey So. ^*.1: Beginning at the oost Southerly corner << the 12 foot strip of land hereinabove described; thenc^ : **Soutiieaster 1V to the siosi *la»icrIv corner oi Tract B in said Registered Land Survey No 902; tUncv iorthwesirfIv along the Northeavierlv line ol said Tract B, thence \orthea»icrly totheuoht Westerly corner of the 12 font strip ol land hare n- ^ above de*cri6ed; thence Sijutheaster)v to the point oi beginning u» the caseMnt being de»c ribed. P 1 - -i-• ............—- -nr—.f> sicsiAYusc or ocecTv niGtSTean •it ovtn ab jr l/ -"•nil sr<<].n. » » » » > :»%r*CERTIFICATE OF TITLE 1t*naf«r fm« •.* . 5396V A. D. 1918 V.^liw \» No. V.70V' o I •••!» coo«^ Nft • 329fi 'fIrJ^^«ny r^nlitfI’l* 18t!< d*' f -•r** 61695 REGISTRATION C*i4mi M. Kltt Rfii M, Rftr, husband snd f^ trnant# of 190C T-* R-d • Vfd, of tuitf of IfiiMaota ifid flwt i, fti«tatar«i ImI Mi. Slip Mlat af R^iatrar of TItlot, Ooynty of Senoofln. tm tlM fOT^ataal paraaomt rifliC of tho pidblle tn oao for tha purpoa^^o of novlgali^'' ** all Oiat pare of tiM akooo 4aoarl8a8 pnalooa Iftat botoooo cht ordinary high oacar aarti nf tree's Bay and too iBtor aif% of oaif tmaa'a Bapi • %u! ! Mhjaat to aa laaMOwt iar oaarflov of aat«r fiaa aaooa %ni natural draia**ge aa of ligipliar of Tltloa, lat frao fros ftainaia of mft imm aaptlr tanka aa akowi By k3kta:rar of fltlaa; (too 0f4ar Dae li« IMM) in food U • onrf«? IB77 a6, t No. 885633. lot chr of 9 8 S3 yaara raapaatiooly^ art aarri^d * oath .1 TP Mryfoarth •0*1 ^ lOf oM«o» 19TT A. *ohnaun MEMOMAl f ’int^-Of.?!! I, 3j'.^8 r^*t tt 9I94U iftU nMM WtclMt MMaMli for ri«lf-•f-vay war §4 Tnet •» fattlM *$>*f t* tr*4t0 ■Im* ■■■■inf •• foil Aa M««Hnt t liSraaa ft ^ ft ^ <r**r or othor pertl -n of Tr«c niMM alft ft aw (ka ih I'aft ftanwT M>l • atrif a ,fw a ft ia.tha way af aft tiyat^ ftlat U».8J first riatl.u\a1 Da oh limo.oo miiaiiopolia, Hortgagrt'a th»*»P'*arr *• iaou^ Co bold'*r of 683333 rah 1. 196} Harry fU 6 Ortn»d- hua r, of a pultclaU. ut'» fro . *lc^!anf all righ^ 6 lot to Troct B od mtr^r n ^ • . 507931 •'f for r^v for th^ ^rpoa* TYict • ad ^urv y i *»aat 6 on ail rroct 8 wi Sur daa** at fol: •'* '’i •*•€! I, 15 ft to uidth 8 7.5 ft *1- earl aJd* nf • 1* -yjryr* ft ^ :ly orat #d '"*1^ II «a At I »v« ••• I » C/y//ss I iiiiftftliy■fe CERTIFICATE OF TITL£ Tr^ r'^** fr * •- e r ra n». .w O'ftaict coi/iit MaUi ’ ' ► .•TO* re er-! I ". V .c. i . •. U ** Snii « Gan g 1K« » !• Mrtgy glM '* iia^ ra*^, Co 4T.1 REGISTRATION Ke^/**/ 3« K.r.’ / Jr. ani . • B. K*.v ..nr » hasi'^nJ ®?v! •£ Joint -e .« *t Uen:*epln, 8*.nte iT Nlr/^es^V. .. ^'•r Ci til. Tract A, IteRisUm U.nl 8-rv^: ib. a, Ite.'lrterrl l^n*. Surva. V d . That part of Tract C MorliMtterl: nf a line • F; les of it , Files *• *ttr®r •* Tiller, Cc int^ of Mt-.r>epi.r.. Irtrar or Titter, CoJr.ty of Hcrintpln, arv. i*:tcrl.«l as bt^lru.lns; at a point on *J» Korth^rsterl. * .i*.e TFmri C, 131.' r#tt Horthear'trly •• rtajurad aL?'• a»ll Kor^.-^starl;. line froc n^utheesterl *r. a atr«i|':ht lint ic U.e orltnar. .j. w-ate.* T*r or. & /, l*'t mrjittonKa aa aho»m or. aaM ieclaicrtd Land Gurve. To* ti^venae list fnor the Southwesterly lint of sail Tract C, Files o Suljact, hpwevTr to the perpetial parmaojrt rl^ht n"* the pu* lie to uae purpoaes all that part of the abova itscribvi pmlsea lyi.n^i •etveer the orllnar. lov eater aart of aaid Bmvn*a Bay; (as to fira I aral :) aost Westerly' comer of aali fra.*: v'. X\r.» %*or^ » * ▼ ^ L- Bro»rri*s ds. through a point on the ti-j^-^rpe said point .-^in,: IJl.JU fee* tie tart «. ** Be/.lstrar of Titles, County of Hannepin. for the p*orpDies of iun,9aticr high aater riara cf Brown's is ) a:* Byb^'ecl to an eaaaoer.t for overflow cf water froc ea'es and natonl IraLrjige as sho -n In dao<i rr^-. Ho. l^*' TV » at.i ' • tn»r the Beclstiet of Titles, but fiee frr^ dralna«{t of oter fmr ,'cptlc urn s; (3ee Orlar Oor, Bo. (a« ■aaervlr.r an taae^nt for the Ter«flt of ateve a/ t rtht.-* lar.l a: £.*uwn 1* lead fioc. lb. S«2r3w, fllr Tltlea; (See Inat) (aa to Fir 2) •oerther with ar. eaa««nt fo • rl^t-ct-wi. for the p.rp.se of Ir^rt ss and ei^rtar tc '»nd froa he fear or - of aall Tract A owr the foUowiag descrll^ad property: That part 0.'' Tract B, Bagisterel Lan.1 Cun« Bo* * . fUea ilei * of Tltlea, Cbieity of HtrjiaplA, bolhf a strip of land ll/ fast In viiUi and 7.' faei 0.1 each aida of a Um ru u* fit>t a * * U tha lorthaaatarly Hot of aaid treet, diatant fat* Southeaaurly, neasuTfe*! aloag tald BortlMOiarla i. '* fm« Uit la^ * BoFtherlj oofoer thereof to a point In the VPatarly lioe of aald tract distant 137«k/> faet aoutharl/i oaoaurod ak. -ester Una ffoa tte ods I Uortherlor comer tharaof as ahown bgr Oocuasnt Bo* ^ J, Filta *)f the Baglatr** of TUloa; (loe w; .• SraMM wMvIr^ w p*vMag hi Sw twMgySMuili mcSm af Saveath April lA) B. iBa CaflaoA t :) __T M na ormcah gw mu <• »**•• -- 3CJ h«s Fab 9 - 5?'^4 oStr 5iractlcw: u ‘.’KL ft reforei to ;-lete t..^ *c tat Ion VP. 1 eeag*. (>t : (as V> T^H'Cr*!^ W: .............. rr: r *7 . ^ a ••«... z: X OS* • a u«iaTv*S ea lew ' ••a*aaa«a far_T;^ 1^Rj» tVnef.l of ijove____ pD^r robla fn pi of free Gaelic, h:j 'a and forT vp ”InstalUrt!i 7 \ -a li twx .• •r - a c, tie «> • (s.* Xu r 1 Jiii- EXHIBIT 5-D /^' &/("/S'S^ Jl!^ 'T.Z T»%ll»f-r irrw Be* <V.- i *.«!?««. n»f;i»trr«Kl ir« jln dA> of 0# •»iirr A.L,:4‘ , • ».€ Idu^. te: of fror^r) / .: • *. %'»• i‘H Uky of my A.D.lWjf U-. l« 4 :- fw«*i 3b} * \ klhjh 4 rv%**# • 4 V;.!? Corwr^Bc^omii. I ^ Ml ^ RIQISTIMTIOI vAfJMj^®»n(* I- Qv«u w*<* »• fcrtM. bu««Md bln* bir*. at t« in i«€B»iOQ. boir. rr»i^ilfiK n‘ Kl/r..'ror»v to th# City of UB/MtA, County of Uraatplo nad 9tnlt cf Klv »'*•.* k, Uai X owor 40 mOSOu^^^ Bo. iX23, Til— of Bagtltimr of TlUaBf OoiAty of tm0^ ncroBt Usd l/lot Bbb' nai laaadiataly adJnoMit to tbm lad Trem Mfttc IabJib, for tMtfit of proalooo Borolo load brnimim • to Um porpotiaa mil %mi of tho • Tkj. tm • , poimnoit rl^ht of th« public to bbo for tBi puipooof of m prmtlmm lylBg botuooa tho ordiaory iU^b m—r tauk of Brow** IBy mi— • «!€• ovor to Bduard A* €Mhla part of obovo IabAr oj Boryl d. OUtlm, m m996, for crerflw# cf or otBor p^rpooto ordloanr loo notor an* •Bd olfo, to uo« iriwmmy Boo Xao*.« : AC BfO mmod to OBCt otao; JjL^jU :^7 AOjr ■h K. RIIIlM MEMORIAL vr»7 I Br moiort —fi saca eases"Tfr ‘zi, nXfAt P*^^ pP/*U #/ w nm CtmnncATK or Jtrtr itatmro ArrAcrat. 4r. mU00»M» 10 0AVO0 O0 iUiJXCJ2i2, py^ ,‘--y tzJt ApJJHir ______ «<v ^ ^ ^ $ • #0«»4r4,Br or Of A 101 A^JSOB _j tef o»f * EXHIBIT b-A ;,4' 3Kor«lirM *■ i< Z.' STfwre un ie!.‘- ■nasm romm, >«ia>twaiA 7?/ *»* **—r 4v : . JvV • ^ .• c . NCly t.na •( Lof 9 ^ . ,i^K s.Pr#f#nf 5Kor«|intf t' ■'■'A r-rf 9 U^ 1 f_ t * > ^t. % ^ Berth ! th»nr« b»^lnnlr/ of eoBtlnuinf Corth ** ^ ,«, tc a r^lBl 111 th, KorthM.iorlT ■ 1 b tho Coontj r«rt cf tot «, Ip. • I*'®*^^**^*'***!^ Of ^.1<[d» doorrj^'^kf^p^r tK. k <*i<*UBt iTTfA £i52i£522® of ClMrtj.r «M »—otO.StotiUI^ /- r^* •nno Sau*hvea«i>rW olon^ Urafriv lln* thereof 2a * fjUoWs Pp»nelnr Bt tKo BMt KoriJWxy aM f lot, 25 foot| thmeo at »n sr^la "ortl.o».»«erlT t«ro{ltl^!)lt».*Lt« i ^f,**^’’'*****^^^^ lo'rUM IV. .loo bojn^ tha Couaty •»c; l^acrSo^ulXtli L »«♦» « f«*l W»ortSii • > V7. ■■ ~:z’'*» V lEUXT « nbjir • • • '•i 5 j .» . • • -» • \ • " I i?i''li telA"" Ui !• S 30* * t ibr 2f, i?55 I Iron Hrkvr ■i>. i» ♦ l u. ■ ' • Aa.;-V;V4 - I LE n : • 'L;=5^: • »'* '.v '“lii. '/K'T' ';^ i:-4.6J861^0«1»«1 L ;Veimn t» M««mao /s» -»•or MKaSTRAR OF TITU WITO CX3UHTT MDfNCSOTA:»W > rv • -si : wwjfii MOfNcsQTA pll SuIII iT •:•■•>■-. >•- • 'I ScsU r.«o' D Land Suqve V^^C^ Hennepin Coon^^y, MinnesoH'.^ £c>A.M,f^|&l^ Su Mowai ^ t«^*f»eer« & 5 ufvy»r» *o* Ocr««(e« Irm MgAwmcnt Ihenbyarlily Min iumSret «•»<« pniw •t Chi^ M.Mnw«l« J SMtfitt 4 e*^,e wm4d f ihM lore^Bile jHUii^ ^ I J dscHbtd ! L j Cttn!Y4MenncfntrilVdk4 !;• :/f f MmttH Wwil«- MfolpH ^ ij 4 Ut.MiWii luUimim If 'i C9.Mo««pin ml Muct««s vvIdkHmi ' iertU. »id li W pr4 4 M telan Nvit %M1| lid 4 H S* Mp4m 4 tn UtWrV, Inc 4.««a Irfl.wi UtMflMtf ^ i*» <*nkf Ice 4^^ Omify lirf ^ fvwn^ HcrlhwicrlY and SMUKi^fuiy Imi^ Ub iMii 1, 4 NoHh Stfc (iiHa^y >OTi. Hwct bdmc ifcrff Aib<e<wbr%t4 md bd dctcribed CauntY Bmd b ih niertalim n'lti^itf dSmTlb^ * MltcMlcHy an^ Snn Hie SoAtmWrly li« 4^ Serf Nvthim * Bailroad Oi^ 4 • ♦<«£* Wlwc^ler!^ paraikt «Hh «ad !''^ '4 '***Y ' *• M»\ ft Vcl Hcfi^nm . • di»lancc ^ • ll«<xe dt|l«t4in^ b ie kft ll tn *( t« obu 4 bjiwin^ ded IK)2lZ^daY4—^^Pff^>4. Mmnesoolis.Klinoe^ola ■V i: < '' • '. -NOTICE- COJRT ORXR DOC. 637BSB 446797 OrnCE OF REGISTRAR OF TITUS 1 HENNEPIN COUN1Y MINNESOTA j < C*rf//f Thai tha wi?h n r#"k*»»*(j L«r»< ?;... J SKaa of RagMrar of Titlas, Comty of HentiopiA filBd in tfiia offieo fNk- day cf__-?Lt£___A at/i^o’clock^A^ ~“1AL0 C. BENNYHOFF ‘ * W»r«\ew^j H*tT64 ■ V'. .'* *• » * i • 1 i filed JAN 5 1955 JIF-ftrailliOS***”* . Lot X htrtby ctrtlfy that in aecordanca 1th tha provlalona of Chapttr 500* Hinnoaot tatutta of 1949 aa oBondad, I haira aunra>>4 ia fwllovlng-daacribad tract of land in tha )unty of Hannapln and ttata of Minnaaota* to It: All that part of Lot 1, Auditor*a Suh- Itriaion Ko. IA9» Hannapin Cmnty» Hlnnaaota tcludlng aecrationa and ralietiona tharato ?aerlbad aa followa: Co—rnclng at tha Southaaat imar of Lot 7^ Northahora Cottaga Acraa; thaoca iftharly along tha Eaatarly llna of aald X^t 7 mi tha m aatandad to ita intaraaetion with tha caotarliaa of it County toad running Northvaatarly and Southaaatarly irough Lota 1 and 2 of aaid Northahora Cottaga Acraa; thaai rthwaatarly along tha cantarlina of •^.JjMtJfMcrihad •unty toad to ita intaraaetion with a iKStliiStmt M foot •uthaaatarly at right anglaa froa tha Southaaatarly liaa of tha aat Northam tailraad right*of-aay; thanea Sauthwatarly parallal th aaid right-of-aay and diataot M faat tharafrom a dlataaca of 6.65 faat to tha actual point of baglnaiog of tha tract of land to daacrlbad; thanea continuing Southaaatarly parallal vlth tha South* atarly llna of aaid railroad right*of*aay a diatanca of 113 faat; flatting left S4* 43* to tha ordinary loa uatar aarh of Sroan’a Say; cnca Horthaaatarly along tha ordinary lov uatar aarh of Irovn’a Say to ita tcraaction uith a lina draun Southaaatarly froa tha actual paint of ginning and uhich laat aantionad lina foraa an intarior angla of If* U* vlth tha Mortbuaatarly Una of tha tract of Inal Inr daacribad; thanea Northvaatarly to tha actual point of hagioaing; and that tha auiuny ahoun haroU ia a aorroct aaid aunray. «la: r* • 100* ta ! 6*10-64 Xron aarkar tringa ahoun ara aa ■n»l» registered land aureey vas approved and aecepead by the flllaga Coinell of the Vlltafa of Orwoo, Ntonaeota. at a ragulw ntng thereof held thta day of JUly _ _ _ _ _k.o. ifU OmCE or RBGBTRAR OF TITUB I HENNEPIN COUNTT MDf '(C^OTA ( / Ctrti/t That ttta within Raytetervd land Survey Mo BfN K AUlSOW EXHIBIT b-D —Buawi lass rm G/?f6/AfAL ff£S/Sm£D LAND SUNVEY NO.1350 1037487 1067337 X* •Mr f/V#V •»* « • U m»S^ “jr* »m XjL.I'-j'aiii) . Vv:% ••rtlfy ttat la aaaart W wJk ^f^w/N A«r# /rv ^ ^A/ M«Mr 4«a» fmm */4SfW 4W* 0^mkA #* I ^ ^ ^ Nmm^f 0m S»r -sTzsjrujn^ h ,• kmmrnf Uh V -,.r/<^\ 2‘ / 0 ^ idU tte wOTlaloaa af MaaMote flatataa af 19C9 aa I dMarlha« tnat af laai af ta «iii «lal« 0arnm m\ at tha to Ito iBtofaaatlaa vl«h lyUto 1 aal 8, af aal4 Into ••• >•> torlr «t tl^ r alngtorljr to Ito iBtorMctloa wUh a Uaa panllal vlto aad ilatoat 33 ftot Sowthaaatorljr at af tha Graat Rartharn tolljaa4 ri||fat>«r-«ajr; toaaaa faattoa fi«B, a diatoaea af 3)6.35 toat to Um aeiaal palat af toft■!at af toa tiaet rf laad to to toaarltodi SavthMatorly paiallal with tha Sawthaaatorl/ ilaa af aald fmllraai rl«hV«r-«aor aal dtotoat 33 fhat aaflaa tharafroa to Ito iatoraaetloa with tha tortharly Uaa af tha flat af toaaa aa lraia*a tofi tha Rertharl/ Uaa af plat af laaaa aa toaaa'a tof aad tha aataaaiaa tharraf to a falat 3ataniaa4 m f tha Rorthwaat eamar af bat 3, Wamm aa Irawa'a tof» aa aMItlaa aa fUa aad af aaaard la tha atnaa Jt la aod frr tha Otowato of ■aiaapia aad Stato af IStoMatoi thaaea ■aathaaatorl/ alaaf tha toottorla Uaa af lato !• 8. ait 1 iB aald Hoaaa oa toaiM'a tor* a dlataaea af 867 fhati thaaea daflaatl^ aa aa aadla to tto laft ftoa laat daoarthai ti— ' ' 106^3* a dlatoBoa af A1.5S ftot to Ito lataiaaatlaa with tha tortharlj Uaa af aald Woma am tooMi'a tor aad toe tharaaf, aald palat af latoraactlaa totaf tha palat aawfht to to datorafaadt aad at aa anfla to tha rlfht af 13*30 tharaaf threogh aald palat aa datoradaad* a dlataaaa af 31.3)'ftot| daaerlfaad Uaa 31*15' a dlataaea af ??i.7 fWat aowa ar laaa* to tha aedlM«r law aator torh am towM'a ton ^-----~ " - ^ arlr alanr ardlaarr law witar aark af fewM'a tor to ito latorwaatiaa with a Uaa af toflnaiac aad idileh laat WMllowad Uaa ftowa aa latorlor aMla af fV*!!' with ■aonanlB Cotaitr* KiaBaaata* haraen la a eoiraet daUaaatlea af aald actual polBt af togliaiiat aad parallal with tha towthaaatorlr Uaa af tha toaat torthara tollrrad rlrtt af imi maUrlj 1b a atraight Uaa ta tha aetwal palat af toflaalat* acaardlaf to tha plat af aald hwlitar'a MMlwial mfWa. lU), aad th ^____3.8._M73.s-'late’'- s!.r - ^ ' • X* ‘.i. : Ihlc toflatorad laad toraar w|a apprarad a-yt aeaaptod tf tha fiUaaa OaoHn af tha nilaaa af aaatlac tharaaf hald thla ^4 day af AAAM^M - ---------jd.8. 177). Puratajit to Chapter 810, MlaBaaoto Uwa af 1969, thla toflsterad Laad 8Bmr haa baaa a ________________ A.D. 1973. %_ SaaUt 1 laeb ■ 800 feat Data I toeaahar 5* 1973 a I OiBetM Iroe aaiBjaaat toiwar haa baaa aycwad thla Jtu. 4v of _A 1067437 OmCB OF EEniSTHAB Of TITLES V'f trot COONTT MINNESOTA } f torahf CarB/y That itw w«thfn Wag>»tar;d Land Survey Ww fSSO ^ ** wa* flad ta Odi offlca ^..iSP^omt0-APniL ,.A a/nWjEah'tiodi_fii__ Wvm A JOHNSOW F I L. E D AP&27 Bio r. 131973 »B5 TUIS F*I0 i m. % togstrv of Thtaa .Oipuly. BID'^GE C hICKti. Ai.'IU 1i\T^ % to V to ’ ♦ to 1 >> if 1; * . • X- ^ _^dh__Mji___.ti '* V «a t •• •4 s d» *•4 i 5 r . X n IT. - v% £ ? % c s !C 4 I I ? § I ±. o c c^ cr* Cc > X - * . r- T It* ly ^ {sfc. S Ii ? C CD <2 r-m o E 4» Oo c o c S5f?r IP r - & a g o I ft 8 a I fts i u>■ r h -'S c 5 a'j - t * i: T ] • - 5^ t :$ ?^ Cr, J C 1 * •cr, r 3 ?c ► ^u G -, f c? w> * O ^ > U) CDtn H >X Tl > < > CD S t'tr-- 5 o % i. IC tr fn S o Q nr m < O c/>c Cc i-< £ 5 # ^ O X g o •< o o » I § ^ 5^ 6 -< “*a f i " s ?sz •4 I Xn o 5 or> Sy > s ,go ^ 2s« H C •*1 I = o ^ X ;e ^ IX * W -Pc;* tr 1^' ii 9 ji 3) ? 2 I' ir •4» r> r*. O »tr K trs r f' » 9tr m Cnr Z ir^ ^ wt EXHIBIT 7 i.' : t '►s *- J ^ ri: c rj f =r ? ? n r, - I- r- £' ^ I ~ te- 0 rj 1 - % •4 \ rj (ri Cr; c f.» 1^ ?r ^7 ^ •- - r; “ C C r.- -TT ^ r <4 z X f • ^ -.i r"'i « •• c > . •“ z# c*. r, *“ -* r < I* - • c*- c <r> o X ;n c -< S? it 1 - S -< c 2i •> c t-1 f ■M '■ 5S n s s f Z 2 C r*n 0 :j 1 •sj ( • J Za C o t 1 c V.V . f *•* «w . C ;• • V JU*' • !: t-' =- ? : r i*w' r* r {: 7 »> lif *•!:; 3D ^ O iO *D OB m V* 2 3C<5 >?X (/) S| ?«r I «•s s « s> » -* f •Ds -O «DT) 5» m vi 2“J m-< z > m X 3 cn z 5 os r* «. ! - = :: s •m » * at M J Ui S' ^ * w ?' o 0^ Ci Ir o rj «* ■ « . * — r' tr I' - r. 3 -5 r I r* n 2 2.- a' I r; cr ^ 4 -• c r c :* > •v ± * • ? ftr r* <■* IT - - .2 I*-- « • C V* «i* V.*r- £ T-tJ sr s. ^ o3 3 s !? o c o tr O Ck ?D •o 3 r C 3 ti — < 15 S?o — 3*< fi * •DT oS I T3 &) O 3 5 ®^5 -§i 5. II E *< (/)f*n c*> H «• CM I iA I V Au» N |\ c t.n ms H t9 M 4 7’ EXHIBIT 9 0. 1. 2. 3. State Bank of Long Lake (Minnesota Corporation) to Douglas Merrit Skarp and wife Doc. No. 2306169 Satisfaction of Book 2011 of Mtgs., page 622 Dated Sept. 7, 19AS Recorded Sept. 8, 1945 Book 2176 of Mtgs., page 249 State Bank of Long Lake (Minnesota Corporation) to Douglas Mcrrlt Skarp and wife Doc. No. 2920415 Satisfaction of Book 2011 of Mtgs., page 622 and re-recorded In Book 2064 of Mtgs., page 426 Dated Dec. 28, 1954 Recorded Dec. 31, 1954 Book 2827 of Mtgs., page 418 Douglas Merrit Skarp Bernlece Skarp, his wife to Edward H. Bock Jr. and LaVerne 0. Bock, his wife. Joint tenants Doc. No. 2306275 Warranty Deed Dated Sept. 4, 1945 Recorded Sept. 10, 1945 Book 1646 of Deeds, page 161 That part of Lot 9, North Shore Cottage Acres, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Northwesterly of a line described as follows: < Commencing at a point on North easterly line of Lot 9, distant 175 feet Northwesterly from most Easterly corner thereof; thence South 53 degrees 36 minutes West 143.5 feet; thence South 41 degrees 36 minutes West 158 feet; thence North 57 degrees 30 minutes West 35 feet to a point In said line to be described; thence North 41 degrees 36 minutes East 168 feet; thence Northeasterly to a point In Northeasterly line of Lot 9 distant 205 feet Northwesterly along said lot line from Northeast corner thereof; excepting therefrom that part of Lot 9 described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Lot 9; thence South along Westerly line 25 feet; thence at an angle Southeasterly parallel with Northeasterly line 25 feet; thence at right angles Northeasterly parallel with Westerly line 25 feet to Northeasterly line also being the County Road; thence Northwesterly to point of beginning, and subject to restrictions of record. (Shown for reference as to boundary lines) In the Matter of the Application of Edward H. Bock, Jr. and LaVerne 0. Bock, his wife, as Joint tenants, to Register the Title to Certain Land Doc. No. 2904233 Commencing at a point on the feet Northwesterly from most degrees, 36 minutes West 143 West 158 feet; thence North hereinafter referred to and App] icat ion District Court, Hennepin Co., MN. Case ^12378 Dated Sept. 28, 1954 Recorded Oct. 19, 1954 Book 41 of Appls., page 446 That part of Lot 9, North Shore Cottage Acres, Lake Minnetonka, lying Westerly and Northwesterly of a line described as follows, to-wlt: Northeasterly line of Lot 9, distant 175 Easterly corner thereof; thence South 53 .5 feet; thence South 41 degrees, 36 minutes 57 degrees, 30 minutes West 35 feet to a point designated as point "A"; thence South 41 Continued o Int « t EXHIBIT 10-A ^(sUlSSja CITY of OROXO IN.sl Itox <;H*Crvstal »ny. Minnesota 5fi;}2:j*Municipal 0 On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka April 28, 1982 ng crly y ing II.H. Tcarse 1234 Grain Exchange Minneapolis, MN 55415 I Dear Mr. Tearse: Ihis letter is written to confirm my comments to you in our telephone conversation of April 28, 1982, concerning your proposed dock. ^ It is my understanding that the dock will be constructed on the lakeshore portion of your homestead lot consisting of some lineal lakeshore footage. The dock will be 5' long and 3 wide and located 10' from each side property line. . As I advised, the City of Orono will issue a building permit for the construction of the proposed dock. l further advised you to contact the offices of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District because of recent amendments to their ordinances involving minimum lakeshore requirements for new docks. Please contact my office if you have additional questions. . Sincerely, a Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator cc: L.M.C.D. ► . ♦ EXHIBIT 10-B mi CITY of ORONO PciHl C>fficf Hox 6h»(Tyslal liiiy, MinnrsciUi Munii ipal OffueH On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka May 23, 1984 Sonrlo Grain Company 710 Grain Exchange Building P.O. Box 15105 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Re: Dock Construction on City right of way without permit and no principal structure - West Ferndale Dear Sir: An inspection was conducted on May 22, 1984 by John Gerhardson and myself for violations of the above subject structure. During this inspection, the dock has been found to be in violation of the follow ing City ordinances: 1) Dock constructed on City right of way. West Ferndale is 66’ widgp «^ — — — --- ^ JbO vv Vvx< and we measured 33* from center line of road, which put us half out on the dock in the water. 2) Construction of the dock was done without required permits; the City would have explained the problem at that time. 3) Orono zoning code requires that a principal structure is on the ’ property before an accessory structure can be constructed. Since you have no principal structure on your existing lot, or the lot your feel is yours, the dock is not n legal structure. I am writing this letter to inform you that the dock is not a permitted use andmust be removed by May 31, 1984, or citations will bo issued'* and the City will remove the dock from City property. If you have any questions, ploaso feel free to contact mo at my office. Sincerely,, ~J. Thomas J. Jacobs Building Official ► 3W- ice It L t ted id'r f i ce . CT r:o o• '•—4 7:7 IT /3-/*. • k ri <• 1 O r r*.#w 1 7T m »*3 .. o r • r*• *1s -3 o r- i t- r * 1 rt #•.»«#fc-.O # •C»f f t ZT s <‘N i:ZT I*K o • •u • O r*i r-rt 0- O •- ■«C M *->X > >Z>!M C 3 f ?r»#*. O 1 Z*':r *t MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Thomas J. Radio Orono City Attorney Walter H. Rockenstein II Faegre & Benson Attorneys For Ralph Bagley DATE:August 8, 1985 RE:ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT TO LAKEVILLE ELEVATOR COMPANY FOR A DOCK TO BE CONSTRUCTED b¥ A PART OF LOT 9, NORTH SHORE COTTAGE ACRES STATEMENT OF FACTS Lakeville Elevator Company, a Minnesota Corporation (herein after "Lakeville'*) , owns two parcels of land in North Shore Cottage Acres, Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono. These two parcels are separated by Ferndale Road. Lakeville has approached the City of Orono (hereinafter "City" or "Orono") seeking variances to construct a home on one parcel and authority to construct a dock on the other. Parcel A The first parcel is Lot 6, North Shore Cottage Acres (herein after "Parcel A"). See Exhibit A attached hereto. Parcel A is primarily low and marshy land with a buildable site on the south easterly portion of the parcel. Parcel A was originally platted in 1902. The Ferndale Road right-of-way runs over the southwesterly 33 feet of Parcel A. Parcel A never has had and does not now have shoreline on Lake Minnetonka. Parcel A is zoned LR-IA, One Family Lakeshore Residential, under the City's Code of Ordinances Chapter 10, Land Use Regulations (Zoning) (hereinafter "Zoning Code"). Because Lakeville had a prospective purchaser for Parcel A (and Parcel B) who wishes to construct a residence on Parcel A, Lakeville has applied for and been granted certain variances for construction of a residence on Parcel A. Parcel B The second parcel is the northerly corner of Lot 9, North Shore Cottage Acres (hereinafter "Parcel B"). See Exhibit A attached hereto. Lot 9 was originally platted in 1902. Parcel B was separated from the rest of Lot 9 on September 4, 1945. See Exhibit B attached hereto. The Ferndale Road right-of-way runs over the northeasterly 33 feet of Parcel B. The remaining unen cumbered portion of Parcel B measures 25 feet on each of its four sides. When originally platted, the portion of Lot 9 unencumbered by the Ferndale Road easement which later became the unencumbered % portion of Parcel B was completely submerged under Lake Minnetonka. See Exhibit C attached hereto showing "Shoal Water Channel And Dredging Area" over this entire area. When separated from Lot 9 in 1945 and up to and including the present, the portion of Parcel B unencumbered by the Ferndale Road easement has been and remains completely submerged under Lake Minnetonka. See Exhibit D attached hereto showing 18 feet of water between the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and the beginning of the unencumbered portion of Parcel B. -2- m Parcel B is zoned LR-lA, One Family Lakeshore Residential, under the Zoning Code. Because Lakeville has a prospective purchaser for Parcel B (and Parcel A) who wishes to construct a dock on Parcel B, Lakeville now seeks a determination from the City that a dock may be constructed on Parcel B. Parcel B And The City Easement For Ferndale Road The City right-of-way easement for Ferndale Road extends 33 feet from centerline southwesterly over the northeasterly 33 feet of Parcel B. See Exhibit D. The distance between the centerline of the easement and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka is approximately 16 feet. See Exhibit D. The distance from the edge of the paved surface of Ferndale Road to the shoreline is 8-1/2 feet. See Exhibit D. The City Public Works Coordinator has stated that an area 10 feet beyond the paved surface of Ferndale Road is required for maintenance. This area extends approximately 1-1/2 feet beyond the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka along Parcel B. The Attempt To Construct A Dock On April 28, 1984, Mr. H. H. Tearse telephoned Mrs. Jeanne A. Mabusth, City Zoning Administrator, regarding a proposed dock on Parcel B. Ms. Mabusth confirmed her comments to Mr. Tearse concerning the dock in a letter on the same day. See Exhibit E attached hereto. Subsequently, construction of a dock on Parcel B commenced. On May 23, 1984, Mr. Thomas J. Jacobs, City Building Official, sent a letter to Searle Grain Company summarizing the results of -3- an inspection of the dock construction. Mr. Jacobs found the dock in violation of City ordinances and ordered it removed by May 31, 1984. See Exhibit F attached hereto. Subsequently, the dock was removed. ISSUES 1. Does the Zoning Code permit the construction of a dock on Parcel B? 2. Does the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code (hereinafter "LMCD Code") permit the construction of a dock on Parcel B? 3. Would the construction of a dock on Parcel B interfere with the Ferndaie Road right-of-way? 4. Do the letters from Ms. Mabusth and Mr. Jacobs create an expectation of City approval of a dock on Parcel B on which Lakeville can now rely so that City must approve construction of a dock on Parcel B? CONCLUSIONS 1. 'ih-u Zoning Code prohibits construction of a dock on Parcel B. The Zoning Code .."*ijuires a principal structure on the same lot as an accessory structure, tne dock. The principal structure in this case, a residence, will not be on the same lot. 2. The LMCD Code does not permit construction of a dock on Parcel B. The City by virtue of the Ferndaie Road easement, not the owner of Parcel B, has the shoreline lot or site bordering on the lake required to establish an authorized dock area. -4- 3. The construction of a dock on Parcel B would interfere with the Ferndale Road easement by intruding into the 10 foot wide maintenance area needed by the City. 4. Lakeville may not rely on the letters from Ms. Mabusth and Mr. Jacobs so as to now require the City to approve construction of a dock on Parcel B. Neither letter unconditionally promises Lakeville that a dock can be built on Parcel B. Each letter sets forth requirements for obtaining permission to build a dock on Parcel B or objections to the construction which Lakeville failed to meet and still cannot meet. DISCUSSION Zoning Code In the LR-IA District, a private dock is an accessory use. See, Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subd. 5a. The Zoning Code defines an accessory use or structure as “a use or structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure on the same lo»- and customarily incidental thereto." [:mphasis added.] See, Zoning Code Section 10.02, 1. Further, Section 10.03, Subd. 9a of the Code provides "no accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory." Reading these provisions to gether, it is apparent that before constructing a dock on a lot in the LR-IA District, one must construct a principal building on the same lot. Parcel B is a separate lot of record from Parcel A. Construction by Lakeville or a subsequent owner of a residence on Parcel A will not satisfy the requirement for construction of a principal structure -5 on Parcel B prior to constructing the dock on Parcel B. Further, given the fact that the only portion of Parcel B unencumbered by the Ferndale Road easement is completely submerged, it is unlikely that a principal structure can ever be built on Parcel B. Consequently the Zoning Code does not permit the construction of a dock on Parcel B. LMCD Code The LMCD Code does not permit the construction of docks except in authorized dock use areas, and only "sites bordering on the Lake" may have authorized dock use areas. See, LMCD Code Section 3.02, Subd. 2(a). A site is further defined as "any shoreline lot, parcel or other piece of property legally subdivided and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder." See, LMCD Code Section 3.01, Subd. It is apparent that Parcel B meets neither of these definitions. Parcel B is not a site bordering on the lake. The only portion of Parcel B unencumbered by the Ferndale Road easement is submerged under the Ic.ke and does not border on it. Further, the only portion of Parcel B unencumbered by the Fernuale Road easement has no shoreline. The Ferndale Road easement extends some 18 feet beyond the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka leaving the unencumbered portion of Parcel B submerged and without shoreline. This view that the City, through the Ferndale Road easement, acquired the right to the shoreline and to the riparian interests of that portion of the land bordering Lake Minnetonka is supported by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the case of Hanford v. St. Paul -7- r el on **Tw-jn ns. .;’<V and Duluth R. Co., 43 Minn. 104 , 42 N.W. 596 Minn. (1890). In this case the predecessor railroad of the St. Paul and Duluth Railroad Company had condemned land which included the shoreline of the Bay of St, Louis, Land owners cutoff from the Bay sued to prevent the construction of the railroad. The Court concluded as follows: We deem it unnecessary to decide whether the interest appropriated by the condemnation proceedings was the whole estate in fee simple, or only an easement. We will assume that it was only an easement. The Corporation acquired the right to the exclusive and perpetual use, for railroad purposes, of the premises which were the subject of the proceedings. Until in some manner the riparian rights should be* severed from the riparian estate, they would remain properly incident and appurtenant thereto." id. at 121. In the situation at hand, the original 1902 plat of North Shore Cottage Acres stated "we hereby donate and dedicate to the public use forever all the streets and roads hereon shown." The public thereby acquired the right to the exclusive and perpetual use, for public road purposes, of the Ferndale Road easement. At the time of this dedication, the plat shows that the shoreline of Parcel B was within the Ferndale Road easement. Consequently, Parcel B has no shoreline, no riparian right to dockage, and does not meet the qualifications for an authorized dock area set forth in the LMCD Code. City Easement As noted above, the Ferndale Road easement over Parcel B is occupied by the paved portion of Ferndale Road up : a distance of feet of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. The city Public -8 1 in- e Works Coordinator has indicated that a further 10 feet beyond the pavement must be available for City use for maintenance of the road. The construction of a dock on Parcel B would intrude into this a 10 foot area needed for maintenance of the road and consequently interfere with the City's Ferndale Road easement. Consequently a dock may not be constructed on Parcel B. Expectation And Reliance On Letters 1. The Letter From Ms. Mabusth. On April 28, 1982 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, City Zoning Administrator, wrote a letter to H. H. Tearse summarizing their telephone conversation of the same date concerning a proposed dock on Parcel B. In Mr. John J. Taylor's statement of facts and argument in support of issuing building permit to Shaver Corporation of Wayzata for a dock to be constructed on a part of Lot 9, North Shore Cottage Acres, this letter is characterized as follows. "Mr. Tearse was assured that as far as the City was concerned a permit for dock construction would be issued, but the LMCD ordinances would have to be dealt with." First, it is apparent from the text of the letter that Ms. Mabusth was not fully informed of the facts concerning Parcel B. Nowhere does she mention that a portion of the dock must be constructed on a City easement. And Ms. Mabusth speaks in terms of one lot, not two lots. Therefore, Ms. Mabusth's assurance that "the City of Orono will issue a building permit for the construction of the proposed dock" was not based on all the relevant facts. Second, the letter clearly states two further requirements that must be met before constructing a dock. A building -9- r»T«i lOAM i#Ttira MfWiI raisnw« tion constructed on a City right-of-way. Placing a residence on Parcel A would not remove this ordinance violation. The second ground for ordering removal, construction of the dock without a required permit, could -be solved by obtaining the permit. In stating the third ground for ordering removal, that a principal structure be on the property before an accessory structure be constructed, no reference is made to Parcel A or to Parcel B. Rather Mr. Jacobs specifically states "since you have no principal structure on your existing lot, or the lot your (sic) feel is yours, the dock is not a legal structure". That sentence does not specify which lot lacks a principal structure. Rather it states the Zoning Code require ment for a principal structure on the lot before dock can be constructed. Mr, Jacob's letter offers no grounds for reliance. Two of the ordinance violations specified in the letter still pertain to Lakeville's proposal to place a dock on Parcel B. 3. Legal Basis Of The Reliance Claim. Lakeville has presented no authority to substantiate its claim that a dock should be permitted on Parcel B because of expectation and reliance. Nor has there been any showing of injury or damage. Recovery can be had in Minnesota for damages resulting from fraudulent misrepresentation. To maintain such a claim a plaintiff must show a fraudulent misrepresentation pertaining to a past or present fact, acknowledgment by the person making the representation of its falsity or disregard of its truth, an intention that the other person act on it, that the other person being reasonably -11- :s induced to act upon the representation did rely upon it, and damage attributable to the misrepresentation. See, Inter-Royal Corp. v. Lake Region Equipment Co., 308 Minn. 459,241 N.W.2d 486 (Minn. 1976). No evidence has been submitted by Lakeville on any of these points. Additionally, as a general rule expressions of mere opinion are actionable. Rother v. Hiniker, 208 Minn. 405, 294 N.W. 644 (Minn. 1940). See Keaton, Fraud; Mispresentation of Opinion, 21 Minn. L. Rev. 643 (1937). .on -12- STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF ISSUING BUILDING PERMIT TO SHAVER CORPORATION OF WAYZATA FOR DOCK TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON A PART OF LOT 9, NORTH SHORE COTTAGE ACRES 1. Present owner of Property: Lakeville Elevator Company, a Minnesota corporation See Deed — Exhibit 1 2. Legal Description of Property; That part of Lot 6, North Shore Cottage Acres, Lake Minnetonka, lying Northwesterly of the following described line: Commencing at the most Easterly corner of said Lot 6; thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 6 a distance of 40 feet to the point of beginning of line to be described; thence Southwesterly parallel with the Southeasterly line of said Lot 6 to the South westerly line of said Lot 6 and said line there terminating. And that part of Lot 9, North Shore Cottage Acres, Lake Minnetonka described as follows; Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Lot 9; thence South along Westerly line 25 feet; thence at an angle Southeasterly parallel with Northeasterly line 25 feet; thence at right angles Northeasterly parallel with Westerly line 25 feet to Northeasterly line also being the County Road; thence Northwesterly to point of beginning. For ease of reference and discussion, the parcel which is a part of Lot 6, anc on which a residence will be constructed is hereinafter called Parcel A. The parcel which is a part of Lot 9 is hereinafter called Parcel B. See Deed — Exhibit 1 3. Physical characteristics of Property; Parcel A is primarily low and marshy land, with buiid;rg site on Southeasterly portion. The Ferndale Road right- of-way runs over southwesterly 33 feet of Parcel A. Parcel B is partly submerged under the waters of Lake Minnetonka at the 929.4 level of the Gray's Bay Dam. The Ferndale Road right-of-way runs over the Northeasterly 33 feet of Parcel B. Parcel A and Parcel B abut one or another at the center line of the Ferndale Road right-of-way. See Survey -- Exhibit 2 and Survey Sketch — Exhibit 3. See also Exhibit 4, Plat of North Shore Cottage Acres. Physical Characteristics of Ferndale Right-of-Way: Centerline of road as actually constructed on the right-of-way is approximately 4 feet north of the centerline of right-of-way. Lake Minnetonka waters encroach onto the South westerly portion of the right-of-way at this location by approximately 18 feet from the right of way centerline and 22 feet from the centerline of the traveled road. See Survey Sketch — Exhibit 3. Ownership of Tract B; Notwithstanding the fact that Tract B is partially submerged under the waters of Lake Minnetonka at the elevation maintained by the Gray's Bay Dam at 929.4 NGVD, much oi the area within Lots 1, 8 and 9 of North Shore Cottage Acres was dredged out, and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka in this area as originally platted extended far beyond the present shoreline of today. The natural low water elevation of the lake prior to the Grays Bay Dam was obviously much lower than 929.4 NGVD. The legal conclusion arising from this fact is that the State of Minnesota did not acquire fee title to the lands which lay above the low water mark of the lake in 1858, and those titles were passed by Patent from the United States Government into private ownership. The original owner of Government Lot 2, Section 2, Township 117, Range 23 out of which North Shore Cottage Acres was platted obtained this fee title to Tract B. The fee title has been passed on by mesne conveyances to Lakeville Elevator Company. See Exhibit 4 — Plat of North Shore Cottage Acres. This Position is strongly supported by reference to Torrens Title records relating to the following nearby parcels of land: - 2 - i) Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 441; Owner: Ralph C. Bagley See Exhibit 5-A — Certificate of Title No. 645075 ii) Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 522; Owner: Gordon H. Ritz and Joyce M. Ritz, husband and wife See Exhibit 5-B — Certificate of Title No, 547039; iii) Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 522; Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 397; part of Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 397; Owner; Henry S. Kingman, Jr. and Marilyn E. Kingman, husband and wife See Exhibit 5-C — Certificate of Title No. 600010 iv) Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1123; Owner: George L. Garske and Elizabeth F. Garski, husband and wife See Exhibit 5-D — Certificate of Title No. 377687 In all cases the Registered Land Surveys on either side of Parcel B and unregistered Lot 8 of North Shore Cottage Acres include areas within the designated tracts surveyed which are presently submerged, and the certificates of title show fee ownership in individuals to all of those tracts, not just the portion above the high water mark. See Exhibit 6 — Registered Land Survey Nos. - 441 - 397 - 1123 - 1350 In all cases except for Registered Land Survey No. 441, the title to the individuals is made expressly subject to . . . the perpetual paramount right of the public to use for the purposes of navigation or other public purposes all that part of the above described premises lying between the ordinary high water mark of Brown’s i - 3 - 6. Bay and the ordinary low water mark of Brown's Bay?" See Exhibits 5-B, C and D. For some reason, the State of Minnesota was never served in the Registration proceeding relating to Tract A, RLS 441, and so had no opportunity to request or require a similar clause in that proceeding, but it is clear under current law that the right of the public to regulate the use of the waters lying over privately owned lake bed is a paramount right over the private title to those lake beds. The City and County consider Parcel B to be a valuable parcel of land and have consistently through years placed a value upon it and taxed it as a separate tax parcel. Its current market value according to the 1985 Real Estate Tax Statement is $1,000.00. Its Tax ID No. is 02-117-23 43 0011 See Exhibit 7 - Tax Statement. As platted. Parcel B has legal public access to it via a publicly dedicated right of way, Ferndale Road. See Exhibit 4 - Exhibit 2 - Exhibit 3 - Exhibit 8 - - Plat of North Shore Cottage Acres - Survey - Survey Sketch - Half Section Map. The dimensions of Parcel B would permit a dock to be constructed on it under the provisions of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ("LMCD") Ordinances. The dock could not be more than slightly less than 25 feet in length, being the 25+ foot shoreline wiath of Parcel B. LMCD Ordinance 3.02 Subd. 2. a). Approximately 18 feet of that length would be over that portion of Parcel B underlying the platted Ferndale Road right of way which is presently submerged, A five foot wide dock could be accommodated to provide the 10 foot set back area on either side as required by LMCD Ordinance, Section 3.02, Subd. 2. b). However, the LMCD Ordinances also makes provision for special sites in existence on February 5, 1970. LMCD Ordinance 3.02, Subd. 3. b), c), d) and e). Parcel B was created by deed dated September 4, 1945, recorded September 10, 1945 in Book 1646 of Deeds, page 161. See Exhibit 9 - Copy of Abstract - 4 - page — Entry #62. These provisions may permit an ext.en- sion to deep water (three feet) and vary set back requirements, if the facts require it. Because the actual shoreline of this Parcel B roughly parallels the North easterly line of Parcel B, and is uneven while Parcel B is measured along a straight line, such shoreline as measured would exceed 25 feet in length, and the dock would qualify for the storage of one watercraft under LMCD Ordinance 3.02, Subd. 9. a). See Exhibit 3 — Survey Sketch. ARGUMENT: The Issue of Access. Both Parcels A and B have legal access via the platted and dedicated Ferndale Road. The City is entitled to use that dedicated roadway to its full width, if needed, for public travel, utilities, etc., but the City cannot, without going through condem nation proceedings, eliminate access to a platted, sub divided, legally taxed parcel of land. The waters of Lake Minnetonka at their present level (and presumably at the level of 929.4 NGVD) flow over a portion of the Ferndale Road right of way. Although the City has not abandoned or vacated the submerged portion of its right of way, the City is not using it (nor can it reasonably use it) for any purpose for which it was dedicated. The owner of the underlying fee title has the right to utilize that portion of the dedicated public right of way not used by the City in the same minimal way it could use it if the City exercised its rights to its full width, and that is, for access to its fee owned Parcel B. This right is best and most reasonably implemented by permitting a dock or other access device to be constructed entirely within the 25 foot width of Parcel B from the actual shoreline out and onto Parcel B within the guidelines of the LMCD Ordinances. The right would, of course, be subject to the City’s right by filling or, otherwise to expand the City's actual and permitted right of way use, but as a practical matter, the owner can easily accommodate any such expansion by varying the length of its dock at the shoreline. Neighbors' concerns with respect to public use can be met by requiring a gate with lock devices and signage at the shoreline end of the dock. The existence of a dwelling house on Parcel A and the ability of Parcel B to fit within the LMCD Ordinance provisions based on shoreline location and the dimensions of Parcel B, permit the regulatory require ments of the State exercised through the LMCD with respect - 5 - r to use of public waters for dockage to be fully met. 2. A Unique Situation. The issue of access to the fee owned, taxed, separately platted and identified, underwater Parcel B makes this situation unique and able to be strictly categorized as non-precedential. Where public right of ways abut or have included within them, the low water elevation of Lake Minnetonka, there will be no private title to which access is required on the lake side of the right of way. If situations occur where private fee title exists within flooded rights of way, or on the lake side of such rights of way, then each and every case will have to be examined on its own merits, with careful review and research being made of title history, platting, dedication language, and other factors, including, the reasonable expectations of the property owner, before a determination can be made. 3. Expectation and Reliance. Prior to the present owner's acquisition of Parcels A and B, Mr. H. H. Tearse, Jr., the principal officer of the present owner, conferred with the officials of the City of Orono with respect to this fact situation and inquired as to the availability of a dock on Parcel B. Mr. Tearse was assured that as far as the City was concerned, a permit for dock construc tion would be issued, but the LMCD Ordinances would have to be dealt with. See Exhibit 10*A — Letter from Zoning Administrator. In 1984, not fully understanding the "principal structure" requirement of the City's ordinances, the present owner constructed a dock on a part of Parcel B, including a part which was within the unused and unusable portion of Ferndale Road which was under water, received the letter attached as Exhibit 10-B citing lack of permits and non-compliance with the principal structure require ment, and immediately removed the dock structure. The obvious implication of the letter is that the construction of a residence on Parcel A would solve the problem. ■ ‘''4 CONCLUSION: Lakeville Elevator Company now has a prospective purchaser for Parcels A and B who wish to construct a principal structure on Parcel A. The purchaser also wishes the permit to include permission for a dock on Parcel B and - 6 - on the unused and of the City right The purchaser will of the dock at the possible City use to some reasonable dock construction dock. presently unusable submerged portion of way on the platted Ferndale Read, be amenable to adjusting the length shoreline and to accommodate future of its now submerged right of way and method of signage and gates in the to protect the private nature of the DORS & WHITNEY Attor 2200 Minneapolis 612-3Xi)-2609 hn .T^Tailor eys ^iVXake^lle VEle\Aptor Company irst Bank Plade Eas nnesota 55402 - 7 - • v ■any rf't 4.MCV> LAKE /lINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 402 EAST LAK= iTREET WAY2ATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 FRANK MIKA. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR iOARO MEMBERS Tipton Brown. Chair* G'oenwooa Rooort P Rascop. Vice Chi Snorowood J3Ei c*n H«jrr. Secretary Orono Jon E;arn. Treasurer f.l.jund EUA.ifo G Bauman l..inKai Baty E Boynton Minnetonka Beach Ffajiik ao Monchaux Minnetnsta R'Criairo J Garwood Deophaven GtSvold v««i> Hon Kr^emt?r Spring Park Roo« rt K Pill&bury Minnetonka Meoert t Slocum Wood la no Ricn.'ifd J Soderberg Victoria C.iii H VVuissor fixcelsior man July 8, 185 Shaver C -p of Wayzata Subj: Ri irlan access Gentlemei.; In response to your inquiry concerning use of road right- of-way for residential dockage, under the LMCD Code, riparian right of access for dockage purposes may be acquired by agreement of the parties involved. Any trani fer of such rights would probably diminish the rights on any pioperty remaining. Use of tl e frontage would be subject to regulation under the LMCD Code* especially Section 3.02-S9. shorline require ments, ai tached. Sincerel}y •4 w f. LAKE MINI ETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Frank Mlxa Executive Director ^ .‘f '***; • * # ✓ l.Ik.fi \v ; :..r.:;-..r.* ..V I I use any docks, m or divin person w! whether . allow an* rea of th orings, b towers w o is in c 6 owner, sunken. craft wi hin any d 3.02 GENERAL REGU: \TI0NS. Subdivision 1. Prohibition. No person shall use ai / area of the Lake outside an authorized dock use area, for dock.* , moorings, boat storage, swimming floats, ski jump storage or di* Ing towers, unless such use is specifically permitte- under th provisions of this chapter. No person shall Lake within any authorized dock use area for it storage, swimming floats, ski jump storage :hout the consent of the riparian owner. No irge or control of any prof rty on the lake mant, occupant, lessee, or otherwise, shall •ecked, junked, or discards;l boat or water- ;k use area for a period of longer than one week; provided, hoi aver, that this limitation shall not apply to boats or watercraft within the dock use area of a commercial establishment engaged in the business of repairing and rehabili tating boats or watercraft and which is so engaged with regard to such boat or watercraft. (As amended Ord. No. 26; Ord. No. 42) Subd. 2. Authorized Dock Use Area. An authorized dock use area is described as follows: a) Length - The authorized dock use area for sites border ing on the Lake extends into the Lake a distance equal to the site Lake frontage to be measured at right angles to the side site lines and, except cs provided herein, shall not extend into the Lake a distance of greater than 200 feet in the case of commercial docks in existence on August 30, 1978, and 100 feet in the case of other docks to le measured on a line parallel to the site side lines as extended into the Lake. In the case of commercial docks in existence on Aucust 30, 1978, the lakew'-d extension of the dock use area more than 100 feet from the oreline shall be limited to .the disi ance from shore of the docks in existence on said date and that portion of said docks more than 100 feet from the shoreline may rot be altered or expanded. (As amended, Ord. 44) b) Width “• T e authorized dock use area for sites bordering on the Lake is lim ted in width by the setback limitations pre scribed herein. T .e setback from side site lines as extended in the Lake shall be s follows: For that port on of the length of the authorized dock use area which extends from the shore* Zero to iiO feet 50 to 100 feet 100 to 200 feet The setback shall be 10 feet 15 feet 20 feet pv- - -^ Where boat slips cpen toward a side site line, the setback pro vided shall be at least equal to the slip depth, but shall not be less than 20 fc at. Setbacks shall be doubled for all multiple docks oi mooring c reas and commercial docks on each side where such multiple doc) > are not Ipcated adjacent to another multiple dock or mooring ai la or commercial dock. (As Amended, Ord. No. 14, Sec. 2; Ord. No. ! ), Sec. 3; Ord. No. 19, Sec. 2; €>id. Nu-;— c) Neasuremi from tht point wh elevaticn 929.4, : periods when the declarec by resol issue pc rmits for ized dock use arec it - Authorized dock use areas shall be measured :h forms the shoreline whe.^ the Lake is at ttional Geodetic Vertical ntum, 1929. During :ke level tails below 929. feet and when so .ion of the Board, the Exe :utive Director may :emporary dock extensions beyond the author- subject to the following limitations; 1. ) Need for the temporary dock extension must be demonstrated by the applicant. 2. ) The extension shall be a temporary, seasonal type dock. No extensions may be on pile driven or permanent year-round docks. 3. ) The extension shall meet all requirements of this Code other than the length limitation described in this section. 4. ) The extension shall only be permitted during the time the water level is below elevation 929.4 feet and, at any given time, shall be permitted only to the extent of the equivalent dockage and comparable depth existing at a lake elevation of 929.4 feet. 5. ) The extension, together with the original dock, shall net be used to provide storage space for a greater number of boats or watercraft than are authorized under -this Code or for a greater number- of boats or watercraft than are licensed if a license for the dock is required under this Code. (Ord. . 21 ) . Subd. 3. Ex( options; Modifications of Authorized Dock use Areas. a) Two or more adjoining site owners may by mutual agree ment, adjust these side site setback requirements or may use 4, id their combined autl>orized dock use areas for a single common dock or mooring ar ja for their respective private uses, but in any even*:, must ob erve these side setback requirements at the outer si*:e lines o the combined sites involved in such a joint use. A dock or mo ring area located, constructed, installed or maintain »d under t is provision shall not be considered a "multipl i dock or coring area" unless such dock or mooring area is const -ucted or aintained for the storage of five or more vatercra :t. 4 ♦ b) A site in existence on February 1970, which has a lake fi Dntage of iO feet or more, but less nan 60 feet, may have a dock extendin< up to 60 feet into the l.ike. Any such site which 1 as a lakt frontage of less than 40 feet may have a dock which extends be ond the authorized dock use area to the point necessary to rea ;h a water depth of three feet, and no further; provided ^at no such dock shall be located or extended more than 60 feet into the lake. Side setback requirements shall be observed, however, unless a variance is granted by the Board under Section 3.04. c) The auiborized dock use area, in the case of sites 50 feet in width or less in existence on February 2, 1970, may be expanded to a site setback limitation of five feet, provided that such setback in i.o way impairs access*to neighboring docks. d) The lei gth limitations prescribed by this ordinance may be adjusted under the variance provisions of Section 3.04 to allow the construction and maintenance of a dock in the lake to a water depth of three feet at the outer end oZ jach dock to pro vide adequate water depth for navigation and to protect the environmental quality or natural habitat of the water adjacent to *the dock. e) ^ A 25-f(iot addition may be allowed at the outer end of a commercial dock for the purpose of fuel sales and related ser vice, but in no case for the storage of watercraft or rental of dock space. (As Am<^nded, Ord. No. 18, Sec. 3). • Subd. 4. 5 cructures Not to Obstruct. No dock, mooringj or other structure shall be so located as to obstruct a navigable channel, or so is to obstruct reasonable access to any other dock, mooring a ea or similar structure authorized under this chapter. No doi k, mooring area or similar structure shall be located or designed so that it unnecessarily requires or encourages boats using it to encroach into any other authorized dock use area. A dock, mooring or other structure is "author ized" if it is automatically permitted under this ordinance or if it is a variance permitted under Section 3.04. • SL'bd.^ 5, Space Between Boatis. Reasonable space shall be provided in mooi Ing areas to allow navigation freely between moored boats. ^ * No multiple dock or mooring area or commer lal dock shall extend across the extended zone line betwee sites z< led differently by a municipality. (As Amended Ord. N . 18, Sec 3) % . . ^ lusual Configurations. Wh re the provisions of this o dinance \ uld cause the authorized / pcJ: use area of two or more s .tes to o jrlap, or where there is «:iy other unusual con- .ion of s ireline or extended lot lines, which causes a conflict betweei the owners of two or more adjacent or nearby sites as the use^of the same area of the lake for docks, mooring areas or other structures or for reasonable access thereto, the owner of any of the affected sites may apply to the Board for a variance pursuant to Section 3.04. A variance may be (a) to permit the^ applicant to locate a dock, mooring area or other st^cture in a Location different from that permitted by this ordinance or (b) to permit or require the owner of any adjacent or nearby site to do so. j j Subd. 8. locks; Dimension Limits. A dock as defined in Section 3.01, S ibdivision 2, may exceed six feet, excluding pos*ts# in eitihc] its length or widths but not both; provided however, that do^ks which are in existence on June 30, 1982 and which are in coirpliance with all the provisions of the LMCD Code o^er ^an this Section 3.02, Subd. 8 shall be allowed to con tinue in their j>resent form without expansion or modification until such time as such dock;, are replaced or until 50% or more of any such dock is damaged or destroyed. (As amended. Ord Ko. 12, Sec. 2; ord. No. 55.) . Subd. 9. S.ioreline Requirements. a) No new docks or moor— ing &r£&s other th&n cominercial docks shall be constructed or established which provide space for or are used for mooring or docking a greater nu^er of watercraft than one for each 50 feet of continuous si >reline in existence on May 3, 1978. When mea surements detern ning the number of watercraft allowed result in the provision ol a fractional watercraft, any fraction up to and including one ha f (1/2) shall be disregarded, and fractions over one half (1/2) shall allow one additional watercraft. (As Amended Ord. No. 40) t b) fewer^ watercraft may be kept at any dock or mooring facility which is otherwise in compliance with this code and with the reqi?irements of the local land use control authority and which is located on a site which i£ in existence on August 30, 1978. c) Four or : mooring area whic) with the requires, is located on a s there ii a reside the res: dents of d) This sub rights c f local 1 footage requireme Ord. 22! ewer watercraft may be kept at any dock or is otherwise in compliance with this code and nts of the local land use authority and which te established after August 30, 1978, provided :e on the site and the dock is owned solely by lat site. Ivision shall not be const -jed as limiting the id use authorities to desi* nate local lot front :s. (Ord. No. 18, Sec. 3; Drd. 19, Sec. 6, Sul d. 10. N person shall sell, rent, nr lease for the storage of boats- or water* raft any space within dock use areas other than at commercial docl.s; provided, however, that such space may be rented or leased at docks of apartments solely for the storage of boats or watercraft owned by residents of the apartment. (Ord. No. 18, Sec. 3; Ord. 32) it t % • August 12, 1985 ■,i >rage in 1^1 % • # THomas J. Radio, Esq. Popharo, Haik, Schnobrlch, Kaufman a Doty, Ltd. 4344 IDS Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 » '>f Re: City of Orono — Shaver Corporation, Acquisition of Parcel on Ferndale Road. Issue ** Granting of permit for Construction of Dock# • Dear Mr. Radio: * Enclosed for your information please find a copy of the letter from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District referred to in my letter to you dated August 9, 1985. Vary truly yours. i John J. Taylor JJT/ms Enclosure *» • MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Mayor and City Council Thomas J. Radio, City Attorntf^'TO 72^ Granting a Permit for Construction of Dock: Shaver Corporation September 6, 1985 INTRODUCTION This memorandum will address some of the issues raised by the request of Shaver Corporation for a permit to construct a dock on the subject property. The central issues are as follows: 1. Whether the property owner has the right to use that portion of the dedicated public right of way not used by the city; 2. Whether the dock need be constructed in conformity with regulations of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District tLMCD) and ordinances of the City. CONCLUSION 1. The property owner does have the right to use that portion of the dedicated public right of way not currently used by the City for construction of a dock. 2. Any dock constructed would have to comply with the requirements of the LMCD and ordinances of the City. ANALYSIS I, The property owner possesses the necessary right to construct the dock. The question of the owner's right to construct a dock on the subject property focuses on the unused and submerged portion of the dedicated and platted right of way for Ferndale Road. It is clear that the requested dock could not be built in such a way as to obstruct any portion o£ the dedicated roadway which is being used for public travel. The owner of the underlying fee title, however, has the right to use that portion of the dedicated public right of way not being used by the City as long as that use is compatible with the use by the DUblic. Town of Kinghurst v. International Lumber Co., 174 Minn. 305, 219 N.W. 172, 173-1')4 (1928). The chief factual issue thus becomes whether the proposed dock is compatible with the public's use of Ferndale Road. The opinions of the City Engineer and Public Works Coordinator should be sought regarding the impact such a dock would have upon the safe use of the road. Should the dock cause safety risks or other interferences witn the use of the road, the Council could legitimately deny the requested permit. Moreover, even if the permit is granted, the City should require certain safety precautions and that the applicant hold the City harmless from any causes of actions that might arise from accidents involving the dock. As with any action, the City should be concerned with the precedential value of its decision. At the samo time, however, when dealing with parcels of land, which ace unique unto themselves, the precedent set by any one decision is limited to the facts of the siiuation. Each case must be examined on its own merits, wi:h the following being considered: 1. Title history; 2. Platting history; 3. Physical characteristics of the property; 4. Taxing records; 5. Public safety issues; 6. Interference with use of public property; and, 7. Length of the dock. At best, future requests for construction of docks in dedicated but unused public right of ways could be supported on the grounds of precedent only if the facts were substantially similar to those involved in this particul;=‘r matter. II. Compliance with regulations of LMCD ar.cl City Ordinances. The proposed dock would have to comply with the regulations of the LMCD and the City Zoning Code. Pursuant to 1 -2- LMCD regulations, the dock could not be more than 25 feet in length, and no more than five feet wide. LMCD Ordinance 3.02, subd. 8. Pursuant to Section 10.23, subd. 5 of Orono zoning Code, a dock is an accessory use in this particular zoning district. The import of this requirement is that a dock could not be constructed on this property without first obtaining a variance or until a primary structure were constructed on the adjoining property. The applicant would also have to satisfy the requirements of Orono Ordinance 6.07, which prohibits the placing of any structure upon a City street without first obtaining a permit from the City. 1821F cc:Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator dohn J. Taylor, Esq. Walter H, Rockenstein, Esq. -3- MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 9, 1985. PG 4 #930^HAVER/TEARSE ^"TEtTFERNDALE ROAD WEST riparian issue Jim Shaver, 259 E. Lake, Wayzata, and H.H. Tearse, 1840 Fox •» present for this matter. Also present was ch!?, /Jn Taylor, Dorsey & Whitney, representing the TT interests and Attorney Walter H. Rockenstein II, Faegre & Benson, representing an abutting neighbor. City Administrator Bernhardson explained the background of this issue being the status of riparian rights to a 25*x25* lot, also owned by same owners, which is currently under water in the lagoon. John Taylor gave a brief history of the property and stated the applicant's request to use part of the city right-of-way to step on to a dock. Taylor also noted that the e is 8-1/2 feet from the road to the water at this time. Councilmember Frahm questi>ned the width to provide a safe shoulder. Engineer Cook stated that new roads require 6—8 * of shoulder, but existing city roads should have 6* conservatively. Council questioned the liability if an accident should occur on city right-of-way from the dock. Mr. Rockenstein stated that the liability would be the city's responsibiity unless they required a harmless clause in the agreement, however, even with this clause the city may be held liable if the financial capability is not provided. City Attorney Radio submitted his opinion regarding these issues, which clearly indicates the applicant's right to use a portion of th< city's unused right-of-way and the right to construct a dock. Radio's opinion also listed several concerns to be considered. It was noted that Ralph C. Bagley, 1105 Ferndale West, has written the Council indicating his objection to the use of city right-of-way. Councilmember Hammerel stated that more was being read into this matter than necessary as there are numerous docks like the applicant is requesting and because the owner bought this lot with riparian access rights, he should be able to sell it as such. City Attorney Radio stated that the property owner is paying taxes on this piece of property, which just happens to be under water, and has the right to utilize this property. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 9, 1985. PG 5 1930 SHAVER/TEARSE continued Acting Mayor Frahm indicated his concerns with Attorney Radio's opinion. Frahm also stated he felt that the lots should be combined and he still had concerns on the liability. Councilmember Grabek stated that he felt the applicant should have the right of access to his piece of property which has been recognized as a legal piece of property by the State and City and which applicant is paying taxes on. Councilmember Hammerel agreed with Councilmember Grabek*s statement. Acting Mayor Frahm stated that he would be against it unless the two pieces of property were legally combined. Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked the Council to reconsider their original approval of a rear setback variance for the proposed residence on the interior lot. A recent survey confirmed the house will be set 30.8 feet from the rear lot line not 37 feet as originally proposed. Attorney Radio stated that the applicant must file a separate application request for use of the public right-of-way and a variance to allow the dock as a structure, which must be presented before the Planning Commission. It was moved by Councilmember Grabek, seconded by Acting Mayor Frahm, to conceptually approve the rear setback variance application of Jim Shaver and directed staff to prepare a resolution for formal action by the Council at the next meeting. Council further directed the applicant to file a separate variance application with the City in order to permit construction of an accessory dock on a lot that could not sustain a principal structure in addition to seeking formal approval of the use of the public right-of- way. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). #941 PAUL MUTT - RES. #1846 #946 DAVID C. COOK - RES. #1847 #951 JOHN TBIMMISH - RES. #1848 2739 SHADYWOOD ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMITAARIANCE Paul Nutt, David C. Cook, and John Thimiriish were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained the applicants' request for a) variance to maintain a dock (accessory structure) on a lot without a principle structure b) conditional use permit and variance to continue the non- conforming use, be recognized as a legal non-conforming use. i mm: fv-^-' -L R. C. BAG LEY 65 ■^ Giaifi Exch. BUg. MINNI-AI ’OLIS. MINW 55 il5 October 11, 1985 Orono Planning Commission City of Orono Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: #972 Application Honorable Commissioners: I expect to be out of town when you convene October 21 so will record by letter my interest in the captioned matter. This application should be turned down for a variety of reasons which have already been given in attorney's brief, but I would like to emphasize the risky nature of allowing a person, resident or otherwise to build anything on City property. To do so, in one case introduces the opportunity for countless others to rationalize arguments of Ingenuous var: *ties for similar privileges, with chaotic consequences to L..e public. I hope Orono will not let its minimum of public land become a lauching pad for any private Interest. Yours sincerely, / / / Ralph C. Bagley RCB:mmw ilHMIl »• % To:Planning Conunission Members From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: October 15, 1985 #976’ Calvin Korth, 3615 Lyric Avenue Conditional Use Permit/Variance Zoning District - LR-lC-1 Area of Lot - 1/3 to 1/2 Acre implication - Conditional Use Permit to keep pet goat Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (K) Required Area for 1 animal unit = 2 acres (1 acre for residence/1 acre for 1 animal unit) 3 sheep - 1 animal unit (nearest equivalent) List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Applicant's Addendum Seven Letters From Neighbors Schlee Builder's Letter Previous Neighbor's Letter Newspaper Articles The applicant explains in his addendum that he keeps the goat within his home. The goat is tethered on outside leash area only when applicant is at home. Mr. Korth is aware that a neighbor has complained of the presence of the goat in the neigh borhood. In response to this claim, he has included support letters from 9 of the 12 residences and promises to bring in the tenth. Mr. Korth has submitted additional items specifically news paper articles that record other incidents in surrounding munici palities. Pigmy goats were classified as house pets. As Mr. Korth claims they are no bigger than german shepherd, golden labradors, etc. and a lot less noisy. They are kept and treated as a house pet. The applicant has submitted 2 names for members to call if they wish confirmation on the classification as house pet. Planning Commission dealt with a similar application on French Lake Road this summer. In that application a setback variance was sought for the animal barn to house 2 pet goats. The two acre area standard was satisfied. In this case the area standard of 2 acres cannot be satisfied. t S Zoning File #976 October 15, 1985 Page 2 of 2 Issues for discussion and resolution; 1. Does the fact that the goat is classified as a "house pet" by a veterinarian or pet shop owner have any bearing on this review? Your ordinances specifically discuss the keeping of such animals or at least similar animals (sheep vs goats). Review definition of animals and Section 10.20, Subdivision 3(K). 2. Does the fact that the goat is maintained as a house pet have any bearing on your decission making? 3. Does the fact that Korth is a renter not an owner have any bearing on your decision making? The complaint call did not reference a specific violation only to claim that they did not want a goat in their neighborhood. If you wish to deny the conditional use permit/variance consider the following findings; 1. Applicant is a renter and does not qualify for keeping of domestic animals. 2. Too servere an area variance is sought at 1 2/3 acres. 3. The subject property is located within the defined urban area of the City - beautiful downtown Navarre. Development of the property at current density was applied for under a special density credit (3 units per 1 acre). Planning Commission should recommend date for removal of pet from residence. If you approve consider the following findings; 1. The pet is maintained as a house pet - housed within existing residence. 2. Area requests not applicable in light of maintenance of pet and food is not dependent on 1 acre of grazing area. 3. Surrounding neighbors have all approved the keeping of the goat. Planning Commission may wish to add special conditionSfor keeping of the animal outside of existing schedule of care. Photos of the pigmy goat have been provided by the applicant and will be available for review at your meeting. #Pi7 iO CITY OF ORONO GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION mm mm mm mm mm ^m mmt mm mm mm ^m ^m mm mm mm ^m ^m ^m ^m ^m mm ^m mm PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3615 Lyric Avenue Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Il-Hy- 3V Cr> Please check one - Is the property X abstract or torrens? (for Conditional Use Applications only) Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Calvin Charles Korth home: 471-0093 Phone vgork: 374-5200 Mailing Address 3615 Lyric Lane, Vfeyzata, MN 55391 OWNER Name Phone Mailing Address Date Property Acquired (month/year) ■ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PEES - CONDITIO:"\L CSE PERMITS ^ $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use _ _ _ _ $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) _ _ _ _ $150.00 c) Duplex Credit/Bldg _ _ _ _ $250.00 d) Commercial/Industrial Use _ _ _ _ $200.00 f) Land Alteration (grading, filling) _ _ _ _ PRD/PID - see fee schedule Other Applications $250.00 Vacation _ $250.00 Rezoning _ _ _ _ $100.00 Appeals Other ~ see fee schedule PRESENT USB OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail; Nfaintain residence for one African Pygmy Goat exotic house pet. Oorplete request details attached. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. V Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) /3. Stamped^ legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey. - ^ 5. Construction plans, if applicable. IK 6. Plat Map. ~ t‘-K 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. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature OWNERS SIGNATURE Date 9-19-85 The owner hereby acknowledges 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 investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date Applicant must have all submittals ^nto the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. list i271) ember been ed by urred (true I ' - / / %■ - ®t—»if w\ **l ’ u « ■ • # £ ’.I * -m!... ►wi mC^ T ’ i ,V V •‘./0*''s ■'f • O * • . • * r%U ^ ^• ^ k I 1^. "i " 4i». ^ K t. - 4 - "'la.T r j Im*'”:t - -. Lk. !' *,^. ’j/ \ ---------L ■ ^ -tt .............■■ i::I*'-S Sn'' : %jc * ? \*•^VriS^«v /W :‘f i’C t.2v3t-...-A:::::: I 7 ____ Cll. -s-,V4»' {1^.------?^-^-V^'4r-“----- '■ (. ■£ IL--------r____45'_:'_ ' . ' .:,It-- - 4 j: . tIL^'- -*j *" "V- «l *ar -arTa;^—- 4i-ia -if '•‘V I iT-Jt'.1 t» i •%nil“.r -^' L - A LKJ . - V ^ 1 » *^1P ~-— ‘ -i ., k *^j!Lf *x *' H****“'“*^t' r“.8 Hgy T 3 ^ ^ • y « -« —I . «■«-. s I. • ' |^s\ > • ft ;1? fV. *iT7^ v'l;-.*-.-k. . .. s ^... y-,.-v^ r S ;-y ? M Is •“ =. X—V i .3 V t MAVACRC If * i *“ tf *i >t 3 i * .i «■ - • -♦• - r « ; s i -> ♦ * i f • ______H■i ; t - - i - ■ •T. ♦ - ^ *1 .^...o^rr li .. <? f I«- •Sa • . y \ t • . S > . 3 \ * _ -«.i t r:r^ St v 4 ^ r » >i-A O' k \ ^•;.v -<v ■»: -zr<--- ft'' **3 ^ % 4. V'.V I *1. r, I*'* "I Y S O ^ % s'*%r v<.yfs. . : 9 I ( -: V V* ^ V - -V '.■Af.i* ■'Xfc-?' '<» '■.''' *■ k J /' r"-^4 V E7 \ V\8 .^ ■ , 7r/ < N. e -• •'■ «>-.->? -•a V ' ‘~' '- ’•>•■.■ A'<?,- , >• . .y' )aniel 3^ 9/18/85 Tto UTiom It May Ctoncem:#97 7/31/85 I received an inspection notice indicating I was in violation of Orono ordinance section 10.20 subdivision 2K. The ccwrplaint aledges I keep an aniiral in violation of that ordinance, a conplaint I understand initiated b^' one of my neighbors in the Bayshire subdivision of Qrono, located on the old l^avarre drive-in theater site. I don't believe I am in violation of the ordinance either as vorded or by it's actual intent. pet is an African Pygmy Goat. He was bought tlirough a pet store. He les regular physical check ups by a pet veterinarian. He is kept in a kennel inside the house. He spends time outside only when I am at home, and during those periods he is tethered on a tvoity foot long leash in my back yard. He rarely is tethered on a fifteen leash in the front yard, only if I am outside in the front yard vath him. I occasiorjally take him for walks around the neighborhood on a six foot leash. He makes no loud sounds, carparable to the barking of a dog, for exanple. He in no way makes use of the outside property in any manner the domestic animals refered to in the ordinance would do. He doe- not graze. His food is bought at a pet/'feed store and fed to him inside his kennel inside the house. "Billy Goat Korth" clearly is an exotic house pet, and should be considered in the same context a parrot, tropical fish, cats and dogs or other are, not in the context with cows, steers, horses, donkeys, burros, she^ and fowl, the wording of the ordinance. Billy is 24 inches ball at the withers and weighs approxiJTBtely forty pounds; smaller than my next door neighbor's dogs. IO'.si:5port my claim I am including the following: Letters from two former neighbors of mine in Eden Prairie who vere familiar with my goat and me for his entire life (2?^ years). f Seven letters from my current neighbors in Bayshire. A note to me from the developer of Bayshire, who helped me solicit the letters, indicating her sipport and the support of tvo other neighbors I iBven't been able to rake contact with. This represents a majority of the residents of Bayshire, and if necessary I will obtain the other signatures, giving me approval by ten of twelve hones. Photostats of four different newspaper stories, all indicating the acceptance of pygmy goats as house pets. A picture of Billy on his leash in the front and back yard. In addition, I offer these two references as experts who would clasify African Pygmy Goats as house pets: Karen Brink, owner Dr. Bailee, veterinarian The Pet Place Cedar Pet CLinic Rochester, Minneapolis I'd be happy to bring anyone frcm the city of Orono over to my house and show than Billy and his home. cal Korth I am a resident of the Bayshire town home developement in Qrono, on the site of What once was the Navarre drive-in theater. I am aware of an african pyg^ny goat house pet owned by Mr. cal Kbrth, and residing at 3615 Lyric Avenue in Bayshire. The pet is causing no problems, appears to be well taken care, and I am in favor of allowing him to remain. address S] Cz> Iw V. * #976 I am a resident of the Bayshire town hone developeirent in Qrono, on the site of What once was the Navarre drive-in theater. I am aware of an african pygmy goat house pet owned hy .-ir. cai torth, and residing at 3615 Lyric Avenue in Bayshire. The pet is causing no problems, appears to be well taJcen care, and I am in favor of allowing him to remain. name address — date X Xv 77 V r '. ■ - S' .# - T- #97 6 I am a resident of the Bay shire tov.Ti home developement in Orono, on the site of what once was the Navarre drive-in theater. I am aware of an african pygny goat house pet owned hy Mr. Cal Korth, and residing at 3615 Lyric Avenue in Bayshire. Ihe pet is causing no problems, appears to be well ta)cen care, and I am in favor of allowing him to remain. rame ty \ . ‘ '.'.a K ^ ''v > ‘) ■> . V V v^.Vivaddress_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ —X- \ . ^ date ^ I ^ i - ^ ■ j A '-4 .j' mSM I am a resident of the Bayshire town home developement in Orono, on the site of What once was the Navarre drive-in theater.vA Iwv.* TWSJL*^ WA Ki.* ▼ VAA. W >.AI VV.* ^AA • t I am aware of an african pygmy goat house pet owned ty Mr, cal Korth, and residing at 3615 Lyric Avenue in Bayshire. The pet is causing no problems, appears to be well taken care, and I am in favor of allowing him to remain. name address__ /'-p d S? N ^ O date !■ '■ #976 I am a resident of the Bayshire town home developement in Orono, on the site of what once was the Navarre drive-in theater. I am aw^e of an african pygmy goat house pet owned hy Mr. cal Worth, and residing at 3615 Lyric Avenue in Bayshire. The pet is causing no problems, appears to be well taJcai care, and I am in favor of allowing him to remain. name address ^S’ date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ • » #976 y «- ■•yy c,^ f< 1-^ ^•■'^^v-'^ V t.''^"^ ' X* i<;' V z y,^-yA^>\ ^ /C^fr*^ /\V^- V jf V ^ 3C^f^i / Ji- ;-r y - / u. 0.7 C>-t'~<.^ L. r p" C. '■^n • ^ ,J^ -- * ' '^\,<ji.!njLj c* » 3 6 . ,f CvL^ h^-t-i. Ci-l'7.‘-*l^ U- >4 6 V 4^ '■ ^ <;'• ,iV4 « I ■ ■ ~n~i > rTMTfca ^ i tii 976 8/23/85 TO Whom It May Concern: cal Korth lived in a tcvmhome that shared the same building with ours from 1981 through the Summer of 1985. During the last two years he had an african pygmy goat house pet. This pet was absolutely no problem in the neighborhood. Eden Prairie city pet officials were aware of Billy the entire time he vbs kept in their city. Billy was extronely popular with our two young children. In fact, they still ask about him from time to time since he moved. Mr. Kbrth even had a birthday party for Billy when he turned one year old. He invited all the neighbors' children and had bithday hats, cake, favors, etc. Most of the young guests brought Billy a present, ranging from apples and carrots to bankas. I consider it a very entertaining and informative part of my children's early education to have been associated with this animal. I'm sure he is an attribute to his new neighborhood as well. Sincerely, 1 #976 8/23/85 lb Whom It May Concern: cal Worth was neighbor in a tovjnhome developement in Eden Prairie from Fbll, 1981 through Sumner 1985. He lived directly across a cul de sac from me, approximatley 75 ft. fron my hur.*. ibr the last two years he lived there vsa owned a pet african pygny goat. The goat was well cared for and never a neighborhcxsd problem. On the contrary, he was a neighborhood celebrity, and nany of rry neighbors stopped by with their children to visit "Billy". There is no reason for any complaint about this goat as he vas taken care of by Mr. Worth. He was very similar in habits to any of the dogs and cats in the neighborhood. I enjoyed Billy. I'm sure his new neighbors will do the same. Sincerely, * ^ Jason Bosiger ■ --'i ■ ' 'fi ' -AV , ' .mim • f t. ■ w ■ >• .V.' O’ r i- To:Planning Commission Members Pr<Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date:October 15, 1985 Subject: #977* James P. Werner, 1408 Baldur Park Road Zoning District - LR-IC, 1/2 Acre Application - Side setback, average setback, and hardcover variances to construct additions to front and rear of house. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Site Plan Hardcover Calculations The applicant is requesting variances to construct two additions to his home. The first addition is a family rooom on the street side of the house, which is proposed at ll'x32' plus 3*x32' deck. Because part of this is existing hardcover, the net increase in hardcover due to this addition is 158 s.f. for a hardcover increase from 36.5% to 38.4% in the 75-250’ zone. The second addition is to enclose an existing deck on the lake side of the house. There would appear to be no net increase in hardcover as a result of this addition; however, this will encroach approximately 5* into the average lakeshore setback area. An additional variance required is to side setback. Because the house sits at a slight angle on the lot, the first addition will bring the corner of the house about 0.3 foot closer to the side lot line than the existing house corner, which is about 6' from the side line. The hardcover consisting of rock underlain by plastic on the west (left) side of the house is bare 1 y hardcover because the plastic appears to be rotting away and is full of holes. Removal of the plastic would decrease the proposed hardcover by +/- 100 s.f. or from 38.4% to 37.2%. Existing Proposed Variance 1. Side Setback 2. Average setback 3. Hardcover 6' 0 (deck only) 3012 s.f. (36.5%) 5.7' 5' 4.3' 5' 3170 s.f. (38.4%) 1108 s.f. (13.4%) Zoning File #977 October 15, 1985 Page 2 of 2 Finally note that the lot is quite flat, and most of the run-off will soak into the ground or puddle rather than run to the lake. Variances granted previously in the Baldur Park area for remodeling work have generally stayed in the 30-35% allowed 75- 250* hardcover range. The applicant maintains he has a hardship in that the house is relatively small in floor area and the family needs more space. Is this sufficient hardship to grant the requested variances, or should some additional tradeoffs be considered? O O -< o m »-«N rv> oc c o > aSr- o>H OJ o r- ?? 1 > > :0 C C »-r- m 09 3 O _ V CITY iOF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Ifiitial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional pi^A^^^'t) After-the-Fuct Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address /9'^% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ 3 ^ V" ^ Please checlc one — Is the property abstract or torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name ^ Mailing Address J jjJdu-yA isA Phone ^^ (f OWNER Name A rv^^g* a, Cl )f ^/O ^ ^ Mailing Address/T/jO^ Phone ■sS'V^ ^ 0 *7 ijy i iAj^rp Date Property Acquired r (month/year) I (do) (i^^^otj^lso own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property #977 . J,.; /Residential Other (specify) _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^/DC^O Describe request in detail: c'J J ^ ^lri£3 4fs ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setbac)c Variances ( Other Front Side Rear) (OVER) HARDSHIP % Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; _ DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS • • . % • / Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; •/A;/erfci'\tf: l._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS iX^ Completed Application Form. -fc y/ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) V {o Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. Plat Map. > u ■•/€ r;-'r -i/r . fi-€f^uAftupf€Uf S/<i^ ^€1^iT =• ^ 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. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her/knowledge. Applicant's signature OWNERS SIGNATURE Date 7 '/•'..O The owner hereby acknowledges 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 investigation and verification of this request. / Owner's signature %C'';'Date ^ r’ 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. loke ^60®^ \ o'S.rc Orrn) ^hore//n»22^^VS>-/7 J >J n*feai_ 50 0 Plot t / 8 . V3 .■c'/^rce^ ttt%t'fffQ I ^ i«iI /o* I ’ iO.% "• I Ho»*'^ V <) .X /',__________ // -'■- -: V -p €tr^n<) [. < O ^'^5 0/*r . o^'e/' //r< ///7r 30.0<> HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS - 1408 BALDUR PARK ROAD 0-75* Existing = 0 s.f. = 0% Proposed = 0 s.f. = 0% 75-250*Existing: Area = 165x50 =8,250 s.f House 24.3 x 32.4 =787 s.f. Lake Deck « 10x32.4 =s 324 s.f. Rear Deck « 10x20 =200 s.f. Slab + Steps = 7x13 91 s.f. Sidewalk = 2x45 =90 s.f. Garage = 24x28 !=:672 s.f. Blacktop * 27x24 =648 s.f. Rock W/Plastic =200 s.f. Total (some of plastic rotted) 3,012 s.f. Existing Hardcover 3,012 t 8,250 « 36.5% 7 5-2 5 0 * Proposed Same as above, except additional: (5xl4)+(8x6)+(8x6+2)+(4x4) = 158 s.f. 3,012 + 158 = 3,170 s.f. Proposed Hardcover 3,170 T 8,250 « 38.4% 4 To: Planning Commission Members From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date: October 15, 1985 Subject: #978 Michael McEnany, 2499 Kelly Avenue - Variance Zoning District - LR-IB - 1 Acre Application -Construct a detached garage on Outlot A of "Kelly Cove" which was a PRD subidvision. Outlot A is technically a lot without a principal structure. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B ~ Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Building Permit Application Survey/Site Plan Uphoff Letter Mabusth Letter 8/28/85 Although Mr. McEnany has signed as applicant and owner, the proposal is that the garage structure will be owned by the "Navarre Cove Homeowners Association" for lease to the members of the Association and for housing the Association's lawn maintenance eguip ment. Mr. Daryle Uphoff has given his consent to the application as representative of the homeowners association. The proposed garage technically requires a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (A), because the Outlot has no principal structure, even though it is clear that the garage is intended to serve the 4 principal dwelling units of the Kelly Cove PRD. Orono s PRD code section does not make special provisions for accessory structures, other than subjecting them to Planning Commission and Council approval (Section 10.32, Subdivision 6). The proposed garage meets the standards for the LR“1B zoning district. It is to be located 51' from the street lot line, 26' from an existing drainage easement, and about 50' from the side lot line. The garage will make use of the existing driveway and parking lot. Existing 75-250' hardcover is about 21% with no changes proposed. Existing 250-500' hardcover is about 19%, proposed brings it up to 21%, where 30% is allowed. From a visual standpoint, there is quite a bit of screening from Kelly Avenue. Based on the garage meeting all the pertinent performance standards, the addition of the garage does not appear to create the need for any variances other than not having a principal structure on the same property. Jeanne Mabusth noted in her letter of response to McEnany's building permit request on August 28, 1985, that a clause in the resolution approving Kelly Cove stated ■ — - Zoning File #978 October 15, 1985 Page 2 of 2 "Outlot A, Kelly Cove, may never be used for future residential con struction, but shall remain as an open space area as density credit for existing duplex units...”. However, the response at that time was based on McEnany being the sole owner of the proposed garage. Now, with the association as owner and the individual unit owners as leasees, staffs view is that the proposed garage would not be in violation of the density credit clause. Also note that this is not the first time an association has proposed or constructed an accessory structure on an Outlot within a PRD (Re: Ned Dayton's French Creek project). In effect, any structures on a PRD outlot must be the pro perty of the association or the developer, and may not be owned by individual property owners. Staff would recomend approval of the requested variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (A), finding that the garage will be owned by the Association and meets all pertinent performance standards. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional project) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 7 " .')■•> /^//-^ /? Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ 0 7- ^ 3 / (7q ST Please check one — Is the property _ _ _ abstract or X torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. OcC^•/a^A, //-, 6V-« APPLICANT Name Phone(M Sr9Vcn/V Mailing Address , OWNER Name /\^l/L t C.0».v»-»o Phone Mailing Address /M-i., SS^'^I Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USB OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ HOOO. Describe request in detail: ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances (Front Side Rear) Other (OVER) (. HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations ^ .Vr »VJl JiSi 7S;> ^r\k>Sly2 - - -jis.6-_S J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; y v-wuc REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. 3. 6) Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150 ' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. Plat Map. 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. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by t e Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies thac the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature OWNERS SIGNATURE Date The owner hereby acknowledges 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 investigation and verification of this request. 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. /uu 0 scale feet - ~ HV/Y. ,.Vi ^eh4^s\50 RD NO 45 )1761 42 266^ 6' Ret J¥¥. s -w N07* 43'5P' f Ne7«4V5o"f r ■ IS > ll” ► Wt ^ O •0/,C\ •!4L: 'l”^ «* ® ' 140^** %$TT 13 A i(^:o 94 't r 't ?1 ♦.5'.,,,, ^4C 'a**!! <» J ^ i II ^ o •*- > ^ U) ^ 4: (‘« l§4 4S 4 • r ; \ CM 184 (e f55)2.V ' % 1 !>> » i I .'9 4 / \ \ \ZTe 4 ‘■‘4^4;:o, '' (»i O.L .O.L. A I NAVARRE . COVE P4f »i A P (31) 4 \ /. 4 R. L.« (») >/ / V Shore line as per 19 7! Atrial Photo |A28 C r .t .j’. 1 * 1^) N'S' \ e') \ / / / / a Q^^ Of Omo / // / / / / / \ / / / / )) H O 3 z > s »> X 2 o3 -o m TJ m > Ji \ •< >> m z oa ;□ > o 2 3 xj» m H 3 I O )I X 2 oz > 3 U m T3 m > s V. -< > > m Z O o :a > a o 3 90 X3 m z > ^2m > N -< > m a ;q o 90 o -a 5 w2 om Tj >Q >z s > a3 ;a m -4 Z > > X 3 T3 m > \ -<> m a z a XI 2 om u 90 > r o > a 3 Z m m 90 Z iM a i.> oi > > -< iv> r 3fM ».« HI m > m </) H X r- >s X O CM rvj 0» U1 OO ►- M O ^ -o X <o ni rn C ^ <C3 o m M m ;q 2 Z O 0 0-0 $ rsj 0 1 3 U1 ► •o 09 r- r* ^ m01 n 3 H r-x*- Z M r- M m -4 a 01 •< CM ^ r~ Jm ^ in > O - 1 fM CM OIcn 01 Q 01 > 01 z > •< ► •-3 0 S o CM -< < M Ml X m Z:o M m fM 99 5 m O <rn XI Ui X3o o 0 01 CM U1 » oo O O CM • CM 09 • Z 01 IN» 0 1n o oi ►- ^ 5 *0 o I> 90 rvi Z m iM -< r* M •— Z fO m o o o 90 OI CM Z fM O C. O CM m fM o o Z M Z Z O^ CM > > M S X i> >S > ^ M M CM-< IM Z 3 OI n M) XI r“-< Ml n n ^ M H- M m o m •<N O X X IM > m 01 CM fM f f- #•fM ► > > CMH X r- o 01 X m o H n z z > C X 1 Z H Mm r- o r- r-1 > > a a z CM 09 In -M 01 O 01 Z CM 53 r- X ►- f- M m Nj M Z r- I 3 o r* r9 o 01 •< CM ui > > -< 05 »- 3 5 ni za oos Ui 01 CM CM c1on Nj I M CM r>9 o 0 01 Mzm 01cn ► CM < M9 o n 3 3 01 ^ X >4 X X O I m m XI r> > > m CM < < f- m m M ►- z r z M•< •< m omoo H XI CM > ^ I Hz > S X3 TJ m > \ -< > m o XI o XI iiz om TJ X IE3* m fM o o CM m IM o 3 3 O CM m IM n n o CM z o zz O CM 3 z o C/1 Z o CMX ^ >o>X ^m M fM 09 X cn X Ts> C39 >H M M ro 0>z o c m CM 09O Ml Z Z n Ml CD n C.n o >OI <-<o n r- CD Z z H CMm vj ^ -<m Ml o X Ml m z O >X X 09 01 z m CMr* r- r-fM r-z >3 Ml fM r-f-n Ml fM z Z >>o fM CD O z f- CM fMoi X m m O 01 X >m n o 0)X m o z o z z O 3 o z m oM m 1 M m X r-m 1 M m 01 Z 1 m o o 1 2 X ><> 1Q r- f- f-Q r*z o r-> •-H >01 *-Z r- _Z r-z c.X z n O X ►-3 01 >>n Ml m r*m 01 N«_ •< C C -<M z m -<r- m H 2 >Ml C a X ^3 z 3 1 3 r-3 •<r-1 3 n m f- 1 CD m m z 1 cn O H m Q 1Z > X X fM 2 >r-n r-fM 2 >>Z f- IM O o o 3 fM cn >Z Z IM < O O CM <M m t*•<CM <z -< CM X z z 5 CM X C/l z m CMm m -Ti m >m a cn >>z -4 O f"-n m 3 >o >M cn ►—z z o a o Z M ^01 fM 01 01 Z <fM 01 n < fM CM fM a a 01 IM m z m X ^01 m 01 Q K z m cn m m Ml 01 09 H z m z mCM H o CM Z M O CM o fM O H 01 H oCMoCM0»r-o CM z o o -< o o ►- >OI H*r-OI CM fM M Z (Mr-OI M fM f- -M 01 3 m 01 01 Z X > XI mX3 o m X 01 01 ^ 5 fo CM H H m r- rs> 0 1 01 01 CM Ml fM m m II -sjI M CM O O •n -fi > ISS Z XI m m o CM M 01 H §M CO CM oi 01 IIo o o m ffi X 2ss X 01 m m o a z zS So o fM 0 1 i H 01 01 I IM CM I 01 2 o IM 01 > o Hm 0 Ml N. 09 01 rm i ism • nM 01 CM OI OI > > ) • I > > I >>)I I I 09 > O o a 5 m NfM U1 > ,f O O S M -Ti -n m n3 H 99 m •< X m n m 01 H ^ m Mi|55 ;;iS^o -o o > m z liM"’2 Z -n 09 H ti > m ^ Q n f- 36 H H _ M O 3 W m CVn m > *ti H n > M mS§3 3 m r»i i isni • •oM S* S INSPECTION REOUmEO WORK REQUIRING SEPARATE PERMITS »LUMBIMC MiCMAMlCAL ■ MiAl __________WILL momu tf vo«fO on wuhou^ a mi ouiMco will tl tUM iter toMisAwfv 24 hour notice ftt PT 1C &IMCN MAfiM _ OMAOlNOMfllLItvO^ r\_r\ a_T_T___n ts **V.-V7T ections Certificate 0f Survey for Kelly Avenue Duplexes Company of Outlot A, KELLY COVE .;flo^</‘5’r-uyf^ennepin County, Minnesota . No^ 3! Z5 \N_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ £dd.dO K'SO- - - - - - - - - - - -' V \ fiaefciScrti- \ A L (0 .Sl'iA. AJti'JoX3.6^ • 1 2.fs.6o:S/0.60’ by ’ j I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Outlot A, KELLY COVE, and of the proposed location of a proposed garage. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. Scale: 1 inch = 100 feet Date : April 18, 1984 0 : Iron marker Proposed garage added 10-11-85 COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gromberg MN. Lie. Gordon R. Coffin MN. Lie. Engineers, Land Surveyors, Long Lake, Minnesota No. 12755 No. 6064 P1 anners CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 553Z3*Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka August 28 r 1985 Mike McEnany 2499 Kelly Avenue Bxcei8iof7~ TOJ ‘“55731 Dear Mr. McEnany: I have just informed Darlye Uphoff, the d- eloper of Kelly Cove, that based on the conditions of the approval of that platr the City staff cannot issue a building permit for an accessory structure. "Outlet A« Kelly Cove, may never be used for future residential construction, but shall remain as an open space area as density credit for existing duplex unit..." I have enclosed a copy of the complete resoluton for your review. If an accessory structure is to be permitted on Outlet A, Council must grant a variance to the zoning code and amend Resolution #1621. Staff must advise that they could not recommend approval of a variance that would permit an accessory structure on a lot that did not contain a principal structure because such action on the part of the City Council would establish a negative precedent in the review of similar applica*” tions. If an accessory structure is approved for one of the four owners, how can the City deny a future request by any one of the other three owners? What are the hardships? Please contact me if you have any questions concerning my review of this issue. You may still wish to file a variance application with the City if so I have enclosed a variance application for your convenience. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator cc; Daryle L. Uphoff 4200 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 File 2499 Kelly Avenue lUIILDINC & ZONING - 473-7357 ASSHSSING ADMINISTRATION & FINANri- - 473-7358 PUIU 1C WORKS - 473-7359 •IOi 3 M CD 2 iC J< vs < -*• o o jf\/2Vrs </ ^ TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Conunission Jeanne A. Mabusth October 17r 1985 SUBJECT: #979-Donald C. Wildman-280 Wakefield Rd. - After the Fact Variance ZONING DISTRICT - RR - IB AREA - 2+ acreas APPLICATION - Side Setback Variance for tennis court construction without necessary Building Permits PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION - No action until as built survey of subject pj^operty is submitted. Allow affected neighbors to speak at public hearing but take all action until November 18th meeting. A - Application B ~ Plat Map C - Property Owner's List D - Topographical Map and Septic Test Area E - Plat F - Primary Septic Location or as Built Staff had scheduled the application for a public hearing pending receipt of survey drawing completed for neighbor to south's property confirming setback of tennis court at 7 1/2 feet from lot line instead of required 10 feet. The applicant's representative misunderstood directive of staff and failed to submit neighbor s survey. The applicant, Mr. Wildman has advised that a drawing had never been done for the neighbors, only the staking of the shared lot line. The property is now owned by Lloyd P. Johnson. Mr. Wildman, the original owner of the property, has moved to another residence in Orono. The new Owners have asked that the substandard setback of the tennis court be addressed by appropriate agency. After staff reviewed the microfilms of the address file for 280 Wakefield Road, we found no Building Permit had ever been issued for the tennis court. In review of the factual information on the property to date, it would appear the tennis court has been placed over the tested alternate septic sight area. Mr. Wildman has been made aware of the following via the phone on 10/17/851 1 - need to submit as built survey of all improvements on site - to include septic test site for future system in addition to locating the existing system. 2 - Building Permit was never issued for tennis court The applicant should also be advised that a penalty fee will be charged for the tennis court permit. Regular Fee at 144.75 Penalty at 92.50 Total Fee $ 237.25 / > C ^V- »I • f f / / > / /-■]F4^r-iM Fao:/ i)ch^o.,}^(ti c^OO <.J<.pozi t~ ^ ^O . Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional project) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) / * CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^^0 ^3V/ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) //y^-~JP3~3/ Please check one — Is the property abstract or torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included/Dn required survey. s. 3H0 APPLICANT Name ‘i,.M (f.Phone -Oy ir Mailing AddressM naxJLinQ A ^' Mi'/ / rsr-f‘;/ '^aJknJ(l n« r Name Mailing Address Date Property Acquired Phone * ^*3 2> (month/year) I (do) ^o no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. S.^ (Jt5alae|tey get isSfiAJ^yhx. SS39/ ^ J ¥\ PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District J{ Present Use of Property _ _ _ _ _ _ _Residentia Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimatc'i Construction Cost Describe request in detail; 4^^ 3- ^ j/'/C>a’c €. 7c >/'C^ /p / A jC /77'~ j(y!r^Fj _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) (OVER) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict ' enf orcement of zoning regulations; / C^//A 'r-/// Cicl TA^/7' c/^/.yyf > - - -1( DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS T'Ar CUrJf 'r-jt^jj^-) _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ REQOIRBD SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form, 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3. Stamped^ legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list v th no return address. 4* Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Plat Map. 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. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator f agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this applicationr and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/hei kno./ledge. / / * Applicant's signature Date ^//2.{/(fr OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges 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 investigation and verification of this request. %_ _ ^ Owner' s signature y /^ T 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. i % ict ’ lode List ni) the nber not d by rred true ther [Its, tion the bird P I ^ r FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE: October 15, 1985 SUBJ: #982 John Lambin, 3405 Shoreline Drive Conditional Use Permit - Commercial Site Plan Review Zoning District - B-1 Area - 20,000 s.f. Application - Conditional Use Permit for Class I Restaurant per Section 10.40 Subdivision 4(C) List of Exhibits - Exhibit A “ Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Application Certificate of Mailing Affidavit of Publication Enigneer's Report 10-14-85 Building Inspector's Memo Inspector's Sketch Elevation - North Floor Plan Site Plan The applicant proposes conversion of existing structure into a chicken (eat in and carry out) restaurant. There will be seating capacity for 28 inside but predominantly the sales will be take out. The Building Department confirms the existing structure is in sound condition. The applicant proposes a rear addition for the cooler room. Applicant must apply to the Hennepin County Health Dept, for approval. Once again, Hennepin County asks that eastern access to site be closed off. The proposed entrance access at County Road 15 must be widened to 24 feet. Staff will ask that a curb barrier be placed along the shared lot line of the restaurant and Keaveny property. The curb will end at point where access can be provided for loading area to Keaveny building and for cars entering to restaurant lane. Traffic signs will be posted to secure desired traffic pattern. Staff will meet with applicant, Keaveny and County Highway representative to discuss final traffic plan for both sites. All SAC charges have been paid. Water and sewer assessments have been paid. Applicant/owner must connect to municipal water - building already hooked to sewer. City Engineer would like the pick-up window moved further south so that access onto Kelly can be relocated away from Shoreline intersection. Staff will work with applicant to see if this is feasible. AM- Zoning File #982 October 15, 1985 Page 2 All plantings at intersection and along County Road 15 must be controlled so as not to interfere with sighting at intersection of Kelly and County Rd. 15. State Fire Code will require a fire lane along tne west and north sides of the building. This will result in the loss of 2 parking stalls on the north side of the building leaving a total of 14 stalls. Parking Requirements - per Section 10.61 Subdivision 10(P); 1 stall for each 80 s.f. of public floor area Total area = 1563 s.f. Non-public area = (200) s.f. 1363 s.f. 17 required - 14 proposed on upper level - additional parking provided to south in lower parking area to immediate rear of property. Section 10.61 Subdivision 6 - Joint parking will require that a legal easement be drafted between Keaveny and applicant confirming that these additional spaces are provided off-site. I have not received the Hennepin County Highway Department's report but via the phone they can confirm no major problem with this review. I have advised them of the site meeting within the next week to discuss the safest pattern for traffic flow on both the Keaveny and restaurant lots. Staff recommends approval of the commercial site plan and Conditional Use Permit for John Lambin involving the property located at 3405 Shoreline Drive subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff, County Highway Dept, and applicant's to work on final traffic plan for Keaveny and restaurant sites. 2. New restaurant use to be approved by Hennepin County Health Department. 3. Restaurant must hook up to municipal water. 4. Firelane must be designated along north and west side of the building. Appropriate signage to be provided. 5. Applicant will provide copy of executed written agreement that Keaveny will provide at least 3 stalls for restaurant use to rear of lower level of Keaveny property. 6. Staff to resolve problems of location of Kelly Ave. access and nearness to intersection. Staff to explore either relocating pick-up window or redesign access to angle entrance further south on Kelly. 9' 7 V s' CITY OF ORONO GBHERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address \ S/(,•»(.1*- I,A-xtf, 7^/C / c' Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ ~ ^ 7 - 2 3 /7. o o '<>y Please check one - Is the property ^ (for Conditional Use Applications only) abstract or torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name 3ohrv O* i-CX.n\ b/‘Phone Mailing Address /O Fx dJLOsi dn, OWNER Name _ J-\ c/ M /u.-l Phone ^ 7/' ?YfC 9^7/- ir/6 s Mailing Address P. O iK '' y i'4 r2 /7 / p f'li/O Date Property Acqu: red I VIC (month/year) I (do) (do-not) also ov,*^ adjacent parcels of land PEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS _ _ _ _ $100,00 a) Residential accessory Use $150,00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150,00 c) Duplex Credit/Bldg $250,00 d) Commercial/Industrial Use $200,00 f) Land Alteration (grading, filling) PRD/PID - see fee schedule Other Applications $250,00 Vacation $250.00 Rezoning $100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule ^Cj8 PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) jrrens? DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail; luded on IRED SUBMITTALS “ ir/6 s ' H 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. Stampedr legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey. 5. Construction plans, if applicable. 6. Plat Map. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information lias not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature OMNBRS SIGNATURE Date The owner hereby acknowledges 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 investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature \ C ')/r'il ^ -7^Date TZ7 Applicant must have- all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeti ng. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. noticl ^2^6 SooSTb SJ^ •» 2». 1965. on iSTnwK UM oppiicMiona; tand •«• ••fback SrS^^pr "MWWIO. *® PWM PfW*H iWUM o*. ' QBtf «| «®«<S«rth.8lrJ2}4k*‘j2;^ Brown “Wh Shor. Ortvo. >£2^, 3000 10) No *83 —WNlof H ^,^*“*^*{Sissr* 2J^£Si.*XSSJST" " “™“ Affidavit of Publication stale of Minnesota. County of Hennepin Ofy ol Orono v • i^ Rmnlng ConwWMfcn • ' ! ft • «> ff^Aflihad in tka t ^_^ - Oel- 8. IMS) IMMOWd CITY OF ORONO Bill Holm, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER. Mound. Min nesota. and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the re quirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed a!0 Tf^T which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for___y{_ successive weeks: It was first published Tuesday. ^ day ofthe ,19. and was thereafter prin.ed and published every Tuesday, to and includ'i g Tuesday. the ... day of_____. 19 Subscribed and sworn to me on this ___f.dayo(._ C^^T.. 19 By:^ _________ Notary Public ^ • ••• »* ; . \y-.. *•.*. «• Rate information (1) Lowest classified rale paid by cominercial users for comparable space $0 90 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law lor above matter Sa 1 3 per inch. (3) Rato actually charged for above matter: $4 13 per inch Each additional successive week $2.75 per inch D HoHA^i^oc, /ittxleAlik. & ^4^ociate4,f 9mc, 2335 W. *Ju^ 36 Si. P^ntlf M5S1/3 PUm^ 612-636-4600 Ono Ct. Honestrno, /»./.*. Hoben II' Ho\enr, /•/. Joseph i AnderUk, V E Bradjitrtt A. i ember 4, f\i, Hu hard £ Turner. /* t James C Olson. P t October 14, 1985 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Re: File No. 139-982 John Lankin itlenn H. Cook. P.F k eith A (lor(ion. P t Ihomas h Soyes. PE. Hu hard M'. f ove\ P i . Hottert Ci Sihuntcht. P.E Xfarun t. Sorvatc. P E. Oonatd C. Our%ardt, P.E. Jerrs .♦! Bourdon. P.E. .Mark A. Hanson. P.l. Ted K Field. P.E Muhael T Hautmann. P.E. Robert R. Pfefferie, P E. David O. Loikota. P.E. Charles A. Eruksort Leo A/. Pawelsky Her hi n Xf. Olson Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the plan submitted on the restaurant at Kelly Avenue and Co. Rd. 15. We have also discussed the plan with Hennepin County, but we would reconmend two modifications to the plan as submitted. The driveway onto Kelly should be moved south. This could be accomplished by moving the pickup window to the south corner of the building. There should be a barrier of some type between the restaurant and the property to the west. This barrier could be concrete curb posts or something similar. There should be a single driveway between the properties. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:li End. 1363d j I To:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator From:Thomas J. Jacobs, Senior Building Inspector | Date October 10, 1985 Subjects #982 John Lambin, 3405 Shoreline Drive - Commercial Site Plan Review As per your request I have reviewed this project for items as follows: 1. Sprinkler system per Appendix E - maximum square feet 1563 s.f. Per Appendix E, sprinkler system required at 2000 s.f. or more. Sprinklers not required at this time. 2. Firelanes - see attached drawings. Fire lanes should be posted along front of building (north) and west side of building. This will provide adequate access by fire depart ment personal. To eliminate any fire lanes, fire sprinkler system must be installed. 3. Hydraunt locations - one hydraunt is about 100' from the east side of the building - two other exist which will cover the building, possibly will need to relay pumps with fire engine. 4. SAC Charges - 1 SAC charge exists with the building. The formula for fast food restaurants is: 1 SAC per 22 seats The proposed seating is 28 seats thus only 1 SAC is required for the building and it is already paid. 5. Sewer and water assessments have all been paid. 6. Building - building is structurally sound - must submit plans for building permit and also ‘^et Hennepin County Health Department approval. Maximum square feet 1563 must not exceed 2000 s.f. sprinkler system. any additions to the structure without installation of (fire) K •- ---------------------- /3y F«fte i.—CA^^Aa>iitj4e f'g^ t •■r i ■A 2o>^'y \c IV «•. t <.«rfM.:*r. -s„JS-.-'.»-*i;^-i.^- *,a. /•£. ^ *y I' ^A- A M X \ <3 i; X -.\ • : /' : ;/ \! I » » •» -J iyf&fj r V '• ♦ To: From: Date: Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator October 10, 1985 Subject: #983 Walter H. Pemberton, 3580 North Shore Drive - Variance Zoning District - LR-IC, 1/2 Acre Application *■'Remove existing cabin, replace with new home and detached garage. At least 7 variances are required for the proposed site plan. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey & Site Plan Exhibit E - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F - Hardocver Calculations Submitted Staff Review The applicant is requesting a number of variances in order to remove an existing cabin on this property and replace it with a house and detached garage. Based on the proposed site plan (Exhibit D) the following variances are necessary: 1.Lot Area Required ♦Existing Variance 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) 11,130 s.f. gross excluding lake (0.26 acre) 10,650 s.f. or 49% variance * Note that this area includes the county road, which has an easement right-of-way over the property. The easement corridor is 66' on the plat maps; the actual blacktop width is 36'. 2.Lot Width Required Existing Variance 100' 49.9' 50% 3. Hardcover ('"i'r:; Exhibits E and F) 0-75' North Lot Area = 4,180 s.f. Existing = 160 s.f. = 3.8% Proposed * 1,390 s.f. = 33,2% Allowed = 0 s.f. = 0% 75-250' (middle) Lot Area = 3,140 s.f. Existing - 640 s.f. = 20.4% Proposed = 1,600 s.f. = 51.0% Allowed = 785 s.f. = 25% 0-75' South Lot Area = 3,810 s.f. Existing = 1,840 s.f. = 48.3% Proposed = No change (Hardcover is county road pavement) Zoning File #983 October 10, 1985 Page 2 4. Average Setback Proposed garage extends 23* into average lakeshore setback zone - potentially has a major impact on views for neighbor to the east. 5. The proposed garage would require fill in the 0-75* setback area and appears to include filling below the 931.5 elevation (flood plain). Depth of fill would appear to range from 0* to 5', mainly to slope away from the garage foundation. Technically, the filling requires a conditional use permit review, and fill below 931.5* re quires MCWD review and approval. 6. The proposed garage is "structure" within the 0-75 setback area, requiring a variance since no structure is allowed (lakeshore setback variance also, requesting 30* rather than 75'). 7. Front Setback Required = 30* Existing = 25* from assumed R.O.W. line == 39* from edge of pavement Proposed = same as existing Also, note deck on road side of house; if it is at main floor level, the deck is a non-encroachment on the yard; but might technically encroach on the southerly average lakeshore setback. The magnitude of the requested variances suggests that perhaps a plan incorporating a home with attached garage, built higher rather than out ward, would be more appropriate for this property. For comparison, note the following variances which were granted to Lou Fegers in remodeling his home next door; 0-75* Hardcover (north) 75-250* Hardcover Average Setback Lakeshore Setback Granted Fegers 5.0% 56.8% 8* 63* Requested Pemberton 33.2% 51.0% 23* 30* Normal Limit 0% 25% no encroachment 75* min. Although the applicant has not really identified any hardships to the property, the obvious "hardship" property condition is the extremely limited size of the lot and the proximity of the shoreline. There are no other apparent unusual conditions; in fact, the lot is typical of small lakeshore lots in this neighborhood in which small cabins have been re placed by year-round residences. Staff would recommend that Planning Commission review the requested variances, and determine whether there is justification to grant them. You may wish to table if the applicant is interested in revising the proposal so that less extensive variances are required. h f?'-1C #983 - Addendum - 10/15/85 Mrs. Pemberton has submitted a revised proposal which decreases the north 0-75' hardcover request from 33.2% to 26%. This is accomplished by placing a tuck-under garage in the basement, entering from the north side of the house and still requiring a father lengthy driveway. There is essentially no change in the 75-250' setback zone. However, the applicant requests that the 18" high deck be allowed as non-hardcover, and will do whatever the City requires to make it non-hardcover. Recall that the Council has stated that only low decks will be given special consideration because of the low potential for storage under them. The revised plan gives a structural setback of about 58' from the lakeshore rather than 30' with the original proposal. There would be average setback variance needed under this option and likely no fill in the Flood Plain Zone (below 931.5*). However, in order to make the plan workable will require a sub stantial driveway cut which potentially could affect the neighboring garage. Also, the driveway would be fairly steep. The applicants have stated that they would like to construct a "A"-frame house, and a garage on the street side would not preserve their southerly view of the lake across the County Road. /CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION i 5^/Cyy\ J>poW*^. Initial Applicatiion Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional project) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /;/17 ^*/ Please check one — Is the property abstract or _ _ oo->(b torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Phone Mailing Address r T Name Phone 9 Mailing Address ^ yV/i^7y>^ Date Property Acquired _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (month/year) I (^^^d? no^ also own the adjacent parcel PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential^ Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ : A Describe request.in detailJ ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances (Front Side Rear) i HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations:^_ _ DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. ^ 5. Plat Map. 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. APPLICANT•S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of hpi/hpr knoy^edge^ Applicant's signature OWNERS SIGNATURE Date The owner hereby acknowledges 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 investigation and verification of this, request. ^ Owner's signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. \ ( / / *Y ^ /® / // ^ V V i>V t$¥\i Lakeshore setback zone A. Existing lot area in zone B. Existing C. hardcover in zone Existing hardcover percent D. Proposed E. hardcover in zone Proposed hardcover percent 0-75 South 3610 s, f.1840 s. f.48,3^+0 s. f.48.3% 0-75 North 4180 s. /.160 s.3.8%+1390 s. f.33.2% middle zone 3140 s. f.640 s. f.20.4%1300 s, f.41.4% HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS Staff Review ’ 7 0~75» North Lot Area - 4,180 s.f. Existing (portion of cabin) = 160 s.f. = 3.8% Proposed: (Portion of house & deck) = 230 s.f. (Garage) * 550 s.f. (Driveway) - 610 s.f. Total = 1,390 s.f. or 33.2% 75-250* Middle Lot Area = 3,140 s.f. Existing; (Cabin) (Driveway) Total = 500 s.f. = 140 s.f. = 640 s.f. or 20.4% Proposed: (House) (Driveway) (Deck)* Total = 720 s.f. = 580 s.f. = 300 s.f. « 1,600 s.f. or 51.0% ♦Not included in submitted calculations? perhaps proposing special deck treatment...? 0-75* South (Same as submitted calculations - all hardcover is county road pavement or a small segment of driveway. No changes proposed.) #983 ■” Hardcover Calculations - Second Proposal Staff Review 0-75* North Lot Area = 4,180 s.f. Existing (portion of cabin) Proposed (portion of house) (driveway & apron) Total 75-250* Middle Lot Area = 3,140 s.f. Existing: (cabin) = 500 s.f. (driveway) = 140 s.f. = 160 s.f. = 3.8% = 336 s.f. = 750 s.f. = 1,086 s.f. or 26.0% Total = 640 s.f. or 20.4% Proposed: (house) (driveway) (deck)* 720 s.f. 580 s.f. 304 s.f. Total = 1,604 s.f. or 51.1% * Deck proposed to be +/- 18” above ground. If it meets special non-hardcover standards, total 75-250* hardcover will be 1300 s.f. or 41.4% 0-75* South No changes - existing County Road *= 48.3% f TO:Planning Commission Members PROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE: October 17, 1985 SUBJ: #986 George Rovegno, 2010 Shoreline Drive Variance Update Memo ~ List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B City Administrator's Memo 6/5/85 Council Minutes 6/10/85 The City Administrator has advised that at the Council Meeting of June 10, 1985, Council's interpretation of newly amended Section 10,22 Subdivision 1 is to be interpreted as follows: (see Exhibit B) "that fence or walls 3-1/2 feet or less within 75 feet of the lakeshore are permitted." The variance sought would not be for placement but for height of fence. 42 inches allowed 60 inches + existing Reveiw of previous recommendations suggested to applicant - At various meetings with the applicant, staff has suggested the temporary use of a cabanna during the summer months to provide privacy. The applicant did not accept this offer. Staff has placed laths along the setback line that would provide adequate distance from the road and the intersection. Staff has advised the applicant that as long as the fence does not exceed a height of 3-1/2 feet above the crown of the road that this would satisfy the intent of the code. The applicant would except this offer and has agreed to trim the fence back to the required 3 feet height within any portion located 30 feet from the intersection point. The applicant has advised that the City has not placed the posts along the south side as promised; posts have been placed along Shoreline Drive's right-of-way. I have also been advised that guard rails were also to be included with the post installation. Staff will recommend to the Council that posts with guard rails be installed along the southern lot line of the access to deter trespassers. Per Section 10.03 (B) Subdivision 6 Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited. Staff would also recommend that since the applicant's property has been divided by the intersecting roadway (plat of County Rd. 15), the lakeshore parcel can no longer claim any connection or credit for principal structure on non riparian portion of property. As in the Shaver/Tearse application, applicant must apply for a variance to maintain an accessory structure on a lot that does not contain a principal structure. • I 1 TO: PROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator June 5, 1985 SUBJECT: Height of Fence Within 75 Feet Lakeshore Lot In reviewing rules regarding the height of fences as they relate specifically to the current fence on the Rovegno property, the Zoning Ordinance indicates the following: SECTION 10.22. Residential Districts. Regulations for One Family Lakeshore Subdivision 1. Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The set back from the shoreline for lakeshore lots shall be at least 75 feet and no building, fence or wall ovar forty-two inches but not in excess of seventy-two inches in height above original grade may be located closer to the shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. The Zoning Ordinance can be interpreted either as: A. Prohibiting everything within 75 feet and nothing higher th»?;n 3 1/2 feet between the 75 feet end the average setback or. B.That anything up to 3 1/2 feet is permitted within the 75 feet but that nothing higher than that within 75 feet or the average setback which ever is greater. Based on review of our practice we have apparently permitted without variance (we were unable to locate any such variance back to 1975) fences up to 3 1/2 feet within the 75 feet. Given the question raised as to interpretation regarding the Ordinance coupled with our past practice in relationship to this issue, staff is requesting the clarification on that matter. Basing the interpretation on past practice would suggest that we permit up to 3 1/2 feet within the 75 feet or average* setback. (Additionally Section 10.03 Subdivision 15 regarding nonencroachments has been understood to apply although it states it applied to yard requirements which appear to be items separate from setbacks in Orono’s code.) It's been indicated that if 3 1/2 feet is the standard within 75 feet, the owner of the property in question will reduce the size of his fence to that coupled with taking care of any public safety problems as it relates to location of that 3 1/2 feet. • ^ Should the interpretation be that nothing is permitted within 75 feet then the owner has indicated he will remove the fence however exp^ect the City to either seek variances or have removed any fences that have not been "Grandfathered In". I feel is a reasonable expectation. Should you have any further questions or comments please feel free to contact me. cc: George Rovegno OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 10, 1985 PAGE Council suggested that the people to be appointed not only come from Orono but from cities the police department serves such as Minnetonka Beach, Long Lake, and Spring Park if interested.# ORDINANCE CLARIFICATION HEIGHT OF FENCE - City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the current zoning ordinance regarding fences is vague. Bernhardson stated that based on staff's interpretation of the fence ordinance, fences up to 3 1/2 feet have been allowed in the 0-75* setback area. Bernhardson explained that the fence constructed at 2010 Shoreline Drive is a hazardous fence in that it obstructs the view of Hennepin County street signs, and the public access location. Bernhardson explained that Hennepin County permitted the owner at 2010 Shoreline Drive to construct a fence on the right of way. Bernhardson stated that the owner of 2010 Shoreline Drive and Hennepin County have agreed that if the fence is knocked down by County snow plows, Hennepin County will replace the fence. Bernhardson stated that however if the fence is knocked down by buildup of snow, it is up to the owner to replace the fence. Bernhardson noted that the fence is a public and safety nuisance standpoint as it exists. Bernhardson noted that even at 3 1/2 feet the fence could block the view from the public access. Bernhardson reported that the owner at 2010 Shoreline Drive has informed staff that if he is requested to remove the fence, he requests that staff enforce the rest of the fences around the lake. Bernhardson asked Council for clarification of the fence ordinance. One man in the audience noted that the fence depreciates the beauty and value of the shoreline. He reported that he saw a lady miss the bus because the fence blocked her view from the approaching bus. He noted that the fence makes a good fence for kids to write obsenities on. He noted that the snow will eat away the fence in the winter. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the owner claims . that the fence is for the privacy of his family members for sunbathing. Bernhardson asked the Council if they interpret the ordinance to mean that no fences are allowed in the 0-75' setback area or only 3 1/3 foot fences allowed in the 0-75* area. One lady in the audience mentioned that this fence, if allowed to stay, will set precedents for future fences around the lake. Councilmember Grabek stated that the fence is a hazard and endangers the view and safety of traffic and pedestrians in that area and that the fence should come down. Grabek noted that the view is blocked for those exiting out of the public access. Grabek noted that the owner should be tagged and ordered to remove the fence and invited to meet with the Council. OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 10, 1985 PAGE 15 id Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the hazard is actually above what the fence ordinance allows. CounciImember L. Adams movdd. Acting Mayor Frahm seconded, to affirm staff's interpretation of the fence ordinance to - allow a 3 1/2 foot fence within the 0-75 setback area. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). Counci Imember L. Adams moved. Acting Mayor Frahm seconded, to direct staff to take action and direct George Rovegno to remove the fence because of safety considerations for the public access or cut down the size of the fence to 3 1/2 feet and relocate the fence away from a hazardous location in order to alleviate the safety hazard with such relocation to be mutually agreeable with staff. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). • • • OROMO-MBDIMA-LOMG LAKE SEWER - ROBBS MOTEL DEVELOPMENT City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed with the Council the sewer line locations near Highway 12. Bernhardson stated that in order to service the Robbs Motel development property, the City of Long Lake has requested to connect into the City of Orono's sewer line without taking any units away from the City of Orono. Bernhardson stated that staff has investigated the request to see if the hookup would affect any future Orono parcels that may be developed. Bernhardson noted that staff feels it will not affect any future developments. CounciImember Grabek noted that the agreement should be written so that Long Lake will pay for any improvements if there is any problems with the sewer lines. Councilmember L. Adams moved. Acting Mayor Frahm seconded, to direct staff to negotiate with the City of Long Lake and Medina an agreement addendum regarding the hookup to Orono lines . Motion, Ayes (4}, Nays (0). BIG ISLAND STATUS REPORT City Administrator Bernhardson noted that his memo regarding the Big Island Veteran's Camp was just a status report. STATUS REPORT 2695 CASCO POINT City Administrator Bernhardson noted that 2695 Casco Point Road now has electricity and that the contractor will begin pumping of the basement 24 hours a day. Bernhardson noted that Chris Adams (builder) told staff that he could not meet the deadlines that staff set. Bernhardson noted that staff informed Adams that the City is willing to work with the builder as long as work continues on the home. Richard V. Stinson 2040 Spates Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 October 21, 1985 Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator RE: Opposition to Land Use Application #986; Rovengo Variance. behalf of my father, Richard V. Stinson, who is unable to attend this meeting. He would, however, like the Board to take note of his general opposition to the granting of a variance, based on his opinion that Rovegno's fence is Inappropriate and inconsistent with the nature of the area. Beyond this concern, he would like the Board to consider two other Questions before reaching a final decision: m » 1. Whether the fence is located on the road right-of-way. -- 2. Whether the fence creates a traffic hazard bec^.use of its height and proximity to the road. ng Thank You, Delany J. Stinson OErzf -G-'ILQFQRONO » • k- To: Pr( Date: Planning Commission Members Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator October 15, 1985 Subject: #986 George Rovegno, 2010 Shoreline Drive - Variance Zoning District - LR-IA List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Planning Commission %l«^.ces 8/19/85 Staff Sketch Planning Commission Notice of Action 8/20/85 Affidavit of Publication Certification of Mailing Property Owners' List At your August 19, 1985 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to deny applicant's appeals application seeking an interpretation of the fence ordiance (Section 10.03 Subdivision 15 (C) - amended 1/28/85). Per Planning Commission notification, the applicant was asked if he wished to amend his application to a variance procedure. The City Attorney has advised that an appeals hearing does not satisfy requirements for variance review. Planning Commission must hold a separate public hearing for the variance procedure. Pertinent Sections of the Code Section 10.22 - Regulations for one family lakeshore residential districts Section 10.03, Subdivision 16 - Traffic visibility Staff has advised that Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 & 15 - Non- c.ncroachments on yard and open spaces does not apply to a required setback area only yard areas. Section 10.22 forbids all structures within 75 feet of the lakeshore. The applicant must request a variance to place a fence of any height within 75 feet of the lake. The fence is located approximately 35 feet from the lakeshore. The applicant has advised of the many problems sustained by him and members of his family in the public's use of the 25 feet wide winter lake access. He also advises of problems with passenger vehicles as they travel along Shoreline Drive and the need for a privacy fence along the roadway. The applicant has asked the City to recommend a new location for the fence and still maintain the privacy and use of his private property. This is not an easy task given the variation in elevation between the access approach and the public road, existing structures along roadway, need to maintain required 30 feet site distance at access approach to public road. The City has placed posts along the south side of the public access in order to define the edge of applicant's private property. Applicant should advise if this is acceptable. :s Zoning File #986 October 15, 1985 Page 2 of 2 The privacy aspect of the request is more difficult because of the need for a 100% opaque fence and for a specific height because of the elevation of the'road. Staff might suggest cutting back on fence length and placing it closer to dock area. Issues to be discussed with applicant: 1. Are the posts a satisfactory attempt at marking the edge of applicant's private property? 2. Fence must be relocated away from roadway: a) 30 feet sight distance required at access - intersection with Shoreline Drive b) Reduction in length 1) Size of area that requires sunbathing privacy? 2) Maximum height of fence at new location if privacy to be achieved? Planning Commission Action If you approve applicants variance request, the fence must be re located; what guidelines will you suggest for Council's consideration. Approval can be based on the following findings: 1. City has worked with other adjacent land owners to public access and allowed specific improvements such as cylon fencing. 2. Location of only riparian access for property in relation to public road and public access. 3. Long record of public abuse of applicant's private property. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Fence to be relocated away from public road a) 30 feet sight distance must be maintained b) reduction in length of fence _ _ _ feet c) reduction in height of fence _ _ _ feet If denied use Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 for necessary findings and recommended complete removal of fence by appropriate date - winter access use begins December 1, 1985. th be ss to Minutes of the planning commission meeting held august 19, 1985. page 5 ^ #947 NORMAN & CHRISTIE DEWITT 1180 LYMAN AVENUE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:05 - 9:08 Norman Dewitt was present for this matter. Mr. Dewitt is requesting a lot area variance to build a home on a 1-1/2 acre lot in a 2 acre minimum zone. Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of and the affidavit of publication. Chairman Callahan reviewed with Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaffron staff's finding for recommendation of approval of the variance. Gaffron noted that the variance on this property had been granted twice previously and this is merely a renewal variance. Brian Palmer, 1190 Lyman Avenue, was present and stated he had no objections to the variance. It was moved by Rovegno, seconded by Goetten, to recommend approval of the variance. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). #949 GERALD ANDERSON 4495 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:11 - 9:14 Gerald and Barbara Anderson were present for this matter. Kenneth Hage, contractor-applicant, was also present. The Anderson's are requesting a variance of the average lakeshore setback to build an addition. Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Mrs. Anderson stated that the neighbors have been notified of the plans and have shown no objections. Mr. Anderson stated that he plans to keep the existing garage. It was moved by Sime, seconded by Rovegno, to approve the average lakeshore setback variance. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). GEORGE ROVEGNO SHORELINE DRIVE APPEAL-INTERPRETATION OP FENCE ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:16-10:17 Mr. & Mrs. George Rovegno were present for this matter. At this time, George Rovegno stepped down as a Planning Commission member for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the certificate of and the affidavit of publication. Mabusth explained Mr. Rovegno's appeal which dealt with the interpretation of an amended ordinance (amended 1/28/85) Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 Non-Encroachments (C) regarding fences. of he nd ng MINUTES or THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGOsT 19, 1985. PAGE 6 #950 ROVEGNO continued is‘’whethe^r tp\ssu”bef ore th^Planni^ clii^sHonIS whether the amended ordinance dealt specificallv with lots that abut lakeshore and reared major th“roughfaL^or streets or did it deal with any kind of lakeshore yard that is in^iercepted by a major thoroughfare. Y^ra mat is Per Commission member Taylor's reauest 7oninr» Administrator Mabusth gave examples of Orono properties that fit closeJ^y to her interpretation of the ordinance: lots along Shadywood, the corner lot on Oxford Rd. McDonald mentioned the Pillsbury property is a good example. Administrator Mabusth contends that the problems is not dealing with the non-encroachment of yard requirements, but lakeshore setback requirements. equirements. Chairman Callahan noted that the Planning Commission has before them (this evening) another proposed amendment to the for them to consider. Callahan inquired wh-ther th^is hearing would be a waste of time if they were to approve the amendment. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the proposed amendment dealt only with fences 3-1/2 feet above the ground. expressed to staff that he would be willing administratively to relocate the fence, but as It stands the ordinance clearly permits the fence. Art Tourangeau, 2060 Spates Ave., stated that he felt the fence would create a hazard during the winter with snow build-up against the fence and the narrowness of the road when one wants to turn on Spates Ave, Lyle and Norma Godfrey, 2060 North Shore Drive, were present for this matter. Norma Godfrey felt that the fence depreciates the value of their property, two sections of the fence have already been removed because of graffiti, the fence is dangerous, it is distracting to motorist,and blocks the view of the lake. Ms. Godfrey stated that she also believes this fence has been planned for some time and cited dates of filings and notices proving so. Ms. Godfrey also noted that taxpayers' monies have been spent on the court proceedings involved with Mr. Rovegno's threatened litigation with the County over the used right-of-way of County Rd. 15 and the out of court settlement granting Rovegno the right to erect a fence within the easement for road maintenance, and would like to see the fence removed. Chairman Callahan stated that the comments from the public are well taken, but the Planning Commission' s purpose at this point, is to decide whether Mr. Rovegno had the right to erect tne fence without a permit as the ordinance stands today. Minutes of the planning commission meeting held augu^^t 19, 1985. page 1 #950 ROVEGNO continued Mr. Povegno explained his purpose of the proceedings with Hennepin County which were brought up by Norma Godfrey. He then went on to explain his many reasons for erecting the fence which include; trespassing, litter & dumping, physical & verbal assault, vandalism, road noise, speeders & illega'' parking, and screens him from zoning code violations. Mr. Rovegno stated that the fence is there to protect him from the negative impact of a major thoroughfare. Mr. Rovegno stated that he has tried to grow bushes but the salt kills them. Mr. Rovegno stated he believed he had the approval of the Zoning Administrator, Hennepin County, Dept, of Transportation, City Attorney, Hennepin County Board, and the decree of the Judge, proving his prudence in this matter. He also noted that since he has erected this fence, he has not had any of the problems he previously stated. Mr. Rovegno stated that the issue before the Planning Commission is to determine whether Code Section 10.03 Subdivision 15 (C) applies only to rear yards which abut a major thoroughfare and not lakeshore front yards that abut a major thoroughfare; and that his lot is subject to standards that protect the viewing rights of lakeshore lot owners since the lot is divided by a public road. Mr. Rovegno cited Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) and then presented two diagrams showing typical front & rear yards of lakeshore properties. Mr. Rovegno stated that he felt the intent of this section of the code was to provide privacy along the lakeshore which is severly enfringed by a major thoroughfare. Regarding the viewing rights by neighboring lots, Mr. Rovegno stated that his lot is a contiguous riparian lot. Mr. Rovegno questioned why the City has taken action against his fence when there are numbers of other fences, which he submitted 11 photos of such fences. For record, Phil Kaley, 1395 Brown Rd. S., was present for this matter. There were no other comments from the public. Zoning Administrator Mabusth advised the Planning • Commission of commission member Kelley' s opinion on this matter denying the appeals application because lots like the applicant's are unusual and special requiring individual review. This specific section of the ordinance was never designed to cover lakeshore lots divided by a major thoroughfare within a lakeshore yard because of the obvious view problem. Commission member Sime stated that he felt staff has acted correctly noting his agreement with the fence being a Public Nuisance per Section 9.22 and he would deny the appeal. for ic. HINUTES of the planning commission meeting UELD AUGUST 19, 1985. PAGE 8 #950 ROVEGNO continued Conunission member Goetten stated that she feels that the fence does not meet the intent and standards of Section 10.03 Subdivision 15 (C) and agrees will Sime. Commission member Taylor stated that he agrees with the applicant's contention that the fence conforms with Section 10.03 Subdivision 15 (C). Commission member McDonald stated that she agreed with Sime and Goetten. Chairman Callahan stated he agreed with Sime, Goetten, and McDonald. Callahan stated that he felt Section 10.03 Subdivision 15 (C) was not referring to Rovegno's type of property and didn't consider his kind of problem. Commission member Sime stated that in addition to Section 9.22 permitting a public nuisance, he felt that this fence is endangering the safety of those using the public access under Section 9.21 a public nuisance. Mr. Rovegno statv-d that the public access at the end of Spates Ave. was a public nuisance, whether his fence is there or not. The ruling of the Planning Commission was 4-1 to deny the appeal and find that staff's interpretation of the ordinance is correct. Sime, Goetten, McDonald, and Callahan in favor of denial. Taylor against denial. 1952 frai;k kokesh 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD APPEAL-INTERPRETATION OF STOCK FARM AND HOME OCCUPATION SECTIONS PUBLIC HEARING Neither Mr. Kokesh or his attorney were present for this matter. Because of his absence, it was moved by Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to table this matter until the September 16th meeting. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). Earl and Betty Dorn, 4045 Watertown Road, were present for this matter. Chairman Callahan agreed to hear them but informed them that no action would be taken at this meeting. Mr. Dorn stated that Mr. Kokesh's operation has been in violation for years and the city has failed to do anything about it until now. He feels that residents should receive equal treatment. Chairman Callahan assured Mr. Dorn that if the applicant fails to appear at the next meeting action will be taken in his absence. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: George Rovegno COPIES TO: 2010 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: XXX Appeals Date of Meeting: 8/19/85 COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Vote: ZONING FILE NO.VJ 5 0 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice 8/20/85 For Against To deny your appeals application seeking an interpretation of the fence ordinances (Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) - amended 1/28/85). Please advise me prior to the September 9th Council meeting if you wish to amend the application to a variance procedure. It was my understanding that your position has always been that your fence is legal and conforms to the standards of Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C). Deadline Date: Please advise Jeanne Mabusth If you desire copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder of City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. \\ 0CT-8I9B6 1 1m1I? k 1 ^ ^ _j-|_ -- ^ ' i-i • Daniel Crear 1980 Spates Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 John T. Spence 2040 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 Lyle Godfrey 2060 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 Olai Hanson 1390 Railroad Avenue P.O. Box 129 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 F.J. Olden 1380 Railroad Avenue P.O. Box 72 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Helen Bowers 2055 Spates Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 Everett Miller P.O. Box 46 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Harriet Spates Tourangeau 2060 Spates Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 Richard Stinson 2040 Spates Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 4 TO:Planning Commission Members Drive FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE: October 16, 1985 SUBJ: #985 Balboa Minnesota Co., 3700 Shoreline Drive Sketch Plan Review Zoning District - LR-lC-l Area - 9.84 Acres 7.76 dry acres 2.08 wetlands Pertinent Ordinance - 10.26 Subdivision 3 Additional Permitted Uses 10.32 PRD The applicant proposes an apartment of 40 units with accesses provided on Shoreline Drive and Livingston Avenue. The structure will not exceed 30 feet in height. Based on the density credit applied for, the proposal well exceeds the allowed number of units. Proposed =40 Units Allowed = 29.5 or 30 Units (3 units per total acreage) 3 X 9.84 = 29.5 or 30 units In'a court settlement involving the down zoning of the property back in 1975, the courts granted 36 maximum units to the property but those units were to be designed to meet all zoning standards. I doubt whether 18 townhomes or 9 quads (36 units) could be located on the site and meet all required setbacks (wetlands, unit setbacks, road setbacks). Our current code allows a maximum of 29.5 or 30 units. Review Section 10.26 Subdivision 3. The application would require a variance to Sub-section (C) - single structure not to exceed 4 units. Variance to Sub-section (H) as it appears a variance to Section 10.60 Subdivision (2) the proposed density exceeds 4 units to 1 acre - proposed 40 units - maximum allowed under this section are 38.5 or 38/39 units. Staff finds the use of the apartment concept aesthetically and functionably acceptable in light of the physical layout of the land. The problem is the appropriate section of the code specifically the PRD and the special density credit under LR-lC-1 sections do not address apartment use. There are no performance standards that deal with the special needs of apartment dwellings. One item of concern that should be addressed up front is the issue of the proposed access onto Shoreline Drive. During the Schlee project review, the Hennepin County Highway Dept, and the City conducted a comprehensive review of the future development of the property to the west and the safest access onto Shoreline. It was not to be located within the Tonka Toys property but further west. The project will have to be served via Livingston Ave. until the western lots are developed. The City Engineer will respond to this issue during the formal review of the application. Zoning File #985 October 16, 1985 Page 2 Staff should confirm that there is adequate capacity in municipal water and sewer lines to serve additional units. Planning Commission may direct staff to bring this sketch proposal before the Council for direction as to the need for a code amendment. Planning Commission formal action is not required but applicant does seek direction. a) if the proposal is acceptable, direct staff to bring the application before the Council and ask the Council to consider the necessary amendment of the code to address apartment use based on the following findings: 1) Consistent with the intent of the LR-IC zoning district and PRD development standards. 2) Demands for economies in construction. 3) Changes in lifestyle - need to address demands of modern family or extended family. 4) This type of construction can cut down on excessive hardcover associated with multiple unit development. b) If the proposal is not acceptable per current standards and you find this type of development not consistent with existing patterns of development, direct the applicant to file a PRD application with single units not to exceed level of 4. Total number of structures may not exceed number allowed by courts at 36. t*ei r /V r Vi?iV>*^ct? j ua — --TflT --4 —- ) .2 l i tc»ca*/’44W' < 1 «r •(i) : _____-A. • %#- »*f ^07 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR STEVEN J. RUCE AM) SCOTT LUSE IN WEST BRANCH HILL I SECTION 7-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA I hereby certify Uut this Is • true ind correct representation of a survey cf the boundaries of Lot 1. Block 1. WEST BRANCH HILL, and The torth 208.71 feet of the Cast 200.71 feet of the Northeest quarter of the Northwest quar- ter of Section 7. Township 117, Range 23. Hemepln County, and the location of all existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to show other !■> proveawnts or encroacNwents. COFFIN A 6R0NBER6. INC. 12755 Gordon R, Coffin Reg. m. 6064 Engineers A Land Survejors Long Like. Minnesota “7mm Scale:1 incti > SO feet Date :August 19.198S 0 Iron aarker PROPOSED DESCRIPTIONS A. Lot 1. Block 1, WEST BRANCH HILL. EXCEPT tfe East 60 feet thereof. B. The North 2(».71 feet of the East 208.71 feet of the Northwest quafter of the Itorthwest quarter of Section 7. fewnship 117, Range 23. Hennepin I. WEST BRANCH HILL. 3 County. ALSO, the East 60 feet of Lot 1. Block ■K W • OS M 1Hi ^0, 1 f / P c t* i'jr iii ■>:S r-;' ^ i M 10 >11 \\ ■3 / » >* •^'r/^ - ^ fjr » - \ Vi > > \\- - \ A ^v«f' A *■. N CaOitT fe‘feV-rr^ V*^ It;^ Kr-.l»h» Un# driiv« fr«^ • |o^ Li.t... <*•« •'»:•. *:i* !Tm,,. .. ih.. K.«h l.~ .« wSS.t Ktpr“t>.;^«. Wr« or lr*» t'» J**^<»* 'J.o that por» of Undon >-»«»» r.;rti^”it:‘'!'^t”r.Utr/.“^i sf.a. m cr ...u cum, .t «-~r ■ ■ 0r<^« »>Hm na>nf **** *'■»»******* pan«t«t - -------tllfKtf*^.* DTt|%KA «AMnrt '^y‘rp ....-■vf.Yom I'f"-v.r •—'■ «L,S>«r»< ^ W./ \ • ’ “»• -* •■! V* *• v« IkH •* PREPARED POR SID BRENNAN "1 mmrn f\ J 5 aI;!! ^3 |5 SL^l% ^o a? « 2.t 3 s .» 3s|^ ■ 2 ^ £ 3 f 3 o%L ** la Ck o n* aa o = s i:. -» 1 I312 -?•? -is. AC* 11/ r fX wilU #976 k*--x 11"...^* v.^a» -V f^ MIB •«;««•« «f calm •«**■ Mrt ^3ars--Piw»«-ht ustTiuiiiiinr.TAU. Pygmy Goats Make Profitable Pets Uite«taralaMiilip«.«»MlMi mmmd Um0 v»^ "V ^' ^fUmwmM^rn % m» A»4nww»w««i Growers Aiming For First 500 lb. Pumpkin • • < C. V TTuiin------* ■*-* “ ** IH« SMt. to • toi* '■■or . WwM fum9kkm CmtmdrnntiM ■ IWTQ rft toM -A Ottetof Tto e»ft«»l ••tl4 »*«y5 ‘ HiMp^tr vwto HMwr4 Oli. WitoM. Ito« Soito. M toMto ta rA*l4 SHOW two TMi* •••»• V«i t.No 1 Hiomliiaow^tto.wioto ^Iitot.4«>o.olio.ato41toli^ Mock. ttoM dito II kottri^ ------•-» hi to! !•«'• , t—cf to aniowf c*«^ Virtoy: too4. Iro*WOtoto «to too |M to, NO.to •"iSr",-.--*-- M>»»—iMloi4iww *oSt*"toooMtoMHi 0. laifi^tollto^ctoitollL; I ' 'y* vf.p.f *3^ to* »*<• #976 iwot guy, but his pTtonolity it bloh’ ' ^ [ Loving a pygmy ooaf is< no small projec t 'si^ssoBssfiSsssr I f—r^S-^ > •" ;• J ■’■J35 •?■ M iT »sSS5SSE^5»' ---------- pMiMLy ant*M*IMtMMfcffw tw«rw*li l«t4 )-------- ---------- .« ^ •..-••• - i' ^ r 4r ^JL -I #976 I if amiy gave up goat, but wW take dispute to court M TIN (1t> CM MW MNMM to My tor vwbttot to* cMr » yMMc mmm:* arMtoaoc* M tor taMM • vu« atoMM mM to touawMU to ttato tackjM «M la wiaa to atotototo H. MM ta*a to caatoM toa MM to a «Mp M4* toa«r haato ar iM na *« A <«*aMaMto«toa: toftoMatol ■aar aacaaaa to* 4Miai Ml a gw araMaatotiMaaatatoi Vi/ V.i I sr.'caic.-.. WW» to* aw to a Maait feaMr w to totoi ra aa iy . WB aaa aaw aaa M totoM ato *( toatMBM «M AcaytaaM HWtoM ^**a a aaaai ■rmto'Caaiartoiaayato*'* ««r toatoacaa • I*.___________________________________^ -- - ■ — - iaiMctoaSM maftotpaLNi •mat** aad iar «>9wydw<M wWtoartW «k* haa*v aw wnr aai wa» toto tor tsto kacauM •»••*• ■'•^^iwiiaa anoto *to«Mi. I toW to toatoaiwtogta^Mtoaato fc»*a *» racara ctaaa ' Wtoa^totoMCatoMl IMgWMaMMto* arnaaaar aHtotoaraaai Htok Jaa Sawawn totolM to* M yrtotoaw «W«i l*« Maarriaal Court lotm Maai myatwa««*r>atototo>r w>katoratoe»i*a*W*l«**r** cail*«l taatoraaca aa to* aw eaia. M1^“""“"“**“ -2:^S3isrrsS!» •ato •>« rotoir t rar»« aa, caato tvaiwnn laW to* iW M i rain. to**0«a •**•■ M »* totoWMtoa a piai rtol aatoW toal y aato M a car* atrara* jw^ tK **<>»>§a a WWaaMamaatoyMaaiawca t-awar »» w toal a* to>4 inito •mil* aaa caar w aatoti aai•aac«>amrtoto giwaartoaaaaatikark liw tor*aayiMto*gaai cWaraa aaawa a IWaa** /0-2' «5 »17t aSl K—I m • ***T*^*^ N.fvirjw 1 #976 r r.- 4^.:;v . fX. 2.'tr J** ^ ii . -' W€" 1^ ‘iv <-'r j^ ..jjailfaMiyiiM,i .c-:--................ -si . t ‘ ■■kT.’^' .'•t** *4.* .,,. . i. K - ■ ' ■ •-■,.* -11 pA^ a' i • /' b» / J u _____.#l C'} \ lP Oi / , -^.. -. t ' '.• */ .aili ;r*^ r'. ^ ;..' |»4 ^ ^ - \t ; ■ ^11^^ f 1* a(rX| -® - ' 1 ^ n 1-- iltAt .i4' « - -6 / Vi-OOS. FLM •> *V '/ ' ' ^ >, .............. .■„ ij-1.;■' *“’'M- V. ., •■ ; : ■: ,> -A- ,, . .- ' ' • »;i .p. . * ■■.“;■ .• / :.; >. 'V <» V . *< ' ^ ■» J1 * It* ■■ A-.V^l- EcsotP/^ErNST u\?rr ’•K -m h't'i tC^T ift»i eLA..H^.,-'^~r rt-;>ai;^. KLaf P^iKri*^-Ai T - ^-4 -‘ wV|^--< »i*’ ~T^I. 1. vi':>f r ’ticvai/Aty~;vJ I y ; IT<LH«CAi Ca\ ■7ao’ 5-^s.H <tgi^iijnrg.a. rc.L.t c.*>^g. JiiZ^I^S^aJ^—fa4?ti?rrTC&. I j— •t^ •'■a - \<ic fi.wn: i>k^A.fc— 4,_iiS:i >^'ja lJilL4 W-ia^ e>rfei:ag---------—^-------, C,g.^i^Tg:g- -STi^^sitA J^dLJmi-itliJBLS, - WjJfcfe yfeafcftfeii Awjidgg. ^tAKliS i^r>KfcT^4i o.r ■' :.r:^i .fA-fcra gj^ u ni5l I ^ \.i JUt^ i \i Iv^.j i^iL rT, \f^hdr. .jt* ’*-<**-T t£d£lML.. . M ir^ni.'i-i;:>ii V’ / ‘ .^ .. ^ V' NIELSCN SHEET METAi *,^»A cAiif «« ^ ** moo*i^ «•*«» 1MNKMia*«MM «*«•$CJ>^smmmtf , \^[_, m*tto 1: