Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-18-1985 Planning Packet
r PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1985 7:30 P.M. 1275 BROWN ROAD SOOTH - OODNCIL 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 • James Grabek ATTENDANCE 1. CONSENT AGENDA* ACTION ITEMS 2. #929 Lyle Rahn, 1146 Wildhurst Trail - Conditional Use Permit Third Review 3. #983 Walter H. Pemberton, 3580 North Shore Drive - Variance Second Review 4. #987 Robert J. Bauman, 1040 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Public Hearing 5. #988 James E. Mertes, 3237 Casco Circle - Va iance - Public Hearing 6. #989 Hennepin County Department of Transporation, Hendrickson Access - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing 7. #990 Ward Ferrell, 3411-3415 Watertown Road - Variance - Public Hearing 8. #991 William Ulrich, 1535 Bohn's Point Road - Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing 9. #992 City of Orono, County Road 15 at Spates Avenue - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing POSTPONED until December 16, 1985 10. #993 Tonka Transmission, 1960 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing 11. #994 Frank Kokesh, 4100 Watertown Road - Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing 12. Zoning Amendment - Refer To Planning Commission Minutes For Amendments of Last Meeting ADDITIONAL ITEMS *13. Planning Commission approval of October 21, 1985 minutes. 14. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the December 9, 1985 Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT Planning Conunission Council PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE / \~ ' • « \ PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) V. 9 \NjdjLtkjuui ^ IQ ^ % H/?////! C^i/7/tI^ / EW >X5(, » 9r? 9^7 ^ 3_-a 9S'3 V' a~to4 ( U'^nt'Kj^o ►?«. SiviiTi^____________95C> I ctUte Tf« jo HO ' PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO Vri- ■MEETING DATE jl' I ^ ^ PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. la) \ NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) A. Piv \l,As p»ohn^ Pf. __-¥rqq\ ^---------------------------------------------- <#■ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. ■ '1 ! r To: From: Date: Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator November 14, 1985 I : 1 ^ • Subject: #929 Lyle Rahn, 1146 Wildhurst Trail - Conditional Use Permit - Third Review This application was tabled at your October 21st meeting pending a review of the hardcover and drainage situation. You will recall that the general attitude of the Planning Commission was to grant the conditional use permit for guest cabin usage subject to the hardcover being made as conforming as is feasible, and subject to applicant addressing the drainage problems. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Survey With Hardcover Hardcover Calculations Conceptual Drainage Control System (By Applicant) Planning Commission Minutes of 10/21/85 Notice of 10/22/85 Staff Memo of 10/17/85 With Notes Exhibits A and B show that existing hardcover in the 0-75' set back zone is less than 2%. In the 75-250' setback zone, existing hardcover is about 35.5%. This could realistically be reduced only a few percentage points. The stairways and walkways on the property are for the most part necessary for the usability of the property due to the steep slopes. The upper driveway is about as small as possible while still being functional. The lower driveway -s graveled about halfway across the lot, and also serves a access for the City to maintain its sewer line which crosses the property. The property has an obvious drainage problem as you can see along the south side of the house, where erosion is occurring. Suggest applicant proposes a swail/gutter and cistern or "dry well" system which would transport the run-off from the hills above the house to temporary storage for underground discharge. This would create the need for additional hardcover (note the 5' wide blacktop strip in Item C-5) but if functional would ultimately tend to reduce the amount of sediment entering the lake from the surface run-off. I would suggst that the applicant obtain the advice of a qualified engineer before actually constructing such a system. City Engineer, Glenn Cook's initial thoughts on this are that a catch basin and underground pipe would be better than the swale. The only item of hardcover that could realistically be reduced is to remove the plastic from beneath the wide stairway between the house and the lower driveway. This might drop it to about 34.5%. The added swail (about 5'xlOO') would bring this back up to about 39%. zoning File #929 November 14, 1985 Page 2 of 2 Staff would recommend the Planning Commission take the following course of action: 1. Approve the conditional use permit for guest house use with the standard non-rental clause. 2. Recommend that the plastic under the wide stairway be removed (or replaced with permeable fabic). 3. Recommend that the applicant consult a qualified engineer prior to construction of any drainage control system, and require staff review of the design and hardcover additions necessary to accomplish same. 4. Set a maximum limit of 34.5% hardcover in the 75-250' zone for this property, exclusive of the additional hardcover necessary for whatever drainage system is approved by the City in the future. m . ^ co\/ i^r<L j I C .>•.1 ^ C 'i’ V ^ ^ I ^ ^ r S'iC.y^rJ X *:/6S.*/ - (TaH 70 ,s!> ry \H. ^03, y M “: .. ew. sJuL ^ 2- Tr - //« ^ 6 * jHut^ ^ ^ ' .................................................................... /o i^ /-</' .Vi n.'l 7^ 2. oC - V^o." J7? ^ |l^0 0 ^ “ )3i 4J\'^ y y^ s tJ). 70 X )i- -J' J7.)S X Z9. 2S IS. X XQ )^ y 9! S yns-Jioo -hji^,,.,r ‘/ri‘1. ? Tstil ff^ .............:;.ijriA r s-S 2u^.^f n rk (eiyi^et> et sta ^ e.^cot^Asovr 'T-nriii t'i J^P lica ^t •*■7 rr*,% .■ «■•«• STtf - P «! #A«eA -^s-ajTts'r /IS'a 42-^' }K&!'2> f>^U , }AM-^6d\) rvC 7 S' 2.*SO' r H«‘CL4« — ■— fcizcM • •'• -t •-• ^^w/t-£> <2»f^ (?C\>v<CtO //^ (?<Vv^oV/|0(- Pc^S'*'^^ ^ - /©as* 2-OG? „ ..................................... 6>C^Cs^ 1 B'2^ ^o<^rf'<. V>'Ujfi,'i ^ — -............ #4o«^«' 3/S' / //> *7r-2TT>' 2,0 C# /ao ^ r’?r D g-c < U^oc>> Crtr^z r® Lo-^i'u ff .Tc T. ^ro S'itt ^s upfc>2, //jc tlA£>t^^.* C itV e>*^T A j MAie£> CE»v/ri^- V,^‘=17 : 0-~?Z' )S ttSi TV^f^ 2-7a H,9iZ r 2S.S <:;<■» cr/A-> MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 21, 1985. PAGE 6 #967 6 #968 JOHN B. IDSTROM 2580 POX STREET PRELIMIHARY SUBDIVISION ft CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - SECOND REVIEW was mov©d by Chairman Callahan» s6cond©d by Sime^ to tabl© this matter due to an incomplete application. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. ^ #979 DONALD C. WILDMAN 280 WAKEFIELD ROAD AFTBR-THB-PACT VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING It was moved by Chairman Callahan, seconded by Sime, to table this matter due to an incomplete application. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. /f92^YLB RAHN 4I1LDHURST TRAIL CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT - SECOND REVIEW Callahan explained the application for a Conditional Use Permit to use an existing cabin as a guest house. Lyle Rahn was present for this matter. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that an actual hardcover review of the property has not been done. Kelley stated he was agreeable with the guest house use but felt there was a problem with the hardcover. Mr. Rahn proposed a cistern as a possible solution to the drainage problem. He also stated that his son is living in the guest house for the summer. Mr. Rahn noted that back in 1974 the structure was 75' from the lakeshore but since has lost approximately 5 feet as shown in the 1985 survey. Kelley stated that he felt the Conditional Use Permit be issued subject to the hardcover in the 75-250* realistically conform with that allowed. It was moved by McDonald, seconded by Kelley, to table this matter pending the actual hardcover calculations and solving drainage problems. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. GUEST HOUSES/APARTMENTS Due to the recent applications for guest houses/apartments, it was moved by Chairman Callahan, seconded by McDonald, to recommend adopting a resolution/moratorium suspending applications for guest houses/apartments until staff can review and make recommendations. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 1. Rovegno voted nay stating that he does not feel moratoriums should be taken lightly and felt that staff should be instructed to promptly review and make recommendation. CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONING FILE NO. 9 29 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 10/22/85 TO:Lyle Rahn 1146 Wildhurst Trail Mound, MN 55364 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: XX Conditional Use Permit Date of Meeting: 10/21/85 Vote: 5 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: XX Tabled: For reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled pending additional information regarding the existing hardcover percentages. The intent is to remove as much excessive hardcover as is practicable. Planning Commission in effect gave a conceptual approval to the Conditional Use Permit for the guest house. Please contact Mike Gaffron to discuss the additional information needed. The next Planning Commission meeting is November 18, 1985. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the November 18th meeting is November 8th, 1985. If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Department (473-7357). If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission, r : t f TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: o lAv"* r' t' ’ Ur * '<'Planning Conunission Members ^ Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Ocotber 17, 1985 *0 'y ; r ■' *: #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 h 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- 13-35 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 7-15-85 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 receipt of additional information. To briefly review: Rahn requested a variance in 1974 to construct a new home at 1146 Wilvt'n\rst Trail. Official minutes indicate the variance was gra;.^^;d subject to removal of the existing cabin. The variance was i unewed 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. I r //7<i .A" #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. b) 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. e)The variances necessary to be granted are sufficiently minor r-o as to justify allowing the structure to remain as a guest house. The following variances are required: 1) Lot area -2.0 acres required-fox;^guest house in 1 acre zone; existing lot area * 0.65 acres; variance = 1.35 acres (10.20 Subd. 3(G) )V- -" \/ ■ 1 #929 Lyle Rahn October 17, 1985 Rage 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). or 2. Allow the structure to remain, but deny variances and Conditional Use Per nit for guest house (would have to remove plumbing). Appropriate Findin »s; (Rework findings from Option 1 to fit your recommendatio ). or 3.Recommend that stru ture be totally removed. Appropriate Findings (Find the reverse of a and d above to be true, and find that t ;e variances are too extensive to allow the structure to cor inue). ^idPrlr'i -tVa'T /•'''r.-//’ •r / vv-' *f 7 O c-L^L c_./ fj t,uu ^,0 rr>'^e: - —— \ 33.2%32.7%32.7%17% 51.0%47.5%47.5%52.3% 10'6.5'9 * house 4* 23'15* 5* garage 15'no >rder ►pli- wish 0-75* lard- able posed ion 3 \ no tcroechnenl 5* deck >ortion of iouse* not! luch fill none Zoning File #983 November 13, 1985 Page 2 * Note that since Fegers does not own lakeshore on the south side of County Road 51, the south "average setback" necessarily stems from the required 30' setback and the relative conformity with the neighboring residences, all of which are less than 30' from the R.O.W* line. ^ ' In reviewing the options, note that Options 1 and 2 make ust-. fel attached garage but vary the setbacks to the west lot line to pr''?%ide greater backup area. Option 3 uses a tuck-under garage exiting to the east, requiring raising the main floor about 5' and requiring a 4| setback to the west line, but does reduce the 0-75' hardcover needed. Virtually all the proposals show a deck on the front side which will be closer to the road than the adjacent houses, and the proposals all show the house (and adjacent houses) less than the required 30' to the right-of-way line. In each proposal, the applicant would request that the deck be considered as non—hardcover; the Council has not granted this status in the past for decks over 18" off the ground such as proposed in Option 3. Note also the history of this property. A Mr. Perry Gobel owned 3570 and 3580 North Shore Drive prior to 1973. Prior to Gobel's ownership. Lot 6 (3570) and Lot 7 (3580) had been combined for tax purposes, and Gobel bought the two as "a house and guest house". In 1973 Gobel sold the guest house (3580) and realized they were considered one property. He went before the Council, and was allowed to re-separate the two lots, in order to cons^- mate the sale. Note that virtually no record of the actual review discussions appear in the minutes. The consequences of that action were manifested in the variance application referred to by Corririssioner McDonald at your October meeting. She noted this property had been denied variances for a small addition in 1976. Staff has located the documentation for this variance application, and it is attached in the Exhibits. Note that the Council at that time did recommend that the applicant submit a revised proposal to build "up" in stead of "out". No garage was apparent in the plans at that time. The Pemberton proposal appears to exceed the variances requested in 1976. The Planning Commission is requested to review the documentation and the options presented, and consider the following: 1. Should variances be granted? Is there a hardship to justify granting of variances? 2. If so, what magnitude of variances is acceptable? 3. Do any of the proposed options fit within the framework for which you would grant variances? 4. Are the property rights of the Pembertons and of the neighbors protected? Planning Commission has the option to recommend approval, denial or tabling of this application. If you choose to table pending additional revisions of the site plan^ you should give clear and concise di^ectic^ o the applicant as to what limits or boundaries you will recommend as acceptable for the various variances required. Any motion to approval should enumerate the hardships present and address each o variances allowed. A recommendation for denial would have to detail the ^ /city of ORONO “ VARIANCE APPLICATION i Oou^. t/o Initial Application 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.) Please check one — Is the property abstract or _ _ torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Phone 93r^~f 7^ Mailing Address OWNER Name Phone 93r~-/7^ Mailing Address ^ Date Property Acquired _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (^do no^ also own the adjacent parcels (month/year) I ( r-^SWSl' PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Cg^ntiaD . Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ______________.M.___/ Estimated Construction Cost $ f ^ ^^ Describe request.in detail: ^GtAj VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) (OVER) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual f^perty conditions preventing compliance with Requirements; / ■^jLt 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 h^/h^r knoy^edge^ OWNERS SIGNATURE Applicant's 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, reoiiest. Owner's signatur 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. \ 1 rrra -4 0 2SSii 3 TJ m tl m > :a \ > > ni Z o a z > o r-i -1? XI 3^00 M C Z o m t» Z W Z ^ rn HZ H m Z ^ Q f m » Z r- Z O ^ ni H > a X H g aISIS3 a m *tjm > a \ -< ► > m z o a a > a a 3 a a m CJ Nj n m g o o Q H s Cl a t : o zH X M -n o m z iAZ w • ni a o Mi$i|im fi a r* -n a m w 3 ^ a i;i >0)vn (A z a ^ c «• M m Z»— H O O m > r- I- ni ►-Ha o — HO 3am m > a N -< > m z o a > o 3 a m 3 -C' r a M in > m Z r- a Z >4 H n m m H H Gi a o > n z -< a g o m m a ^ m M 2 H ui< > H fv» Z \M Z>3 a m a m > a N H ^ > > m z o o a > a o 5 a a m o o a M a a m 3 H 3 ni H z m a z z z a 5 m H H m m in o in a C. C. O 04 > > 04 Q» 3 3 in m m ^ c/i in o o 03a a I »— a a z m m o Nj M M X 04 a aM M cn ^ m m X 04 n n o m m a o > O O § in in z in X o ^ 9 Co a o ►- m •< 04 a aSS|S $8iS •• r" _ ^ nanO M Xm in H H tn sc m X §3m m •• a Z r- r-> in m a H in o r- in r- m _ M rr ni > a > r H ® a► p4 a M > ^ m ZHtig N s s s> mm M > u z a Q in Q o z in a m m 04 m r* in ^ — a c.ssm a in m s in M in X S3 isSi*in a o a a H 1— m a !!!a in mo a 2 m o ma04 ^ m in O 04 ^ 2 2 ino a a a -I ft L0t t. Crytlal Bo» Vlt« % SEC.St.1!7,R.23 M ^ *%s •:-.• r (if) i / * t A'i i. '•-•rt.'‘ i>•■) 1 •' o:' riir-’/ ;y r v.fsM ’r . .•••-'r.l.'.rto;, r !/)t, 7, Mc-rk i. .'.ir ihr'/. Honnonin County, y.iM.-JSotQ f \ / m / / / />, / e*^cyc^ht frq V® r* ifMHlSl ^77 T h'jreby rort-ify tru'i* this is a truo ar.ii ro rivet rtv ro.t.'itv•;•. o*‘ -i : v.rvc; o!' ih'- t- ; ;rv s .'f ‘./5t 7, 7, I'aldur ur/.i the driv ‘V*y, ar.c road It cr-'T, r.ot mu ’nort tc jhnv cth';r ir.- • « t rov ‘rv':nt r- f?r.civr:rhror.tr . ‘'tA \ cok;J> j. ’S' btik. y ^ 1 ‘OCtJ ;' ■ ’Sra V-I/it o <.' I A. * < • : *Ti Iron rark'ir V—" z'; Gcrdrr. K. rorfir. \ ff to. ’ • 1 f 1 • r-.)w-» ^ •' * ^ «*vl • JL»'*.4.wA / .z Vt V-' 0^ fJ'‘' J.e' y.irjioiiotu ♦ ' •* «• t:y/^ » .• Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffronr 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 - Submitted Exhibit F ~ Hardocver Calculations - 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: Lot Area Required ♦Existing Variance 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) 11,130 s.f. gross excluding lake 10,650 s.f. or 49% variance (0.26 acre) . 1 * 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*. Lot Width Required Existing Variance 100* 49.9' 50% 3. Hardcover (See Exhibits E and F) * i 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 3,14 0 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) Granted Requested Fegers Pemberton 0-75' Hardcover (north)5.0%33.2% 75-250' Hardcover 56.8%51.0% Average Setback 8'23’ Lakeshore Setback 63'30* % ea, >ack #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 rather 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 no 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. sted You osal MINUTES OP TDE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 21, 1985. PAGE 10 1978 McENENY continued Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that a clause in the resolution approving Kel]y Cove stated "Outlot A may never be used for future residential construction, but shall remain as an open space area as density credit for existing duplex unx^s••• • McDonald stated that she felt by granting this variance they would be setting a precedent for "open space". There were no persons present objecting and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Callahan, seconded by Kelley, to deny the variance application. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 2. Rovegno and Sime voted nay. Rovegno voted nay stating he felt it was a reasonable request and that it would be more appropriate to park the cars indoors rather than in view outside. Sime voted nay stating that denying solely because of the previous "open space" clause was not taking a realistic view point. WALTER H. PEMBERTON NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:26 - 10:5^ The Certificate of mailing and affidavit of publication was noted. The purpose of the public hearing was to consider a request to remove an existing cabin and replace with a new home and detached garage. The following 7 variances are required for the proposed site plan: lot area, lot width, hardcover, average setback, conditional use permit for filling, lakeshore setback, and 5ront setback. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed the proposed site plan. Goetten questioned why the driveway and garage needed to be located in the back of the house rather than the road side. Mr. & Mrs. Walter Pemberton were present for this matter. Pemberton stated the reason for the driveway and garage location was for aesthetic reasons and to conform with ti»e neighboring two houses. Chairman Callahan questioned the buildability of this extremely difficult lot. The Pemberton's builder was present and stated the proposed plan could be done. J . I' MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 21, 1985. PAGE 11 #983 PEMBERTON continued Chairman Callahan noted that he felt the proposed location of the garage would interfere with the neighbors' (Fegers) view of the lake. Callahan suggested tabling this matter for applicant's to make adjustments to the proposal. McDonald noted that a previous application to build a house on this same lot was denied in total. Mr. Pemberton stated that the Fegers has no objection to the proposal as long as they don't get any closer to their property. Kelley stated he had trouble with the amount of proposed hardcover. The Planning Commission discussed other options for the location of the garage. It was moved by McDonald, seconded by Sime, to table this matter for applicant's to revise their plan. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. #986 GEORGE ROVEGNO 2010 SHORELINE DRIVE VAii I f^CB Mr. & Mrs. George Rovegno were present for this matter. George Rovegno stepped down from the Planning Commission for this matter. Chaiman Callahan explained the application for a variance to allow an existing 5 foot fence to remain where normally only a 3-1/2 foot high fence is allowed. Callahan read a letter of opposition to the variance being granted from Delany J. Stinson on behalf of Richard V. Stinson of 2040 Spates Ave. Rovegno stated that he still believes that the fence was erected legally and noted that the fence was erected to solve some serious problems which he felt it has done. Rovegno stated, at this time, he is willing to re-locate the fence at the lathe line (posted by the city) and make the fence 3 feet high for the first 30 feet from the access for safety reasons. Rovegno noted that the City has not yet placed the posts along the south side as promised. LaDean McWilliams of Crystal Bay was present and stated she was opposed of granting the variance for the many reasons stated at previous meetings. Katherine Quady of Crystal Bay was present and stated she sympathizes with Mr. Rovegno's problems but felt the fence obstructed public view. j t—a HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS Staff Review 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) = 500 s.f. = 140 s.f. Total = 640 s.f. or 20.4% Proposed: (House) (Driveway) (Deck)* 720 s.f. 580 s.f. 300 s.f. Total = 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.) 1 r I * r 1 1If-L; l< i * ; ! t^/ 'T » *^' • t Case No.* ./ ' Fee I <-i' Date .r- J ? - / ^VILLAGI; OP ORONO Land llso Anplication street Location of Property7^ y 3i.>A? AJ, ,S /-. . J\_„, Lcfial Descrintion of Pronertv? i......I nii-r} y^rji'o i ^ “f « <■/, / / 7 Qvmcr cgal Description of Property: m^O r»« .moriji; ( ■ (Vo I-cl Iqeo O. /S _ fiJninn 1 ' / JT ^ t -J(Namej Type of Request: ■a^ (>lione} P.ctonin5» ii Variance (Address^ Conditional !»se Permit Other Subdivision Apnroval Ooscription of Request: \^~s- I {^(/ ^ I C Grid (Applicant)(Owner) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Location o^Lot V °f nropo.ocl structureLocation on Lot 7. Proposed setbacks Adjacent Street Names 8. Zoning in force in this area Location setback and use of adjacent existing buildina pvo^erty^ between any proposed structures and structures on adjacent E::h.'bit Subn.ittod: jinp or plat showinn the property affected and all lands within 300* of tho I oun,U,racs or the property nffected by propose,! chr.nr.e? (S copies) AuktoH? UcuJepi^'^Surty!"”'" tbe^ ' vaJi.ni^cS.nroporty owners within JOO' favorinf- rezonin,; or to be iiilcd in 17v Ui) II.nod Eh ronolofiy______ Insuoction Dept. Adi.j :i n i;; t ra t or !oimci 1 .inpineor ?lr.nuj.nr» Comm. Tounci.l Applicant Notified Rccoi.n:!cji«lations: f . •* , , 0^ • . •(/ 4 > r. i t' - «• ?) ’ I ; ,1^ '•I I TO: BATE: SUBJECT: Plc,uninQ Coiaraission Members Doxter J. Marston, Zoning Admir.f.s tr.it >r May 21, 1973 Variance Q Division - Perry Gobel - 3 70-3580 North ^herc Dr pilS*C.lltlSOd P Thn cniG^t houSC VtlS lodolod QTld SOld l:o:-o end cr.o fo? tho hou:;o and ho needs a ^ Ivioicn'tf COTl-Sato the salo. ^ho cabin end -.ho house are located cm ceparate lots (Lots 6 G 7). Lots 6 0 7 nro each SO* nido and approicinately :.0.000 sq. 4rt r imiPicontlv Icss than tnc roquirenen ts for a H acre -.o^. h^o'lVl mt uictl 20,000 sq. ft. 'v;- • > » wu ^r t 1 riii:jTn3 o? a regul /lU meetik'g held ’iay 21, 1973 lii'. Cohn also expressed a desire to hookup to nimicipal sewer. Faurus coved, Kullborg seconded, that a vorlance for lot size and width bo granted, conditioned on the applicant's conformance with the 10* side yard setback requirement end caintaining a setback that is in lino with the adjoining lots. Motion, Ayes (6) - Mays (0)• Pav.mn r.ovcd, Ryerso seconded, that the “sir.plc division” of Parcel 3420, be approved ill acccrclar.ee with Section 39.021 of the ordinance. Motion, Ayes (6) - Nays (0). Mr. Gobol explained to the Planning Coamission tfiat v’hon ho sold tho guest house on Lot 7 cf his property ho consulted tho Village and the/ required that it be connected to the czvor. By complying with this request. Fir. Gohol felt that he had not all the Village roquiroriento. Now that ho is selling his here on Lot 6, ho found that Lot 607 arc cae yjarcol end nust bo divided. Because o2 lUo site of Lots 6 Q 7, Acting Chairnan Foarloa that the Planning*Ccr.'niiG5ion should i’-cpcr.t the preporty end ask our legal counsel for his co:r;.ants uclJorc any rccorrjncndation is redo. Pago 4 VARIANCE Bohn (Continued) DIVISION Winton DIVISION 4 VARIANCE Gobel Git!:r:lo roved, Ryerso seconded, that the roc ting be adjourned at 10:10 P.ll. Lotion, Ayes (6) - Nays (0), Respectfully submitted. ADJOURl^I'IENT ■ i Do::ter J. Mars ton Zoning Adninistrato: r i . «• FROM; DATE: SUBJECT: Jim Cosby Dexter Marston May 25, 1973 Variance 5 Division - Perry Gobcl - 3570 F| 3580 North Shore Dr. I have consulted with Mr. Whitehead regarding this matter and because of complexity of the situation and the time limitations.Mr. Gobcl faces, Mr. Whitehead suggested that the matter be forwarded to the Council if it was agreeable to the Planning Commission. 1 hove contacted those who were present at the last Planning Commission meeting and they were agreeable to this suggestion.*» &?- i •••’. ; * i '1- < . V MINUTES OF .A REGULAR riEETING HELD iIAY 29, 1973 Cutler moved, Welsh seconded, to approve the ;!j^Jsion of David Harrison, lOS OroKo Orchard Iiasscncalc moved, Welsh seconded, to amend the motion to require Mr, Harrison to pay S% of the raw land value for Village park development iiotion. Ayes (4) - Nays (1). Councilman Dorn Ivciy. Butler moved, Welsh seconded, to approve the Harrison division as amended. Motion, Ayes (S) - Nays (0). ’ The variance for Cenhardus was held over until the June 11, 1973 meeting. ^^ssengalo seconded, to approve the Hill variance. The Council recognized that no additional land could be purchased to moot other code requirements and that the number of square feet of laud that now exists Hays (0) Ayes (5) - Dorn moved, Butler seconded, to approve the prolininary plat for Roy Starkey, subject to tiio proposed road being dono on a right an'»lc entrance to County Road 6 and the plat must Council will l:nov; that u*o o curve has been eliminated. Hennepin County must submit ccr_monts to tho Viilaro staff on this pint, Mr. Gtarhc/ mast move tixo easement for future road 5* more to tho scuta GO that it v;ill create a 20* side vrrd setback. Five percent of the raw land value IS to be collected for Village park purposes. Motion, Ayes (5) - Hays (0). ^ ^ Cutler noyed, V/olsh ccccndcd, to approve tno “j'^ry Mondalo variance in accordance v/ith M*. Marston s May 11, 1975 memo to Council. Motion, Ayes (5) - Mays (0). ^^clsh seconded, to rnprovo tho j.ouw varierxo at 3106 North Shore Drive Motion, Ayes (S) ^ Nays (0), ccccnclcd^ to epprovo thoWayr(0)r‘““ fiition/iyoo (S) . to rpprovo tho th"<HCficni?»yi“°" ™‘l^vnrinnco t>y rococnisincI encountered as listed in Mr Consiisoion doted*»ay 21, 19/.>, Motion, Ayes (5) - Nnys (o) Pags 6 DIVISION 105 Orono Orchard Road VARIANCE Benhardus VARIANCE 1150 V/ildhurst Trail DIVISION 3545 Sixth Avenue North variance 1965 Country Club Road VARIAnCE 3106 North Chore Drive DIVISION 740 Broun Hoad North division r, VARIANCE A 3570 6 3500 North Slioio Drive i I ■ ( 1 I* lVli.*j)hcim? 47t Village of Orono Post Olficf Hox r>(**Crv>«»al Hay. MinncsoUi Municipal Offic»-8 On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka September 15, 1976 Mr. Frank Slawson 2635 Shannon Lane Mound, Minnesota 55364 3580 North Shore Drive Variance - Lot Area 6 Width Dear Mr. Slawson: On September 13, 1976, your variance application was before the Cotncil for final consideration. At this time, the Council denied this variance because of encroachment on the 75* lakeshore setback. However, they did suggest A. ••that you submit a revised proposal for a second story or an addition which j 75* lakeshore setback.would not encroach the If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, / Henry F. Muhich Zoning Administrator HBl: be . ... 14X..UAX1IV3 xmijU faj.J'TjJUiER 13, 1976 % Conihission asked staff to send a letter to the Park Gun Club requesting that a representative appear suggesting that it is to their advc^ntaae to present their own case for approval of their conditional use permit. Planning Commission Meeting — September 7, 1976 Tabled so Gw Club could submit in writing days o^ration, and a site plan showing practical physical sound barrier that might be installed (planting, berms, fences, etc.) to Mr. Daniels that he notify any other Planning Commissionmeeting when this request would again be up for consideration. ^ Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERI4IT 3660 Sixth Avenue North (Continued) .n Butler seconded, to adopt Resolution B ^ Area And Width For Mdition To Residence On Substandard Lot, for 3580 North Shore Drive, because the proposed addition would result in extremely dense conditions (12* between main structures on both sides of subject residence) and part of the proposed addition would be built within the 75* ®®^®ck requirement resulting in additional non-filtered storm water runoff into Council also requested the Building & Zoning Administrator to inform the Nays submit another plan. Motion, Ayes (3) RESOLUTION #710 3580 North Shore Drive #161 Paurus moved, Butler seconded, to approve the request for Harry Skrypec, 3675 North Shore Drive, on condition that: 1. standard customary rock of 12** diameter or more be used. 2. Documentation of approval of other interested agencies. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). RIPRAP 3675 North Shore Drive #163 Henry Huhich. Building & Zoning Administrator, stated that Robert Johnson, 1121 Elmwood Avenue, IS requesting a lot area and width variance. Required Subject Lot ^/ariance Request Lot Area 7T,5«6 25,900 17,660 Lot Width I7?P 100* 40’ VARIANCE 1121 Elmwood Avenue #164 Lots 4 & 5 are listed under John Keller on our list, SO Mr. Johnson is probably purchasing this property through a contract for deed. (Continued) ''MINiniiS OF A PLANNING CO^MISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 7, 1976 - PAGE Don Maas, President of the Park Gun Club, was present and apologized for not having a representative at the August 16, present were Mr. 6 Mrs. Grandstand and ^ward S^st. Mr. Maas stated that the days of operation ^ring the week had been Tuesday and Thursday. This year. Wednesday to allow more hours of shooting for their 150-200 members. They are also open some Sundays tor org^zed shoots from 1-5 p.m. League shooting is finished for this year, but there are a few special turkey shoots scheduled for later this year. Red Dawels was also present and expressed his dissatisfac- tiOT with the hours and days of operation and the amount of resulting from this shooting. He felt that the activity at the Park Oin Qub had increased this year with more days of shooting and longer hours. ^ Mr. Gran^tand stated that the Park Gun Cliib has been at its preset location since 1951. He understands Mr. Daniel's conplaint, but feels that only one complaint in 25 year is a good record. / ^ a mfMmmbuffer. Motion - Ayes (7), Nays (0). bSis to <leny this variance on the 2?®^ V ^ * ts too small resulting in over coneestion structures would not be adequate,^ the lal'eshore setbackrequirement. Motion - Ayes (7), Nays (0) . secOTded, to reconmend approval on the condition that of the ENR and other agencies before continuing this project. Motion - Ayes (7), Nays (0). Johnson was present and stated to the Commission that ?n rental of a variance that was approved ^ 1972 was subject to the approval of the Village Engineer. Mr. Johnson stated that the area is sewered for dLd”’^^^ property in 1974 through a contract PARK GUN CLUB 3660 SIXTH AVENUE N. CCM)ITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW OF EXISTING OPERATION FRANK SLAl 3580 NOKRfT SHORE DRIVE VAWMgE - LOT AREA ^ Mtar FOR ADDITION TO RESIDENCE ON SUBSTANDARD LOT HARRY SKRYPEC 3675 NORTH SHORE DRIVE RIPRAP ROBERT JOHNSON 1121 ELMWOOD AVENUE VARIANCE - LOT AREA 8 WIDTH TO:Dick Picnson, City Administrator FROM: DATB: SUBJECT: Hank Muliich, Zoninn Administrator #161 August 12, 1976 Frank Slawson - 3580 North Shore Drive Variance - Lot Area 5 Width to Add to Ibusc on Existing Non-Conforming Lot and Lakeshore Setback Kim or Eileen Ha»fkinson are the oivners of the property. A though the property is in a sewered area, the sewer has never been connected. I don’t know if the house was ever used as a year-round residence as it appears to be somevdiat small for that (696 sq. ft.). Although this district is zoned 1/2 acre, this parcel and lots 6 and 8 on either side of it are extremely small. In fact, tlie area of the larger portion of the subject lot is only 7,550 sq. ft. in area (about 1/6 acre). This lot is 50’ wide itfMrather than the 100' required. The existing dwelling is only about 12' from the existing neighbor's home to the southwest. If the proposed addition is approved, tliis setback \\rould also be only about 12' from tlie existing house to the northeast. Part of the existing house lies xnthin the 75’ lakeshore setback requirement. Part of the newly proposed addition would also lie witliin the 75' setback require ment. I believe an addition like this would result in extremely dense conditions. >fr. Slawson is making tliis proposal as I beliew he is interested in purdiasing the property providing he obtains Council approval of the variances requested. PLANNING OONNISSION MEETING - Septenfcer 7, 1976 Recomimded denial because the proposed addition would result in extremely dense conditions (12' between main structures on both sides of subject residence and part of the proposed addition would be built within the 75' lakeshore setback requireinent resulting in additional non-filtered stoim water runoff into Lake Minnetonka. COUNCIL MEETING - September 13, 1976 Denied variance but suggested revised proposal could be submitted for recons ider:?.Lte, crnf OF ORDNO, MINNESCQA Ccxiditiona] Use and Variance i^licaticMi# SAL (or property) 0 /yOf' i/i c S//0 re, J^r / ^ 4t Phone # fy' 7.3 lOChTim OP PI Address Description,./,.^>7. BA.IAu.ra . APFIiKMir Han e Frank. ('■ J<>-. AMiessogfc-V-:6- . 4anP- /?/dcw^/Z OWBR HameJ^l'n^ tv^£l lit^x H(L U*kui^on'^^m ') . c!SA.Av"/:» kIO Present Zcning lA- /g_________ Present Use^< Use T^PE OF PBQUEST Qandi^ Vi Wetlands Variancse >< 3ondit^4nal ^arlanoe FOR CtFICIAL USE < Oouncil action Date ur •.•me ived Denied Zoning Qcdinanoe Section Relating to Reg»jest 3^ Sepci^ Qrdinaice Hequiremants L /ty ///.^/^^rz<r/^(C I • « » y Q?>laln Bequest Relative to BequiresBnts -fo J _____________________________________________________ ■ittEnt of Mon-oonfoniiitv Sgt««g« C«*iMt£feJ' f**^j*^ Dt^mntJ ■rjM 'Jf. K <?t____Vi? ► )td~^ AlCAL ficate of Rroperty Survey (Sketch in proposal)5. $30.00 Fee Date i -j /9 '?L a * j. i^ANr3f.r4 . LsoilimysF Aua Civil CiClnoar OF PROPERTY OF PLAT OF SURVEY 13907 Spdnf UItt Pm4 \\cp%\n% Whtv I -' n Ve!«phbnA Kim Hawkinson IjOCATION.3500 North Shore Drive, Orono, Mn octcniuo At roLLOws.Lot 7* Block 2, Baldur Park, Hennepin County, Mn m • -^C . ». T:?. ■ k.%#i.V . \jf\ * I * s* Xi / #161 / \ 7* \ 1/7 Z rc Scale *. l"'40’ J v.r-'fc-. <\ f * • u*% V \ \ \ V N. % V' \« ■v V*' e Deno^e.^ iron monumenV V CESnnCATB OP LOCATION OP BUILDING 1 hereby certify that on. I made a survey of the location of the buildinc(s) on the above described propeny and that the location of said building(s) is correctly inown on the above plat CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY I hereby certify that nn ^ I surveyed the property described a^ve airaU io7j>_ surveyed the property described aSbve aits' that the above plat is a correct representation of said survey. ---------------------------7^ ROY J. HANSEN, REGISTFREO SURVEYOR NO. 6274 TO:Planning Commission i ! FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator November 14, 1985 'V ' V <1. SUBJECT: #987, Robert J. Bauman, 1040 Tonkawa Road - Variance ZONING DISTRICT - LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1-acre APPLICATION - Request for average setback and hardcover variances to construct an enclosed swimming pool. LIST OF EXHIBITS A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey with Proposed Pool E - Survey prior to currently permitted additions including hardcover calculations. F - Survey showing revised driveway and adjacent houses The applicant is proposing to construct an enclosed swimming pool on the lake side of his home, requiring variances to the average lakeshore setback and to the hardcover regulations. Mr. Bauman is proposing hardcover tradeoffs which will result in no net increase in hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone. You will recall that the applicant appeared before you in August requesting permission to work on the lakeshore bank. The Council tabled that application pending applicant's submittal of a professionally done landscape plan for the bank area, since it is steep and likely subject to erosion if distrubed. That applicantion has not yet been completed. Also be reminded that the applicant was issued permits for the construction of a garage addition and small room addition with hardcover tradeoffs prior to the Council's directive that all such tradeoffs over the 25% limit are subject to a variance application. These additions are nearing completion and the excess hardcover has been removed. The applicant has relocated his driveway within the last year. Also, as a result of the need to revise grades in front of the new garage, and in anticipation of this application for the pool with hardcover tradeoffs, the applicant had the driveway apron redesigned so there would be a net decrease in hardcover nearly equivalent to the area of the proposed pool. At the advice of staff, applicant has installed the new driveway apron this fall prior to freezeup, to ensure safe access to the house. At this point, if applicant removed the 205 s.f. of plastic at the north side of the house, he could add the pool structure with no net increase in hardcover from what was there originally when he bought the property. * The other variance requested for the pool is for average setback. The pool structure will encroach approximately 15’ into the average setback zone. Applicant has not provided elevation drawings to show the height or configuration of the structure but he has stated it will be no higher than the floor level of the existing deck. The neighbor to the north has expressed some concern about the sight lines and views which would be encroached upon. In your site inspection you should view the subject property from the neighboring property to ascertain the effect of the proposed structure on the views, and also note the location of the fence on the north boundary. Also, looking at the most current survey. Exhibit F, note the relative locations of nearby houses. Any recommendation for approval should discuss the hardcover tradeoffs, and the justification for granting the average setback variance. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION /i OriOCj •“ Ck—>"»C t ^ e.<- d4:po<-c,/-^ Jt^cn^l c>^ppi>'Ocf^rh-r^-JL 9VS')^ Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional project) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address I OHO RD ,O(l0hJQ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) OS OO Please check one — Is the property abstract or torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Phone ml- rvvs' Mailing Address ) O HO 7~ ^ k/M ^ ^If ^Louo AHK£ 5733^ OWNER Name Phone Mailing Address Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (fdo notl also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District _ _ _ _ _ Present Use of Property Residential Othur (specify) • > DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail Estimated Construction Cost $ Lis (For-^_ _ _ _ _ _ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front tJJLX ___ Hardcover Side _____ Rear) ^ (OVER) 1 I 1 1 I :ict H O -O > 5 § O 3 TJ m TJ m > 7Q > m z B B ;a > a a 3 XI XI m H o ^r > S XI > X 2 o rt TJ m Tjm > XI N -< >> m z o B X] > a a 3 ^X) rri H Qsssi3 u m -am > XI > m z a B X9 > a a 3 XI XI m :ode 3 3 r- ►- H H o wO o X X OBZ o* o o o Cl O 3 3 ^> > O O I- H 0) 01 OB >- O I X Z #• fi* . ni X Hi- > 3 H O '^J XI XI > 04XI M M z r* c. c. o oi O o c C OaZ rv) 2 3 oC) o o Cl rom m o o r H Z Z OB> o I X 3 </) 01 , ^ mXHHH*- > M M o Vj 3 z m m z I2 > r- f- X fvj O o > 01 » z z s X X O 04 0 > > H- OB Z 3 O 01 O O Ch r- r- Oi o H a o OB ^ H> o n o >i z O o z I► Z Z 53 n» o n n > M o > M 01Ol MM 04 01 ■ . V. 01 > > X Ol X 01 04 O O 04 o o 04 Ol XX o Ol o 01O' -< -< ro > > o z z M gw > •- List 271) I the nber not O O » H -n Ti m id by rred true ther nts, tion —* O O o CD ro -5 3 cn —• —• o ^o o o o ro Oi Oi CO —• KO 3 3 1 Q-—J 0) Cw CD rD —B 3 Oi —* 3 1 < O)OO o ro Oi —-CO —» 3 c 0>rt 37 ro ^ o 3" C 42* —i*ri- 3 •3 3-z Oi o 3 3 o rt ocnn> -3 ro U1 3 Oi 3 —t rT* cn n> 3 r- *- XI O 04 ►- 0> 04 Cl o rn c. 04 Z Q O O r- H H « OB> Q M I X Z X m H- ni X > Cl "TI Q n4 3 Z > 3 I2 > M Cl X ra n > > 04X X oi zo o > ►- ^oi o s04 o o 01 oo •- 01 Cl H O 04 m X CB MM 04 X > z m a cB X o »- c. c. o m m *4 X X «S80I 2S XI H H r O N N > •- ss XI TT o 04o Q r- ^ OB O X m o o 2 z c. ni M w > t- r* R M vn o > £ o § w 5 ►» QB O £ ^C 04 S3 the bird 1020 TONKAWA ROAO LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA 55356 USA (612)471-8806 a AA > o^\ \ “ (twAO. Koveaber 19, 1985 Chairman and Members of Planning Conmlsslon City o£ Orono 1335 South Brown Road Orono, Mn. 55391 Re: Application for Setback Variance for Robert Bauman Dear Commission Members, As a close neighbor to the Bauman property, I would like to strongly protest changing of the setbacks for our homes. Moving closer to the shoreline with our buildings will drastically change the natural settings of the east shore of Maxwell Bay. The natural setting has already been gravely tampered v’lth since the Baumans purchased the property. Many good trees were taken do%m, big earth movements have been made for relocating the driveway, and we now have to live with an aseortaent of unattractive campers, trucks, cars, and boats, in our dally view. Ihis is all a sincere concerr, of mine, and X would like to uiention that our property values are affected by these changes. Business keeps me away from the meeting on the 18tb of November, that is the reason chat I am contacting you in writing. I must politely request that vou do not accept the set Uj» k variance. With friendly regard, /wIlllJJl) Jurgen Stielow To: From: Date: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator November 13, 1985 Subject: #988 James E, Mertes, 3237 Casco Circle - Variance (Renewal) Zoning District - LR-IC (1/2 acre minimum area, 100' minimum width) Application - Renewal Lot Width/Lot Area Variance List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Resolution #1607, Dated February 27, 1984 Exhibit P - Minutes, Documents, Etc. Leading to Resolution #1607 Variances Requested a) Lot Area - Required = 21,780 s.f. 80% Area = 17,424 s.f. Existing = 16,748 s.f. or 77% Variance = 5,032 s.f. or 23? b) Lot Width - Required = 100' 80% Width = 80' Existing = 55' Variance = 45' or 45% This property was granted lot width and lot area variances in February 1984 per Resolution No. 1607 (attached). The variances expired at the end of one year and the owner, Douglas Smith, never submitted a completed and acceptable building permit application. Smith since then has had the property for sale and the current applicant, James E. Mertes, is applying for a renewal variance. This property (Lot 18) was originally owned in common with the two lots to the north (Lots 16 amd 17, which are now combined). As a result of the common ownership study the City changed its policy on common ownership lots in sewered zones, and based on the individual merits of Lot 18, the lot area and width variances were granted. A brief review of the issues, disregarding the previous common owner ship status, is as follows; 1. Lot Area is 16,748 s.f. or 77% of the required 21,780 s.f. (half acre ). 2. Lot width is 55' or 55% of the required 100' width. I Zoning File #988 November 13, 1985 Page 2 of 4 3. The applicant is proposing no variances to the hardcover limita tion, and feels he can build within the 25% limitation. Note that the previous applicant, Doug Smith, submitted a survey/site plan which showed approximately 40% hardcover, but was never followed up. Note that in order to meet the 25% limit, the house will have to be fairly close to the road and/or the existing garage will have to be used. 4. The existing garage is non-conforming in that it lies partially within the right-of-way of Casco Circle. The structure is still in good condition and functional. If the applicant was forced to remove the garage to a site more conforming on the property, the hardcover would necessarily increase because of the additional driveway needed; perhaps increasing the needed hardcover over the 25% limit. 5. No setback variances are requested for the new construction. 6. City water is in the street but no stub was ever provided to the property, since at the time City water lines were installed, it was not anticipated this lot would be built on. A $580 water unit charge must be paid, and the owner will be responsible for the connection to the City line. 7. City sewer is available on the lake side of the property, how ever, the stub on Lot 18 was used by the house on Lots 16 and 17 according to City as-built drawings, again not anticipating that Lot 18 would become buildable. A new stub and connection would have to be provided by the owner. Note also that the sewer unit charge for Lot 18 will be $1,457 ($225 initial unit charge, $165 for L.S. #6 bypass, $1,067 for L.S. #7 forcemain, per Resolution #1854). (This amount would be increased to $1,569 if building permit is not applied for by L'^ecember 31, 1985.) The applicant has not at this time pro:^ided a proposed site plan, but is aware of the hardcover and setback limitations of the lot. The Planning Commission is asked to review the findings and conditions of Resolution #1607, and iruy wish to incorporate any or all of these findings in a recommendation for approval: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File No. 988. 2. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The property was in common ownership with contiguous lots 16 and 17, Spring Park, prior to 1967 through 1977 when thge applicant purchased the property. Lots 16 and 17 are now legally combined. Zoning File #988 November 13, 1985 Page 3 of 4 4. Section 10.03, subdivision 6 (A) (1) of the Municipal Zoning Code provides for development of lots of record held in separate ownership since prior to the effective date of the zoning regulation, provided a lot of record meets 80% of the required lot area and lot width and has municipal sewer available. 5. Prior to December 19, 1983, the City Council always required that when two or more lots were owned in common, each lot must individually meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots can be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in common must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. 6. Upon completion of a 6 month City-wide review of the common ownership issue, on December 19, 1983, the City approved a proposed amendment of the municipal code that would permit all substandard undeveloped lots within the sewered areas of the City regardless of the ovnership of these lots, the same standards for review. 7. The property is 16,748 square feet or 77% of the required area. The property is consistent in area with 7 other developed lots within a total developed neighborhood of 33 lots. 8. The property measures 55 feet in lot width and is approximately 5 feet short of the narrowest lots in the 33 lot Casco Circle neighborhood at 60 feet. 9. No available land — lots are developed on both sides of property. 10. The property is served with sewer and water. 11. A house and improvements can be constructed without the need for additional variances. 12. ®y granting this variance there will be no negative effect on the public health, safety and welfare. 13. By granting this variance it is conistent with the development of the area. 14. By granting this variance there should be no need for future hardcover and setback variances. 15. The special conditions applying to the parcel of land in question are peculiar to such property orimmediately adjoining property. 16. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 17. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 1 Zoning File #988 November 13, 1985 Page 4 of 4 18. The granting of the proposed variances will not in any way impair the health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. 19. That the granting of such variances will not merely serve as a con venience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Any motion for denial would have to make the necessary findings that 15-19 above are not true. ‘ V. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION^ . 7r<>C3 .J Vo Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional project) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) / § PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3257 C O.irc^/tt Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 12 ^ ^ f .^3 ^3 Od / 3 f Please check one — Is the property abstract or torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name ^ Mailing Address (3 /r _ Phone U- cj\^ ^yi J Name f^/P/A^I^ ^ Phone Mailing Addri<is I Date Property Acquired ^(month/year) I 4dg) (4o not) also own the adjace PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District ~ ' ^ Present Use of Property '/Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $ / < v.M- - vx r VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area K Lot VJidth A// / / h^(ooi^^ ^ Setback Variances ( Other Front Side Hardcover Rear) (OVER) l9o(^ \'(S\ ^- 0 t' \ Cr^ l- J- 'Vf / ' ‘- '^* '•' ‘^■'' HARDSHIP «L» ^ . .y /«. •— i- I ^ Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regul^t.' •-•5 DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements;^ / •F rr 'f-t hH~y juo-xAi/.AyL/^ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS Completed Application Form. ^C5Hn-2.3 OD\^ 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. 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 ail fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certi^es that the information supplied is true and correct to the J^estr^s^f^-ttiTs/h^r^J^no^ledge . Applicant's signature OWNERS SIGNATURE Date /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 verificatio^r^f=^his reqi^ept. f. ^ / / V\ Owner's signature TN-Di-te 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. strict i exhibit Certifirfite of Survey for Thoraifl B. Johnson of U)t IB, Spring Park Hennepin County, llinnesota I hereby certify that this is a' true and correct repre sentation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 18, Spring Park, the Location of all existing buildings thereon, and the proposed location of a proposed building. It does not pur port to show other improvements or er^croachments, i, lOllDWl C!IY0rv.?0N0 /Hz.- GORDON K. COFFIN CO., INC. Scale Date o 1” = 40’ 6-17-83 Iron marker Gordon n. Coffin Ke^, No.6064 Park S. Grcnberg Reg. No,12755 Land Surveyors and Planners Ix'ng LaKe, Minnesota #761 d f, M Plat cf Purvey for J. Rlcliari TuthiU Lots 16, 17, and 18, Spring Park Hennepin County, Minnesota OCT 2 11983 CITY OF 0Rm\!. . n j »3 ®y* r lUi !! ”.1? o*’ Ci 'id lc‘ l'*7 .r.i ^* T*.V* • . i '.kT'‘'*rr,rer.*:.o t •', * -i ^j mI il;-'' V*. • 'I ^* ^ ... •‘ ''recr. Certificate cf Survey; I hereby certify' that this is a true ind correct repr.’oentatlon cf a nurvey of the bcimd*>rles of Lots 16, 17, and 18, Spring Park, alrr all the land, in- rre Srive, lyir.t’ betwoon the ^ront or liasterly line ? c ’ LS.:: ’’iriT.-J L n/a and V.<*twocn the northerly line of said Lot .* ''vrly iin" of r’lid I/:t 1^, extonbecl to s.m l<i iak« lore, and being oart of i Section PO, Tc\Tichi': 11? North, .{an *o of the 5th Principal tidlc-iteri on the plat of ooid Snrinr .‘/irk, anl of the location of all Tt looc *;ot r-.r icrt to j;hv';w ot.lv.r i or encrcac.’.!.Tents, • • • j.'* y f > “ V* • > t • .^cu LO; Lteto ; r\ V !»• r ri - ' ^ Trcn »irk»r uo'rion H, Coffin a»^/No, 6064 uiriM ouiveyor and Planner Long Lake, Minnesota I « h <2: TO: FROM; DATE: Walter R. Benson, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator January 3, 1984 SUBJECT:#761 - Douglas Smith - 3237 Casco Circle - Variance - Resolution At your November 14, 1983 meeting. Council directed staff to submit the following information: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The property (Lot 18) has never been assessed a sewer nor water unit. Review the enclosed "As-Built" plans. The lot was not assigned a water nor sewer stub connection. The original owner, McNeal, had a mortgage on all three lots. Tuthill paid off that mortgage in December, 1973. Lot 18 was sold to Doug Smith in 1977. Tuthill placed a new mortgage on Lots 16 & 17 in 1979. Both Tuthill and Smith have never initiated tax abatement proceedings on neither Tuthill's part for Lots 16, 17 & 18 nor on Smith's part for Lot 18. There is no record of a letter on file from Smith in regard to the buildability of Lot 18; only his comment on the face of the variance application that he purchased the lot from Tuthill in 1977 for the purpose of constructing a future home. If Council wishes to pursue the claim of the applicant that similar variances have been granted by the City, you may ask for that at your meeting of January 9, 1984. The information was not submitted by the applicant after the November 14, 1983 meeting, nor did staff pursue the followup response. I am sure the applicant would be able to cite these cases at your meeting and staff would be able to provide the background information if the subject applications were acted on within the last seven years. How does Lot 18 rank in regard to the other developed lots on Casco Circle? Based on staff's current survey of common ownership lots and undeveloped lots within the zoning districts. Lot 18 ranks as follows; Area - Lot 18 - 18,748 sq. ft. or 77% Width- Lot 18-55 ' or 55% Total Casco Point area -223 developed lot at 100% 57 or 26% are within 60%-80% of area required ■UMAli . . < #761 Douglas Smith January 3, 1984 Page 2 Casco Circle neighborhood Total developed lots - 33 or 100% 7 lots or 21,5% are within 60%-80% of area reguired 18 lots or 54,5% at or over minimum lot area 7 lots or 21.5% are within 80%-100% of required lot area 1 lot or 3% within 40%-60% of required lot area Review the width of 14 developed lots that surround Lot 18 - see plat map enclosed. Lot 18 - 55' or 55% 8 lots or 57% satisfy width requirements of zoning district 1 lot or 7% within 80%-100% of lot width required 5 lots or 36% within 60%-80% of lot width required No lots within the 14 lot sample were under 60% of lot width requirement. Council has been asked to act on the Smith variance application at your meeting of January 9, 1984. The City has resolved and proposed amendments in the review process for substandard lots held in common onwership within the sewered areas of the City. In consideration of the findings setforth in the Planning Commission's majority opinion recommendation and in light of the direction to the Council in the recommendation of the minority of the Planning Commission members, staff has drafted a recommendation of variance approval for your review. A copy of this memo and resolution will be sent to the applicant for his review and comments prior to the January 9, 1984 meeting. The City Attorney :ihould advise if the City is able to act formally on the Smith application until the ordinance is officially amended by the March 1, 1984 recodification deadline. m REGULAR MECTIMG OP THE ORONO COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 14, 1983.PAGE 4 #761 DOUGLAS SMITH 3237 CASCO CIRCLE VARIANCE Douglas Smith and Mr. and Mrs. Tuthill were present. Councilmember Frahm noted that there is a common ownership problem and that he would not be able to act on the application until the City has finished their common ownership study and has set some standards. Douglas Smith stated that delaying would prevent construction. Smith noted that the City has had ample time to solve the common ownership issue. Mr. Tuthill noted that when he sold the lot to Mr. Smith that he was under the impression that it was buildable. Tuthill noted that there is nothing specific in the zoning code which addresses the common ownership issue or problem. Mayor Butler read the sections from the zoning code which the City bases its position on lots of common ownership. Mr. Tuthill stated that no where in that section does it mention anything about common ownership. Mayor Butler noted the zoning for the neighborhood which is half—acre and stated that the lot meets only 3/4 of the zoning requirements. Planning Commission Representative Goetten stated that in her opinion she felt that the Planning Commission was trying to help Mr . Smith by approving at this time because they had hoped that resolution of the common ownership issue would be forthcoming. Councilmember Frahm noted that other people are waiting for the Council’s decision regarding common ownership and not just the Smiths. Mr. Smith stated that when he purchased the lot that he figured it was buildable and that he is paying taxes on a buildable lot. City Attorney Malkerson asked if this lot has been charged for a sewer unit and asked if there was a stub? Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated no that the lot has not been charged for a sewer unit and that she wasn't sure if there was a stub available or not? Councilmember Frahm asked about a rearrangement? lot line i REGULAR MEETING OP THE ORONO COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 14, 1983.PAGE 5 #761 DOUGLAS SMITH Mr. Tuthill ststGd thst he h3s sold his hous6 ds it stands and that a lot line rearrangement wouldn't be possible. Councilmember Hammerel noted that it was not unanimous approval by the Planning Commission and noted Callahan's comments which essentially meant that the common ownership issue had to be dealt with first. Councilmember Grabek suggested setting the date earlier for resolution of the common ownership issue from January 1 to their December 12 meeting. Grabek noted that it is not fair to the citizens of Orono by delaying this common ownership issue. Councilmember Grabek moved, Councilmember Adams seconded, to table Douglas Smith's application pending more information and that the Smith application be brought back to Council on December 12 for action based on the additional information. Grabek asked for the following information to be submitted: 1. Additional information on the sewer and taxation o'" sewer units. 2. What percentile this lot falls into with the surrounding neighborhood. 3. How mortgages are held in common ownership situations? 4. If this lot has a sewer stub available and how it was treated in the past. 5. Whether or not there was any tax abatement proceedings. 6.Whether or not there was any correspondence from the present owner about the status of this lot, whether or not it was buildable. 7.In applicants letter, it states that similar variances have been granted and that the appl icant should identify which ones those were so that staff can investigate those to see if a precedent has been set. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that all other work on zoning applications would have to cease until after the first of the year in order to allow adequate staff time cn the common ownership issue. IIEGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 14, 1983.PAGE 6 #761 DOUGLAS SMITH #765 RUDOLPH HOCH 875 PARTENWOOD LANE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #1578 #779 DONALD MAAS/ PARK GUN CLUB 3660 SIXTH AVE. NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #1579 CounciImember Grabek moved that the common ownership issue be solved by the December 12, 1983 meeting. Mayor Butler asked if it was fair to hold up the rest of the community. Councilmember Grabek moved. CounciImember Adams seconded, to withdraw his former motion and moved to have the common ownership issue solved by January 9, 1984, Council meeting, and at that same meeting to act on the Smith application. Motion, Ayes (5) , Nays (0) . City Attorney Malkerson stated that the Council should ask if Mr. Smith wishes to have the Council act on his application at the December 12 meeting or table it at that time until the January 9, 1984, meeting after the common ownership issue has been resolved. Douglas Smith stated that he didn' t wish to answer that at this time. CounciImember Adams asked for a memo from City Administrator Benson or» how the Building & Zoning Department would set their priorities so that they can accomplish this goal. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Hcch's had signed off on the resolution. Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember Hammerel seconded, to approve Resolution #1578, A Resolution Granting A Variance To Ordinance 173, to permit construction of a 60' le..gth dock to be located 0' from the extended side property line. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). Donald Maas was present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that staff had answered all the Council's questions from the last meeting concerning the gun club use. Councilmember Hammerel moved, Councilmember Frahm seconded, to approve Resolution #1579, A Resolution Granting A Conditional Use Permit to Municipal Zoning Code Section 34.821 and 32.400. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). Donald Maas asked about the quit claim deed and that if the road was vacated at sometime in the future, would it automatically come back to the gun club. :t TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Walter R. Benson, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator November 10, 1983 #761 - Douglas H. Smith - 3237 Casco Circle - Variance A i Zoning District - LR-IC Application: Lot area Required - Required - Existing - Variance - Variance - Lot width Required - Required - Existing - Variance - Variance - 21,780 sq. 17,424 sq. 16,748 sq. 5,032 sq. 676 sq. ft. (100% required) ft. (80% required) ft. or 77% ft. or 23% (100% required) ft. or 3.9% (80% required) 100' (100% required) 80’ (80% required) 55’ 45’ or 45% (100% required) 25' or 31% (80% required) List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Exhibit N Exhibit O Application Plat Map Property Owners List Lot survey Zoning code reference ~ common ownership J. Richard Tuthill letter - July 19, 1983 D. Smith letter - August 2, 1983 Attorney's letter - August 25, 1983 Zoning Administrator’s letter - August 29, Zoning Administrator’s letter - August 30, Planning Commission minutes - July 18, 1983 Planning Commission minutes - September 19, 1983 Survey of Lots 16, 17, & 18 Site Plan - Lot 18 Building elevations 1983 1983 Mr. Smith’s application was accepted as a lot area and lot width variance application for a single, separate lot. Staff worked with the applicant’s contractor in the preliminary work on the application. In review of the formal application, the applicant himself notes the original ownership pattern of Lot 18. He advises on the face of the application that he purchased the lot from Richard Tuthill in 1977 (owner of Lots 16 & 17). #*761 - Douglas H. Smith November 10, 1983 Page 2 Lot 18 is still maintained as part of the Tuthill yard. A detached garage once used by the main house is located on Lot 18, Both the applicant and Tuthill claim they knew nothing of the limitations of the ordinance. Remember, the ordinance has been in effect since 1967. Tuthill purchased all three lots in 1971. The applicant has been advised of the City's common ownership study and the final resolution of that study within the next few months. The applicant was advised that if the Planning Commission were to act now on the application, they would have to deny the application and that they would prefer tabling the application until the study is completed. I should add, this was conveyed to the applicant's contractor at the first review meeting in July. Since that first meeting. Smith's attorney has had contact with the City asking for action on the application. Both applicants, Doug Smith and the Richard Tuthills,were present at the Planning Commission meeting in October. Review Exhibit M. The Tuthill house is located 11.6' from Lot 18 boundary. I have no confirmation as to the setback of the residence on Lot 19; although, the owner has stated the house is approximately 6 feet from the shared lot line. Review the lot survey of the Casco Circle neighborhood. The lot appears to be 5' less in width than other comparable lots on the Circle. The applicant has provided a site plan showing the proposed residence meeting all setback and hardcover standards. I would suggest that Council once again ask applicant if he would agree to request tabling of the application until the City's common ownership study is completed. If not, you must act giving conceptual direction to staff to draft the necessary resolution. First, do you have enough information to act? Fo^ example; what is the area of Lots 16 & 17? Would a lot line rearrangement be feasible? Is this lot consistent with the pattern of the surrounding developed lots? Sewer and water are available. Lot 18 never received a unit charge, only a footage charge. If Council acts to approve the Smith variance application, they may use the majority opinion (4-2) of the Planning Commission as follows: to approve a lot area variance (100% standard) of 5,032 sq. ft. or 23% and a lot width variance (100% standard) of 45' or 45% for Doug Smith to permit construction of a new residence on a property located at 3237 Casco Circle based on the following findings: #761 - Douglas H. Sitiith November 10, 1983 Page 3 mg ting 1. No available land - lots are developed on both sides 2. Sewer and water are available 3. House and improvements to be constructed without need for additional variances H 4. Applicant purchased property not knowing the ordinance limitations on development of Lot 18 5. Variance being granted despite the common ownership issue 6. By granting this variance, there will be no negative effect on the public health, safety and welfare V 7. By granting this variance, it is consistent with the development of the area 8. By granting this variance, there should be no need for future hardcover and setback variances 9. Planning Comjtiission would like to note that the garage is a non- conforming structure and subject to all pertinent ordinances 10. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property 11. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district and which said land is located 12. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant 13. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the zoning code 14. That the granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty If Council cannot act to recommend approval, you have two alternatives of action: 1. Adopt minority opinion of the Planning Commission and vote to deny the variance application of Doug Smith for a lot held in common ownership that is 5,032 sq. ft. or 23% under required 21,780 sq. ft. or 100% in area and 45 feet or 45% under required 100' or 100% in lot width based on the following findings: cover .on and lealth, le strable of the >hip i in )ased #■^61 - Douglas H. Smith November 10, 1983 Page 4 al f the a) The City has an established policy and ordinance in effect that must be enforced b) Common ownership study must be resolved before variance can be considered c) The granting of the proposed variance will be contrary to the intent of the zoning code and the City Comprehensive Plan d) That the granting of such a variance will serve as a convenience ^ to the applicant and there is no evidence of demonstrable hardship or i difficulty ! Call for a moratorium on all lot area and lot width variance applications involving common ownership question until City has completed the common ownership study. The City Attorney has advised that this can be done at any time. In the calling for a moratorium, the Smith variance applicants may be "legally tabled". I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 17, 1983 ATTENDANCE 7:30 p.m The Planning Commission met on the above date. The following members were present: Chairman ’^.ovegno, Goetten, McDonald, Sime, Callahan and Adams. Planning Commission member Kelley was absent. Council Representative Hammerel was present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth represented City staff. intent «761 DOUGLAS SMITH 3237 CASCO CIRCLE VARIANCE Douglas Smith was present. Dick and Mary Tuthill of 3241 Casco Circle and Jane Remien of 3235 Casco Circle were present from the audience. Zoning Adminis trator Mabusth reviewed with the Planning Commission the history of the Smith application. Mabusth noted that the Smith application involves common ownership in the LR-IC zoning district. Goetten asked why the applicant hadn't thought of a lot line rearrangement of the two lots which would solve the common ownership problem. Dick Tuthill of 3241 Casco Circle noted that Lots 16 and 17 are combined. Jane Remien of 3235 Casco Circle noted that the corner of Mr. Smith's lot is 6 1/2' from her house and stated that she was opposed to the variance request. Remien noted that regardless of the common ownership issue that the lot still doesn't meet current standards. Callahan noted that there are common ownership standards in effect now and until the City can revise those standards that the Planning Commission should follow the current standards. Callahan noted that in following the current standards that he would have a problem approving the variance. Sime stated that he didn't feel that the common ownership issue made a big difference but that the lot by itself doesn't comply with the current standards and noted that he would have trouble approving a variance for such a substandard lot. McDonald noted that the Planning Commission should follow the current common ownership issues. Adams stated that the common ownership issue wasn't a big problem and if the lot was held in single separate ownership that the variance would be a reasonable request. Adams stated that he felt that the lot was buildable. \ ' NINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 17, 1983 PAGE 2 #761 DOUGLAS SMITH Goetten noted that the common ownership issue must be dealt with before considering the variance request. Goetten stated that if this lot was single separate ownership that the variance request would be reasonable and would not have a negative effect on the existing neighborhood. Callahan agreed that the lot isbuildable if the common ownership issue was solved. Sime stated that when the owner purchased the lot the common ownership wasn’t a problem and the owner wasn* t able to foresee the common ownership in the future. Mabusth stated that Smith purchased the lot from Tuthill in 1977 and that the common ownership was in effect at the time of sale. Rovegno noted that if the common ownership hadn* t been a problem that the application probably wouldn’t have any trouble receiving variance approval. Adams moved to approve a variance request made by Douglas Smith based on the 100% standards with a lot area variance of 5,032 sf or 23% lot area and lot width 45% based on the following findings; 1. No available land - lots are developed on both sides. 2. Sewer and water are available. 3. House and improvements to be constructed without need for additional variances. 4.Applicant purchased property not knowing that the ordinance limitations on development of Lot 18. 5.Variance being granted despite the common ownership issue. 6.By granting this variance there will be no negative effect on the public health, safety and welfare. 7.By granting this variance it is consistent with the development of the area. 8.By granting this variance there should be no need for future hardcover and setback variances. 9.Planning Commission would like to note that the garage is a non conforming structure and subject to all pertinent ordinances. 10.The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 17, 1983 PAGE 3 #761 DOUGLAS SMITH 11* The conditions do not apply generally to other landor structures in the district and which said land is located. 12.the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 13.The granting of the proposed variance will not in anyway impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. 14.That the granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Rovegno seconded. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (2). Minority Opinions - Callahan and McDonald - Callahan noted that the Planning Commission is looking at the common ownership issue backwards and the City has an ordinance in effect that the Commission should follow. Callahan stated that the common ownership issue must be solved before granting a variance. McDonald agreed with Callahan and she noted that there is some neighbor opposition and that the common ownership issue should be solved first. #782 OLE OVERBOE 4460 FOREST LAKE LANDING VARIANCE Mr . and Mrs. Overboe were present. Mabusth noted that the applicant is asking for a variance to place a detached garage in their limited front yard. Callahan asked if granting this variance would be an obstacle in the future if they plan on constructing a house on the other lot, Adams moved to approve Ole Overboes request for a variance for a detached garage to be placed 2* from the given right of way, 15' from the side and 38' from the travelled road based on the following findings: 1. Location of house on lot. 2. Substandard width 55' existing - zoning district standards asks for 140' of width. 3. There is no additional land available. 4. The house has existed for 15+ years. i MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OP SEPTEMBER 19, 1983. PAGE 4 V476JJ DOUGLAS SMITH 3237 CASCO CIRCLE VARIANCE #771 LARRY GRABILL 1350 REST POINT LANE VARIANCE Mabusth noted that Douglas Smith notified her and asked that his application be tabled. Sime moved to table Douglas Smith's application per applicant's request. McDonald seconded. Vote; Ayes (7), Nays (0). Larry Grabill was present. Sime moved to approve the hardcover and setback variance application of Larry Grabill permitting an increase of 7% of hardcover within the 0-75' setback area and an increase of 3% in hardcover within the 75'- 250' setback area and to approve a 4' side yard setback variance and a 39' lakeshore setback variance to permit construction of a now residence per revised plan dated September 13, 1983, Exhibit A, based on the following; 1.The revised plan will permit construction further removed from the lakeshore rather than 26' as proposed in original plan. 2. The property could never be developed to meet current standards of the LR-IB zoning district. 3. A year-round residence has existed on the site for over 30 years. 4. There is no available vacant land to be combined with property. 5. The property is sewered. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant to locate new structure so that garage will abutt existing pavement. 2. No new structure may be located within the 0-75' protected area - this includes decking, patios, walkways. 3. No future variance will be granted to this severely limited property. Adams seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). i REGULAR MEETING OP THE ORONO COUNCIL HELD FEBRUARY 27, 1984 PAGE #803 TIM ADAMS 1810 WEST FARM ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #1606 47^DOUGLAS SMITH 3137 CASCO CIRCLE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #1607 LEASE AGREEMENT - LAKEVIEW GOLF COURSE ADVERTISE FOR BIDS HANDICAPPED ACCESS PRECINCT #3 HENNEPIN COUNTY ROAD #15 REPORT CounciImember Adams stepped down from his Council seat to address the Council as an applicant. Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Councilmember Hammerel seconded, to approve Resolution #1606, A Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit Per Municipal Zoning Code Section 31.700, to permit construction of a pond. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). Tim Adams returned to his seat as Councilmember. Douglas Smith was present. Acting Mayor Frahm asked what the status of Lots 16 and 17 were. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that Lots 16 and 17 are legally combined. Acting Mayor Frahm stated that "Lots 16 and 17 are legally combined" should be added to finding #3 in the Resolutfion. Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Councilmember Hammerel seconded, to approve Resolution #1607, A Resolution Granting A Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 34.552, to permit construction of a new residence, subject to amending finding #3. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Councilmember Adams seconded, to approve the lease agreement for the Lakeview Golf Course handicapped access for elections. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Councilmember Grabek seconded, to authorize staff to advertise for bids for the handicap accessibility improvements for the Lakeview Golf Course for precinct #3. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). Councilmember Adams announced the Hennepin County Board Meeting on March 22, 1984. REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JANUARY 9, 1984.PAGE 2 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DIST. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS (l2£X>DOUGLAS SMITH 3237 CASCO CIRCLE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #802 JOHN MUNSELL 4100 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #1596 #798 NORTH SHORE DRIVE MARINA 3222 NORTH SHORE DRIVE CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED REZONING There were no Lake Minnetonka Conservation District comments. Mayor Butler noted the 1984 schedule of the LMCD and that they are still meeting in restaurants. Planning Commission Representative Goetten had no comments. The public present had no comments. Douglas Smith was not present. Councilmember Hammerel moved, Councilmember Adams seconded, to table the Douglas Smith application until the applicant can be present. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). John Munsell was present. Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember Grabek seconded, to approve Resolution #1596, A Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 34.452 to permit the construction of a new residence. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). Larry Hork and Bruce Douglas, Hork's attorney, were present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that she had brought the application back to Council for more Council direction. Councilmember Frahm stated that he didn't want to see any more dockage and that he wanted to see more restrictions on the on-land boat storage. Frahm stated that natural bufferings should be a requirement on both the lakeshore and street side and that hardcover should be controlled. Frahm stated that the B-2 zone may not have all those requirements or controls. Councilmember Frahm stated that if the City just rezones Hork's property that the City would get pressure from Chaska Marina to rezone their property too. aft iiyfi 11^1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Members Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator September 13, 1983 #761 - Douglas Smith - 3237 Casco Circle - Variance Application rescheduled before the Planning Commission at the request of the applicant. Application - Variance - Lot Area - Lot Width Lot Area Required - Required - Existing - Variance - Variance - Lot Width Required - Required - Existing - Variance - Variance - 21,780 sq. 17,424 sq. 16,748 sq. 5,032 sq. 676 sq. ft. (100% Required) ft. (80% Required) ft. or 77% ft. or 23% (100% required) ft. or 3.9% (80% required) 100 80 55 45* 25' (100% Required) (80% Required) or 45% (100% Required) or 31% (80% Required) List of Exhibits Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit A - Lot Width & Lot Area Study B - Tuthill letter - July 19, 1983 C “ Smith letter -- August 2, 1983 D - Brouchle letter - August 25, 1983 E - Zoning Administrator's letter - August 29, 1983 F - Zoning Administrator's letter - August 30, 1983 G - Current Survey with Smith Application H - Tuthill Survey dated June 1, 1973 I - Planning Commission minutes - July 18, 1983 Please review the exchanges in correspondence between property owners (present and past), attorney and the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Smith's secretary called to ask that his application be rescheduled on the Planning Commission agenda. I assume for a recommendation, not a tabling. If the applicant seeks action, you must act on the application and send it on to Council. If we are asked to review the question of a common ownership of Lots 16, 17, & 18, Spring Park, then I feel additional information is required. #761 - Douglas Smith September 13, 1983 Page 2 What is the total area of Lots 16 & 17? Where is the principal structure on combined Lots 16 & 17 in relation to the shared lot line between Lots 17 & 18? What is the setback from that line? Is a lot line rearrangement feasible? Would a lot line rearrangement bring their property into sliv ^nd width conformance with the surrounding prc’^erties? Review Exhih Is this lot consistent with the pattern of surrounding developed lu?.3? Sewer and water are available to the property but Lot 18 never received a unit assessment, only footage charges. If it is the Planning Commission's opinion that this additional informa tion is not necessary because the existing ordinances clearly define your course of action, finding combined Lots 16 & 17 will not provide adequate area or width for Lot 18 to satisfy 100% of the standards of the LR-IC zoning district. Planning Commission may act to deny the application finding the following standards cannot be upheld for approval of this variance; a) the special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property; and b) the conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located; and c) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; and d) the granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code; and e) that the granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. And direct Council to call for a moratorium on all lot area and lot width variances involving common ownership question until the City's study is completed and amendment of ordinances determined. If Planning Commission is of the opinion that there is sufficient information available to act on the application, you may consider the following findings: 1. No available land - lots developed on either side 2. Sewer and water are available 3. House and improvements to be constructed without the need of additional variances 4. Applicant purchased property not knowing of ordinance limitations on development of Lot 18. roval tion and s in #761 - Douglas Smith September 13, 1983 Page 3 nding ern Or Planning Commission cannot make a determination because it lacks additional information on Lots 16 & 17, specifically a survey showing the existing house location and setback from shared property line. I would advise that you only ask for this information if you feel a lot line rearrangement is appropriate. You may find the applicant will refuse this request since he has no control over combined Lots 16 & 17. rary MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18, 1983 Page 11 - UI.RICH (CONT)Mabusth stated that she had never been made aware of any other alternatives to muskrat problems from the DNR. She noted that this seawall method was an acceptable method to the DNR. Callahan noted that the Council minutes of July 28, 1980 reflect that there are no other methods for the muskrat problem. Goetten moved to table William Ulrich's application pending receipt of input from the City Engineer, the DNR's "other methods", and the neighbors. Goetten would like to inspect the other sites in Orono that have seawalls to see if the seawall solved the problem. Also for staff to check out the drainageway. McDonald seconded. Vote; Ayes (4), Nays (1). Adams minority opinion - Adams noted that he felt that the problem Mr. Ulrich has with the muskrats is very urgent. He noted that Mr. Ulrich has a very well thought out plan eliminating the safety problem he has on his property and to table the application may be creating a safety hazard. Anyone can step into one of the muskrat holes and break a leg or a small child could fall into one of those and drown. Mr. Ulrich stated that he did fill in the holes caused by the muskrats. #761 DOUGLAS SMITH 3237 CASCO CIRCLE VARIANCE Mabusth noted that when she took the application in it appeared to be a simple lot of separate record and it did not meet 30% of the standards. While doing the review she found a problem of common ownership. Two neighbors were present Jane Remien and Pat Spilseth. for Douglas Smith. for this application. The builder was present Sime asked if there wasn't a common ownership problem would staff have any other problems with this application. Mabusth stated that if this was a lot of separate record, staff would still have a problem with this application. Goetten asked the neighbors if they had any comments. Pat Spilseth stated that she would be opposed to this variance application because their lots are so close together and the noise level could be bad. Jane Remien stated that she too would be opposed to the variance application because of the lots being so close together. She stated if the lot isn't right size how can you justify building on it? 0 t •* MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18, 1983 « «• Page 12 SMITH (CONT)The agent for the applicant was advised of the common ownership study being conducted currently by the City and that the Planning Commission would have to recommend tabling Smith's application until that study was completed. Mabusth advised that Smith should be given the opportunity to address the issue with staff and Planning Commission. Sime moved to table Douglas Smith's variance application pending resolution of common ownership question and ask that the applicant please attend the next Planning Commission meeting. Adams seconded. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (0). that very well \ has y be le of ould used #762 THOMAS CORSON 4195 HIGHWOOD ROAD VARIANCE in it id it I the >. ion. sent blem this rate this *nts. this :lose o the ig so r ight Mr. and Mrs. Corson were present. Mabusth reviewed with the Planning Commission Mr. Corson's request of a setback variance for a detached garage. He wishes to keep the same setback of the existing garage which is 9.6' and to put up a 32' x 24' detached garage in its place. Mabusth noted the applicants hardships as the severe slope and several mature trees. Goetten asked the applicant why he needed such a large garage? Applicant stated that he would like to put a double garage next to a single one used for a hobby shop. His basement is non existent and so its because of that. No plumbing will be installed. Callahan moved to approve the street setback var iance application of Thomas Corson to permit the construction of a 32' x 24' detached garage based on the following findings and hardships: 1. Slope of land to the south of the proposed garage. 2. Location of a mature oak and several small trees. 3. Proposed setback will allow use of existing gravel turnaround and cut down on additional hardcover. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Doors of garage must face away from the street. 2. Turnaround to be maintained on the site - no backing out onto Highwood Road. Sime seconded. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (0). TO: FROM; DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Joann© A. Mabvisth, Zoning Administratoir July 14, 1983 #761 Lougias H. Smith, 3237 Casco Circle - Variance - Lot Area & Lot Width Zoning District - Application - a) LR-IC Lot Area Required = Required = Existing = Variance = Variance ^ Lot Width Required Required Existing Variance Variance 21,780 sf (100% Required) 17,424 sf (80% Required) 16,748 sf or 77% 5,032 sf or 23% (100% required) 676 sf or 3.9% (80% required) 100' (100% Required) 80' (80% Required) 55' 45' or 45% (100% Required) 25' or 31% (80% Required) jrge ance the d on This application was accepted on the basis that the lot of separate record did not meet 80% of the lot standards required for the LR-IC zoning district. In reviewing the site and the existing improvements on Lot 18, one cannot help but notice a previous use/ownership connection between combined Lots 16 and 17 to the immediate north. The lot-is still maintained as part of the yard. I reviewed the tax roles bade to 1979 and found that Douglas Smith is the owner of Lot 18. The applicant/owner confirms the sale in 1977. I checleed the tax files on Lots 15 and 17 and found the enclosed deed for the sale of all three lots to J. Richard Tuthill in June of 1971. Planning Commission has the following options in review of this application: 1) To table pending resolution of common ownership question - I'm sure we'll have an unhappy applicant as he is ready to build. Please note that in his addendum to the application, he openly reveals that Lot 18 was separated from Lots 16 and 17 in 1977. The LR-IC zoning district was created in 1967. The applicant has demonstrated complete openness in his responses to the information sought in the application. Once again review enclosed Ordinances 31.201 and 31.202. Our applicant could not understand why he had to apply for a variance because he did not meet the 80% standard. The common ownership question will compound that difficulty even more. Hopefully, I will get the opportunity to explain the common ownership issue prior to the meeting. 323/ casco Circle \ Variance Page 2 2) To act on the variance application for a lot of separate record per the staff survey of vacant lakeshore lots held either in common ownership or separate ownership based on the following findings; a) Staff accepted the application believing it was merely for a lot area and width variance. b) The proposed development of Lot 18 as a single residential unit is consistent with surrounding pattern of neighborhood development. c) The proposed application does not require any variances. d) Existing ^^A^rage should be noted as a non- conforming structure and subject to all pertinent ordinances. 3) To deny the lot area and lot width variance application finding Lot 18, originally held in common ownership with Lots 16 and 17 prior to 1971, does not meet the required 100% of all lot standards of the LR-IC zoning district. This is a difficult one for both sta'ff and Planning Commission. I would strongly suggest you go with Option 1 and push for resolution of the common ownership issue. 5*.’ To:Planning Commission Members From: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator November 14, 1985 Subject: #989 Hennepin County Highway Department of Transportation Hendrickson Access - Coniitional Use Permit Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 - Prohibition List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Application Map Property Owners List Hennepin County's Letter of 11/15/85 Anchorage Elevation General Plan Hennepin County proposes dredging approximately a 20'xl26' wide corridor, removing 4.5' of lake botton along the edge of the Hendrickson boat ramp - see Exhibit F. A seawall will be constructed along the sides of the inplace boat ramp and continue for a distance of 63 feet along each side of shoreline for a total distance of 126 feet. The seawall will be constructed of steel and topped with treated timber. Timber must be treated with pentachlorophenol not chromated copper arsenate. Dredged material cannot be used for back fill - see Exhibit E. Harlon Olson of Bonestroo, Anderlik Inc. consultant's for City) has reviewed the plans and structural stability of seawall. (engineering confirms the Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a proposed seawall of approximately 126 feet in length along the shore line adjacent to the Hendrickson boat ramp area subject to the following conditions: 1. Pentachlorophenol treated timbers to be used in construction. 2. Dedged material cannot be used for backfill because of proxi mity to lakeshore. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) rens? DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail: o aded on 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. 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 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 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. 7T 08-117-23 34 0001 Hennepin County Hennepin County 08-117-23 34 0002 Hennepin County Hennepin County 08-117-23 34 0003 Hennepin County Hennepin County 08-117-23 34 0004 Hennepin County Hennepin County 08-117-23 34 0053 Rex L. Ressler 3683 No Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 34 0054 Glenn & Donna Upton 3685 No Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 Hennepin County Department of Transportation Hendrickson Access 08-117-23 34 0005 Hennepin County Hennepin County 08-117-23 34 0006 Hennepin County Hennepin County 08-117-23 34 0007 Glen L. Hendrickson 3645 No Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 34 0008 Zvi 5 Miriam Liberman 3324 Gettysburg Avenue So. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 08-117-23 34 0009 Irv Paster 4300 Robbins Landing Robbinsdale, MN 55422 08-117-23 34 0010 Sylvester & Wanda Van Hov< 3619 No Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 34 0011 Lawrence & Ardell Jones 3605 No Shore Drive Wayzata,MN 55391 08-117-23 34 0035 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 08-117-23 34 0050 A1 & Donna Hagen 3655 No Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 34 0051 Warren E. Berg 3669 No Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 34 0052 Harry Skrypec 3675 No Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 935-3381 TTY 935-6433 October 15, 1985 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota, 55323 'A \ 1 .j Vj ocriBses ' I J CITY OF ORONO COUNTY PROJECT 8456, CSAH 51 PROPOSED SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION AT HENDRICKSON ACCESS, NORTH ARM OF LAKE MINNETONKA DNR P.A. NO. 866109 Dear Ms. Mabusth: Enclosed for your review are plans for seawall construction at the. Hendrickson access on the North Arm of Lake Minnetonka. The project Is scheduled for a late fall, 1985 letting with construction In the spring of 1986. Should you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, JEA:mak Enclosure HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer I m m I—I o O T1 o□Io :> CDm 1fc=---:___________—_____-1 ---------------~Jj C/H 1' -0".r -6* . ffFi m "O • m ■js o> Ui cn L 1 oza <Dza o o o I o Iz C7> O oza “n :::oo ■ 'i : • iy ; < * t m •-4* • «m 1 ^ “ 4i« « . a e ■',* CD:s CDza o CO o pm o I OD cn oJ J_i—1 O o c ^ 30 3* O o O O O O CO I—•o • 1 1 —1 kr,.W ^ . ■' « "lii, 'y ^ ’ M A?. * *■ ! To:Planning Commission From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date:November 13, 1985 Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell, 3405-3411-3415 Watertown Road Variances Application - Lot area/lot width variances to construct homes on two substandard vacant commonly-owned lots adjacent to the existing residence at 3405 Watertown Road. List of Exhibit Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Applications For 2 Vacant Lots Plat Map Property Owners List Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan For Center Lot Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan For West Lot Planning Commission Minutes 4/15/85 Council Minutes 5/28/85 Notice to Applicant 5/31/85 Tax History Council Minutes 9/22/58 Pertinent Ordinances Dating to 1950 Code Sections Pertinent Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C) (Current code) C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A) (3) A. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 in an ”R" District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgement of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: 3. In "R” Districts Not Served by Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record in any "R” District in the City not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter and shall not be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval. Zoning File #990 November 13, 1985 Page 2 of 5 Per Subdivision 6, a "Lot of Record" is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the office of the Registrar of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County, Minnesota, prior to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the Council if required. The applicant owns four adjacent tax parcels in the RR-lB zoning district totaling 2.90 acres. The existing house, well, and septic system are contained within the two easterly parcels totaling 1.01 acres. The two westerly parcels are 1.04 and 0.85 acres respectively. The applicant wishes to obtain building permits for each of the westerly parcels. The 1950 Zoning Code (adopted 7/10/50) established a number of zoning districts, including the "Stubbs Bay District" in which Ferrell's property was located. The "Stubbs Bay District" required minimum building lot size of one acre. This one-acre minimum was still in effect in 1958 when Ferrell requested to build a second residence on his property. It is very likely that Ferrell was told by the City at that time that in order to build another residence he would have to subdivide, because in general the Code allowed only one principal residence per building lot (see Council minutes 9/22/58). Note that at that time his request was referred to the Planning Commission - minutes have not been found for the Planning Commission meeting or any subsequent action. Although a platting code existed in Orono as of 1955, Ferrell apparently divided off 2 lots each of 140' width and approximately 1 acre in area, in or about 1959 without platting, and the parcels have apparently been separate for tax purposes since that time. The parcels including the road right-of-way would likely have been considered conforming or nearly conforming lots of record under the 1967 Zoning Code which designated the property as Zoned R-IC, 1 acre and 140' width. Single Family Residential. That 1967 Code stated, re garding lots of record, as follows; 31.200. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon September 14, 1967 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under single separate ownership in a "R" Residential District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety. Single separate ownerships includes joint ownership by not more than two persons. The 1967 Code did not discuss common ownership properties nor did it differentiate between sewered and unsewered lots of record. However, by using the term "Single Separate Ownership", it implied that other types of ownership would be treated differently but did not define in what way. Under this code, the applicant would likely have been allowed to build on the 1.04 acre lot without a variance because the lot met the standards of the 1-acre zoning district. The 0.85 acre lot would likely have required Council approval, depending on whether the area in the road right-of-way was included in the lot area at that time. deed f the unty, uncil oning lystem le two icant :oning >perty . size when very er to 1 the unci 1 :o the nning f code ich of thout rposes .ikely under sr 14, >arate t the lized in the ubiic srship 3id it 5r, by Des of b way. Lid on rds of quired )f-way Zoning File #990 November 13, 1985 Page 3 of 5 The 1974 Zoning Code declared this land to be zoned RR-IB, 2 Acre Single Family Residential. As far as existing lots of record, it stated as follows: 31.201. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under single separate ownership in an "R" District, which does not meet the re- quirements of the Zoning Code as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judg ment of the Coundil such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met; 31.203. In "R" districts of Greater Than One Acre. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Code as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds; (1) it is at least one acre in size, end the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; and (2) it is either served by public sanitary sewer or meets all the septic system requirements of the City or other governmental body; and (3) it otherwise mets the requirements of this or other applicable ordinances. Under the 1974 Code, the Council at their option could have granted a lot area variance for a lot of single separate ownership, but the Code again did not specifically discuss the standards for the separation of commonly owned lots. The general City policy, as evidenced by the outcome of at least one typical zoning application in 1981 was that unsewered adjacent lots owned in common could not be considered buildable and could not be separated unless each resulting lot or combination of lots included the required acreage in that zoning district. Upon recodification in 1984 the Zoning Code was amended to include the following Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C); C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conforming, un developed lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Acre d as cord i not nly, : the :h of all intal ther Led a Code >n of tcome ?ered ::ould Luded e the f un in a road thout ation y the Zoning File #990 November 13, 1985 Page 4 of 5 Staff’s interpretation of the current code is that the applicant would be prohibited from separating his four adjacent lott., since separation of either of the westerly lots from the main property would result in the creating of building sites less than two acres in area. The applicant appeared before you in April 1985 on an appeal basis rather than a full variance application at staff's urging because a similar application had been turned down in recent years and staff wanted applicant to get general direction from the Planning Commission and Council prior to spending large dollar am.ounts in developing plans, septic testing, surveys, application fees, etc. The Planning Commission and Council directive to the applicant was that it is unlikely they would aprove two new houses, and perhaps would allow one new house resulting in a 1.5 acre density on the total property. Applicant now appears before you requesting that both westerly parcels be declared buildable. He has provided surveys of both parcels, and has provided soil testing and septic system designs indicating that each lot could in fact support a primary and alternate drainfield system (mounds at all sites) to serve 3-bedroom houses, given no future encroachments. The applicant has not provided a survey of the property with the existing house, nor has he provided septic testing to prove that the property has an alternate site for a drainfield. These items were specifically requested in the "notice of Council action" sent to the applicant on 5/31/85. Applicant refuses to accept the fact that in order to grant variances to build on the two vacant lots, we also grant variances to the existing developed lot (see notice of 5/31/85). Two questions, then, need to be answered. 1. Does each lot, of and by itself, have the capability to permanently support a house, septic system, well, and the other -'ppropriate amenities in the rural zone? If so, 2, Is the Planning Commission and Council willing to set a precedent, i.e. away with the common ownership limitation in the ursewered zone? The ramifications of Item 2 are significant. As many as 28 vacant lots in the rural unsewered zones are commonly owned with adjacent parcels and are 1/2 - 1 1/2 acres in area, and could expect to request the same benefit of buildability. Many more such lots have been legally combined, which presumably denies them any status unless re-subdivided. We saw during the appeal that the tax valuations on Ferrells adjacent parcels were lowered as of 1983, which gives the appearance that the separated lots were then given "accessory lot" value and not building site value, since the main lot land value increased markedly at the same time. Perhaps this was a result of the assessor realizing that the two westerly lots were not buildable without variances. It would appear that perhaps up until 1979 and perhaps as late as 1982, the extra lots were valued much the same as the main lot. Ferrell obviously felt he was paying taxes on these separate building sites. /ould >n of i the cant full i had leral Large ation leant («70uld irty. reels d has li lot ds at The sting las an ed in leant •n the : (see Zoning File #990 November 13, 1985 Page 5 of 5 A further criteria to consider is how do the lots in question fit into the neighborhood as far as lot size. Given a radius of 1/2 mile from Ferrell's property, 39 developed lots are 2 acres or more, 13 are 1.25 to 2 acres, 23 are .75“*!.25 acres, and 11 are less than .75 acre. (These increments were picked so that the Ferrell lots could be categorized in one group.) (Note that the Stubbs Bay Study Area, where sewer is contemplated to serve Eastlake Street, Tonka Avenue, and Crestview Avenue, was excluded although it is within the 1/2 mile radius. Those 38 or so houses are on lots averaging 1/2 acre or less.) It is clear to see that in Orono's two acre zone north and east of Stubbs Bay, the majority of existing lots are less than two acres. In general terms, the existing density and lot sizes are detrimental to our long-term program of development without City sewers. Additional houses on relatively small lots will not help that situation. Recall that the Alden Anderson application to allow a second building site on adjacent properties totaling 3.5 acres, was in effect turned down a few years ago. Are there any circumstances or hardships in the Ferrell application that justify a recommendation of approval? ty to other “dent, wered acant ircels i same bined. jacent it the g site time, sterly aps up ch the these rv CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION f Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional project) After-the-Fact Fees (Additional $50.00 payment per each project) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address "sv// Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Please check one — Is the property ^ abstract or _ _ _ torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Phone -/‘ 9’^/' Mailing Address 99^ OWNER Name Phone ^ Mailing Address /j//? Date Property Acquired /^"^S_ _ _ (month/year) I (do)) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) /'lyy DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $ 0/ ^ ^ ^ A ^ •/ VARIANCES REQ'jIRED __ _ yyfLy Lo't Area Lot Width Setback Variances ( Other Front ,/ Hardcover Side _ _Rear) HI HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: _ _ _ _ _ uired DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: _ _ _///_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1, Completed Application Form.-■--asO'' ? i 1 Certified Property Owners List of owner?vTithi?friifP' can'^iKain 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,-,,—'Ple^T^ remember that your variance application is not complete if has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE a. The applicant hereby agrees to provide all informa the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all tees and/' 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^^y'^^^^,^/Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledgers 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. ■ffil K- CO cdI O} M O') » b Vf, >—‘ CD HARDSHIP » Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting_ from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: _ _ 1 DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS .red Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ / REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150 ' (you 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 appl| that your variance application is not complete if the been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE «9T7==ai^aa^^member i^rrhis not ^jCT.-s-eas J; { i - --- - -- - -i; r> I The applicant hereby agrees to provide all informatiOFhreqnirWdiorQl ^^eSted 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 /y/y/''icy/Date OWNERS SIGNATURE 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 7M.)z Date C^l Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are hold on the third Monday of each month. * ___ i 1 '•« ft ft 1 • $ »• w • 1 • <-i / ','1! /■t^'W/ifft- •Lru — fftft • o o oinO CK o in K1 o < m in 2 o inintt ino i>XH . ^ Plat of Survey for Ward P. Ferrell in the SE 1/4 of Section 32, T118N, R23W ir9fs o 0 0 H lV«n A® p 1 Wv^•ky/w Certificate of Survey: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of all that part of the Southeast quarter of Section 32, T118N, R23W, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Soutn line of said Soutn- east quarter, 1088 feet West of the South east corner thereof; thence West along said South line 140 feet; thence North at right angles to said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to its intersection with a line drawn North through the point of beginning at right angles to the South line of said Southeast quarter; thence South to the point of beginning; and of the location of all buildings thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. • JS' •. ^ IiVm «r SE ^ »f m- Wm. S. Kelley, Bruce R. Kelley Gordon R, Coffin Jr. fv^e. No Reg. Reg. Nc. No. 1342 5713 6064 KELLEY 4 KELLEY, Shgineers Long Lake, Minnesota 94 H N N i Scale Date o 1« = 5o‘ January 12, 1959 Iron marker j’’ ^j.***’ ie«a ■ ♦' ■ - 5|L«9rncr p\ aF Scc.3«-«8-23 a t ' K •»•_ « ^'t •• s - .1 • • • * - »• j.- . \ - .. .a % 1 hereby certify that this sur^y, plan, cr repol was prepared by me or under my direct super-; • •! ••• ’#• ■ i vision and that I am a duly Roistered Land eSi * •% . Surveyor under the laws of the State of Mil csoto. . ^ y\ \s y • . 2^. 9 ,V»* t# a « • f f •• ft,’ Vr... !.. i • #*• * *• V ••. : * n .<4 p.^ MS'Sf A * « \ to. / inrn A I UJ >o A LO 1 I sK'X) \ ^ ' K ^ : § X A i A :i: r. i: x • • I • t • « M cji (jJ ro — in PI f'l 'Ll '!3 f (- ! * 'r I <v p tO ~D o |i)1-0O' P o D»6 I o cS I/} ino p? 5♦r Ad» / A-'. 4T '• Plat of Survey for Ward P. Ferrell in the SE I/4 of Section 32, T113K, R23W #K fl/u/ Sci iron •k*^a/W :' ' ! i- S ltA« of 5E M *f 5«c. 32-tlS‘2) .0 n - . I* e-140*r % O 00 t4 Certificate of Survey: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of all that part of the Southeast quarter of Section 32, T118N, R23W, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said South- 'east quarter, 1223 feet West of the South east corner thereof; thence West along said South line 140 feet; thence hcrth at right angles to said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to its intersection with a line drawn Jiorth through the point of beginning at right angles to the *'outh line of said Southeast quarter; thence South to the point of beginning; and of the locrti;t of all buildings thereon, and all visible encroachjnents, if any,_fror* or on said land. Wm. S. Kelley, Jr. Hog, No. 1342 Bruce K. Kelley I:eg. No. 5713 Cordon h. Coffin -'Pg* ho, 6064 any, fror* or oj - Jr. Jf.er. KhJLL.^Y Tinpin'^ers Long Lake, Minnesota Scale: I” = 5C Dat*' : January 12, 1759 o : Iron marker ms '-if- sc c*rw*r *f Se>4 •f Sec. 31-lie-13 I hereby cer*:. y that this survevt plan, or report was prepared by me or unoer iny direct super* vision and that I am a duly Rcjtistercd Lud Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minn- tSOtSL n... n.;• . • • • • • •• -w « • o 0 $ .Tn < ^ CD * Oor 1 c: o Q :j%n ti JT. JJ« o 5 :r K O Q tTo g i/» -n S 8 fX ^ * s[ i f I o on >* Drt)(t Cla>cx IT on o .■^ fD 2.rf •O ? iA 5 9 o —X J VIX 9 rt»o t o rt» I) o t oc A cr IV i/» 8 8 CX 8 Tt:-) St 5 o t: ificn o li to 4:" 8 3 3T ■v% X p "4* 0 31 o CD O O fX CD U*> -J q. II £ A> oc yi rro -N sf- o X3 TT II ^N 2 r o ^'s ^ o i/» \ o;^8 i- <v o x>i H O O J\ A ’ o o fD %o;t lO 51 > ? s O O S o ■- r\j ■^- s- jx s. 3 *8 o 15L» •§ I ^ ^ §■ ro •> t c Q ? c) t; ? 5n> T3 ti'ror' c oo o D» .? K *T3 X o K) to ki / t’<iI - MINUTES OF THE ORONO PI^NNING COMMISSION i5EETING IlEU) APRIL 15, 1985 PAGE 3 1895 T.M. CROSBY Approval is subject to the following conditions: PID 11 — 117 — 23 32 0004 anc northern portion of rearranged PID 11-117-23 32 0005 to be combined with Crosby homestead lot. PID 11-117-23 32 0006 and southern portion of rearranged PID 11-117-23 32 0005 to be legally combined for tax purposes. 3.All future construction on undeveloped lot that involves the alteration of flood plain fringe areas must be reviewed and approved by the DNR before a building permit can be issued by the City of Orono. 4.Tested septic site area on undeveloped lot must be staked and protected prior to construction. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). #903 WARD FERRELL 3405 WATERTOWN ROAD REQUEST TO CONFIRM INTERPRETATION OF ZONING CODE PUBLIC HEARING 8:10-8:49 PM Ward and Mary Ferrell were present. Chairman Callahan announced that now was the time and place for the public hearing to be held concerning Ward Ferrell's application to confirm the staff's interpretation of the zoning code. There was no one present from the public for this application. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Ward Ferrell explained that in 1948 they bought the property on Watertown Road. Ferrell stated that in 1958 they decided to divide the property to build a new home. Ferrell stated that he was informed by staff at that time that he had to appear before the Council. Ferrell stated that everyone agreed on the Council, except one person. Ferrell stated that this property was divided at the previous Mayor's (Herb Ross) request. Ferrell agreed and he met the zoning at that time and noted that he could have had 5 lots but chose four lots to make bigger lots. Ferrell explained that the surrounding lots are all the same size. Ferrell stated that the zoning has since changed. i Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed with the Planning Commission that in 1967 this area was zoned 1 acre. Gaffron stated that from 1967-1975, Ferrell could have built on those lots without variances. Gaffron noted that in 1975 the area was rezoned to 2 acre. Gaffron explained that in a similar case on Shoreline Drive, the Council denied the applicant the variances giving the City a clear policy in the common ownership issue within the rural areas of Orono. ^ r A, t .MINUTES OF THE ORONO PJ.ANN1NG COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 198b PAGE 4 #903 WARD FERRELL Rovegno noted that for 20 years it has been taxed as a separate buildable site and for the past 3 years it has not been taxed as a buildable site. Ward Ferrell stated that he has kept the property all these years thi king he could build on each parcel and he noted he would like to build his retirement home on one of the parcels. Ferrell noted he has owned the property since 1950 and is entitled to build. Planning Commission agreed with staff's interpretation of the zoning code that the property needs a variance. Chairman Cali’ahan suggested that the Planning Commission be polled as to their feeling on the application if it were an actual vari nee request. Kelley felt that Lots 7 and 8 should be combined into one lot, thereby on y allowing two lots (the existing lot with the existing h ime and one other lot (7 & 8 combined)]. Mary Ferrell stated that the cede is not consistent and is contradictory in that the zoning has changed along with the code over the years. Sime M that there is very little doubt that staff interpreted the zoning code correctly, but whether he agrees witJi the basic premise is another point. Sime felt that there are a bundle of rights that ao with the land and should not be taken away from people by changing the rules or zoning while they still own the land. Sime stated that the common ownership issue seems to alter the rules for people. Most of the Planning Commission felt they could only approved two lots (the existing lot with the existing home and one other lot] conditioned upon Lots 7 and 8 being combined. Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Rovegno moved, Sime seconded, to confirm staff's interpretation of the zoning code that these lots do need variances. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). Rovegno felt that a less intense use of the property would be more reasonable by combining Lot 7 and 8 and that way the applicants would only need a lot area variance and not a lot width variance. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that this application was brought in under a request to confirm the interpretation of the zoning code in order to save the applicaiits money. Mabusth noted that a completed application would require payment for area variances for each proposed and existing building site in addition to septic testing for each undeveloped site and an alternate test site for existing T / 0 ■: 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PIJVNNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 1 !i, 1985 PAGE 5 • house. Mabusth noted that staff concluded that in light of Council's recent amendment of the zoning code dealing with rural lots under common ownership and their decision on the . Shoreline Drive property of Alden Anderson^ that this approach was the most inexpensive way to get an answer for the applicant. #905 DENNIS THOMPSON 250 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:50 - 8:51 PM Dennis Thompson was not present. Chairman Callahan announced that now was the time and place for a public hearing concerning Dennis Thompson's conditional use permit application. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. There was no one present in the audience for this application. Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 8:51 p.m. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that during construction on the Thompson home, staff noted a second kitchen and a separate a^-artment area being constructed and felt that a conditional use permit should be applied for. Mabusth stated that Thompson has agreed that the guest apartment will never be rented out. Kelley moved, Sime seconded, to recommend approval of a co/.ditional use permit for the guest apartment within the residence located at 250 Old Crystal Bay Road finding all standards of Section 10.20, Subdivision 3(G) to be statisfied subject to the condition that the separate apartment unit may never be rented. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). .-t m. C I v<- #907 JAMES BIGHAM 1545 LONG LAKE BLVD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:52 - 9:12 PM James Bigham was present. Chairman Callahan announced that now was the time and place for the public hearing concerning James Bigham's variance request. There was no one present from the audience for this application. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant is requesting a vari^ince to construct an addition to his home which will increase the hardcover in both 0-75' and 75-250' setback zones. Gaffron stated that the addition will increase the potential water usage since they plan to construct a bedroom. Gaffron noted that Bigham replaced his septic system in November of 1984, but that there are no alternate drainfield sites on the property and that if the new system fails at some point and it could not be repaired, a ■n'a GE 5 .'MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1985. PAGE 4 that ling sent ling and Acting Mayor Frahm advised Asplund that after the patios are removed, that the ground should be sodded, Councilmember L. Adams noted that he has a problem approving anything in the 0-75* setback area. Councilmember L. Adams moved. Acting Mayor Frahm seconded, to adopt Resolution 11768, A Resolution denying variances * for the fence and patio concrete request with a deadline date for removal of patios for June 15, 1985, for 3424 Eastlake Street and July 23, 1985, for 3444 Eastlake Street and the request for deck platform and screened porch to be referred to the Planning Commission for their review. Motion, Ayes (2), Nays (1). Councilmember T. Adams voted nay. .• #897 CHUCK PETERSON 825 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Chuck Peterson was present. Assistant Zoning Adminis trator Gaffron stated that the surveyor reconfirmed the dry buildaL'le area that Council requested at the last meeting. Gaffron confirmed that there is 2.0 acres of dry buildable per lot in the area identified strictly as a seasonal drainageway. Councilmember T. Adams moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to approve the preliminary subdivision application of Chuck Peterson. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). (#90^ARD FERRELL ^STWy^ATERTOWN ROAD ZONING APPEAL ' . Mr. and Mrs, Ward Ferrell were present. Assist nt Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant was brought in under a zoning appeal in order to save the applicant some money. Gaffron explained that if the applicant had applied for a variance that the application would be more costly and with the Council's past precedents the Council would probably have denied the application. City Attorney Radio asked how much the full variance application would have cost. Radio noted that by allowing this applicant the appeals procedure the City is saving the applicant money, but by handling this matter the City is not treating this application as a variance and not using the same standards. Radio noted that the decision reached tonight does not presume that the same decision would be reached on a formal variance application. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the variance application would be $150, plus the applicant's expense for additional surveying work, plus the extra expense for septic testing for each lot. Gaffron estimated r' are ^ing 3ams Bicii (0). MINUTES OF TUE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1985. PAGE 5 #903 FERRELL ! ' ■that the application could have cost the applicant $1,000 just to get denied. Gaffron noted that staff felt that the applicant could get some general direction from the City under the zoning appeals application process. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the Alden Anderson application is very similar to this Ferrell application. Gaffron explained that the applicant owns four adjacent tax parcels totaling 2.90 acres. Gaffron noted that the applicant wishes to obtain a building permit for the 1.04 acre lot. Ward Ferrell stated that he has owned the land since 1948 and built the existing home in 1958. Ferrell stated that he bought and has saved this land with the intent to build his retirement home. Ferrell stated that Herb Ross (former Orono Mayor) had requested him to.divide his property. Ferrell stated that as a favor to Ross and the City and to stop trouble in the future, he divided the property into four parcels. Ferrell stated that then the zoning changed in 1967 and at the time the hearing was held regarding this zoning change, he asked whether it would affect existing lots and he was told no by the City. Ferrell noted that he is willing a parcel of land for his daughter to build on. Ferrell stated that in 1980 the Stubbs Bay Marina was divided and the City allowed very small lots. Ferrell felt that he should receive the same treatment that Stubbs Bay Marina had received. Acting Mayor Frahm explained that the City agreed to smaller lots in the Stubbs Bay Marina because the City felt that it would be a less intense use on the property with residential units rather than the intense use of the commercial marina. Frahm stated that there were very extenuating circumstances with the Stubbs Bay Marina and shouldn't be used to compare with this application since the circumstances were significantly different. Ward Ferrell asked if the City was going to honor what Herb Ross requested. Ferrell stated that Ross told him to contact George Hanson (former assessor for Orono) to see what the lot sizes should be when he was subdividing the property. Ferrell stated that Hanson told him 140' v/idth for each lot. Acting Mayor asked staff what the typical lot size is in the neighborhood. Ward Ferrell stated that the average lot size is one acre and only one parcel is two acres. Councilmember T. Adams asked how many units the applicant is requesting out of a total of 2.9 acres. \ .Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron answered that the applicant is requesting a total of three building sites (one existing, one for the retirement home, one for his daughter). i .-.muT' -*r —a- --—-—■—r wn MINUTES OF TUE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1985. PAGE 6 rOOO the :ity the cell 3wns Eron emit #903 FERRELL on. ided It he i had Kerb tn to what irty. lot. n the e and nt is t the . (one ter). Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that in 1967 the standards changed when the zoning code was revised effecting the applicant. t Acting Mayor Frahm explained that it is hard for the City to honor a verbal opinion that was made in 1967, Frahm felt to be fair to the applicant that he would consider two building sites, but certainly not three building sites. Cour.cilmember T. Adams stated that before deciding the Council should . ee all relevant background information. Councilmember L. Adams symphathized with this type of problem when the owner purchases property and keeps it with the intent in the future to build on the property only to have the zoning code standards change. Adams stated that he cannot see installing three septic tank systems on three small lots since the septic tanks will be the permanent system installed there. Adams noted conceptually that he would consider two building sites only because of the problem that the applicant owned the property with the intent to build in the future only to have the zoning code standards change. Adams noted that if it \»eren’t for that reason he would not even consider two building sites. Adams stated that when the septic systems are placed too close together on small lots such as these, there are potential problems with ground water contamination when these systems fail. Acting Mayor Frahm expressed his concern that if the City approved three lots that the City would create a density pocket similar tc the Crystal Bay neighborhood in which the City would have to go back in the future to correct the problem by sewering the area. War ^ Ferrell stated that his septic system is 28 years old and has never had a problem \/ith leakage. Ferrell pointed out that he has paid taxes on the property as if they were buildable lots since 194 8 and now he cannot use the property. Ferrell stated that up until two years ago they paid taxes on the two vacant lots as if there were separate building sites. Ferrell noted that two years ago the taxes were lowered from $11,000 to $5,500. Ferrell explained that he has already told his daughter that she can have the let and he is not going back on his word. Ferrell asked if the City was going to honor what Herb Ross told him years ago. Acting Mayor Frahm stated, in his opinion, no. Mrs. Ferrell asked if the City was going to refund their taxes that they have paid for buildable lots all these years. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that should a variance be applied for that in the review it should be considered what position the applicant would have been in if he had not subdivided the property. MINUTES OF THE REGUUVR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1985. PAGE #903 FERRELL CounciImember L. Adams gave his opinion should the applicant apply for a variance, he would be willing to consider a total of two lots. CounciImember L. Adams moved. CounciImember T. Adams seconded, to affirm the staff's interpretation of the zoning code. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). #908 & #924 JON SCHERVEN 2649 CASCO POINT RD (#908) VARIANCE - RESOLUTION (#924) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION Jon Scherven was present with his father A.W. Scherven. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the applicant proposes to build a two story addition over the existing concrete slab and deck oh the lake side of his parents home. Gaffron noted that the applicant proposes hardcover tradeoffs, and that the proposed deck does extend into the 75' setback zone. Gaffron stated that the conditional use permit is required because the applicant is requesting to use the basement as a guest apartment for his parents who are retiring. Gaffron noted that applicant does propose a kitchen in the basement but has agreed that the second dwelling unit would never be rented out. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission did approve the application subject to the following regarding the guest apartment use: 1) apartment for use of family members only,* 2) apartment use may not be conveyed to a purchaser; 3) guest apartment may not be rented out and such to be confirmed by staff yearly; 4) use is subject to City ■•'eview at end of four years. Acting Mayor Frahm asked if a separate entrance is proposed for the guest apartment use. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that the main entrance would be used, but that once inside the main entrance, a door leading to the basement and a door leading to the upstairs is proposed. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the Council did recently approve the Beck conditional use permit which is similar to this application. Councilmember L. Adams felt that the lot is really too small to support another dwelling unit. Jon Scherven explained that his parents have tried to sell the home and have not been able to. Scherven stated that he has offered to buy the home, remodel it, and then they would be able to live in the basement. Scherven confirmed that he will agree to any stipulations the Council wishes to place on the guest apartment use. . /-/ CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONING PILE NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice 5/31/85 TO; Ward P. Ferrell 3405 Watertown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES TO TYPE OP APPLICATION: XXX Zoning Appeal Date of Meeting: 5/28/85 Vote;For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - NOTION: Council affirmed that staff has interpreted the zoning code correctly, and gave conceptual direction that Council would very likely deny a request to allow homes to be constructed on either of the two vacant lots, and at most might consider allowing one house on a combination of those 2 lots. If you wish to proceed with a variance application to build one house on a combination of the two lots, the following addi tional items would be required; 1.A certificate of survey showing all 4 of the adjacent properties which you own, showing existing house and driveway location. 2. Site evaluation report showing primary and alternate drainfield sites for the proposed new lot, and showing a suitable alternate drainfield site for your existing house. 3. 14 stamped legal-size envelopes - we will use the pro perty owners list you have already obtained. 4. Completed variance application form. 5.Fees; a) Lot Area Variance (new lot) b) Lot Area Variance (existing lot with house) c) Zoning Application Sign (refundable) $150.00 50.00 40.00 Less $100 Credit From Appeal Application -100.00 Additional Required Fee $140.00 OR If you wish to proceed with a variance application in order to build 2 new houses, 1 on each of the vacant lots, these additional items are needed; 1. Same as (1) above. 2. Site evaluation report showing primary and alternate drainfield sites for each of the two vacant lots, and showing a suitable alternate drainfield site for your existing house. 3. Same as (3) above. 4. Same as (4) above. Fees:5. a) b) c) d) e) f) Lot Area Variance (1st new lot) Lot Width Variance (1st new lot) Lot Area Vr>riance (2nd new lot) Lot Width Variance (2nd new lot) Lot Area Variance (existing lot) Zoning Application Sign (refundable) $150.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 40.00 Less $100 Credit From Appeal Application Additonal Required Fee -100.00 $290.00 OR If you wish to proceed with a variance application to build on just the westerly 1-acre lot, as you originally intended, the following items are required: 1. Same as (1) above. 2. Site evaluation report showing primary and alternate drainfield sites for the proposed new lot and an alternate site for th<5 existing house. 3. Same c s '3) above. 4. Same as (4) above. 5. Pees •• a)Lot Area Variance (westerly lot)$150.00 b)Lot Width Variance (westerly lot)50.00 c)Lot Area Variance (existing lot)50.00 d)Zoning Application Sign (refundable)40.00 Less $100 Credit From Appeal Application Additional Required Fee -100.00 $190.00 Please contact Citv staff at 473-7357 if you have any questions. 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. ♦ 4-ac WJ* 3a ft 3* 0 7) 0) <n> ai "1 01 .-t 3- 3 rt X •i il> 0 0 a 0) 01o 3 O rt H- 3 «4« n OJ -f D rt 3- 3 M M M \0 \D \D •sj -sj lU Ln Ok G 01 H* 3 vQ rt 3- 0) »-h O 3C h-» Di ♦ ♦ ♦ 3f> »z s c 0) (1) 3 X V (0 H- 3 O 3 X- (0 ft s < > 5 3* H- 3 H- rt Oa < O’ Mc (D O M p 3a O’ 3 G H* 3 H- ft 0)a < OJ H*c 0) o ht M 0) 3a o H3 0) CD 3 rt 3* 01 (D M < 0) O’ 3 M Qi C CD 0) 3 O a rti ( j (jJ OJ ^ ^ ^ rsj ro ui o o o o o o H* M M U1 on M M • • • OJ M ^ 00 00 cn CD 01 H- 01 ft 0) 3c a o rt^ d o CD t-» 01 H*3 H* rt CD Oi < O’ M d CD O r-h M O’ 3a o ri rt H* 0 3 ft H-o 3 O 3 OJ OJ OJ ^ % ro to on o o o o o o M H* H (ji on r- M • • t OJ H* *0 00 4^ 00 II* 9f ♦ If Sf Ik W ^ W * M M M ^ ^ ^ OJ *U 4S^ on ON M ^ O • • t VD 4:^ 00 OJ ON >4 a 1 rt k»4|1 1 H-P 1cn1 0 ti 1 ft 1 3 X-1 .T)h 1 CD 1 /)d 1 rt 1 Mo1VOVOVO 1 H*H* 0 rt 1 <o OO 1 O O d 1 P 1 ti 1 M 1 -j CD 1 d 1 P CD 4^4^VO 1 4a^UJ d X t •• 1 •• a.*-*o (jJ VO 1 O VO 3 d o ON to 1 4^ON p X 3 1 d cr 1 Qi CD 1 <I 7)>1 't C M h-* 1 to to d a P ^ 1 r-»w cn ON -O •O 1 o oatoC?N 1 o ON rt o 00 o 1 o O p p ••• 1 •• d 3 H*o VO 1 U1 U) D a 0 4:^4>k I VO to '/i c 1 p M 1 73 3 P 1 d Qi rt 1 d CD 1 p cn a 1 d rt 1 p d 1 rt d 1 CD o 1 m«4 rt 1 <d 1 M 1 CD 1cn1 yo VP 00 VO VO N> O O M ON VO • ON 4^ to O o M ON VO § 4ib ON 4^ on ON on ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ to ^ OJ to VO o OJ 4^ O 4^ CO ^ on o o o o o ON on • ON OJ ON 00 00 • on ON ON 4^ VO to M H* H-* M to OJ 4^ 4^ ^ ^ ^ on VO to M O ON O O o o o o ♦ H- M H* » ^ ^ on on ON VO OJ to ON 43^ 00 • • • 'O to M o o to to to to on on on ^ ^ % o o o o o o o o o to to to ^ ^ ^ O M o to • to to VO VD to ON 4^ • ON to to o OJ • 00 00 to ro to o to to o o o on •o 00 • • • 00 4^ M to 00 to to to to o o o o o o 00 ^ • • • •O to VO 4^ to 4^ • 1 H» M V 1 •2 H < 4^cn 1 VO O O 1 vn cn vn • p ^ 1 ^ ^ ^1 h9 O 0 ON M :to 4^ 4^1 o o o -O P O O 1 o o o 1 o o o < H 3 o O 1 o o o 1 o o o > o P rt 1 1 tr*0 1 1 C o ti l-»1 to CO VO 1 M NJ H W O CD 00 VO 1 00 cn 00 1 VO o VO o cn VO 00 1 VO 4^ 4^1 VO cn 00 'J •• 1 t • •1 •• • VO 4^ 1 VO VO VO 1 cn cn ON o to 1 00 lO o 1 o o > 1 1 1 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 o < 4^cn I cn ON ON 1 vn cn vn • P ^ 1 ^ ^1 00 0 ON M 1 00 ON ON 1 o o o cn p O O 1 o o o 1 o o o < H 3 O O 1 o o o 1 o o o > o P rt 1 1 f*O 1 1 a o HC M M 1 to to to 1 M ro W O P 00 VO 1 M to 4^1 VO o VO o VO 00 1 to VO 1 VO cn 00 00 •• 1 • • •1 ••• VO 4^ 1 VO 00 00 1 cn cn ON O to 1 00 ON 00 1 o 4^o > 1 1 ><: o •o on • ON 4^ l-» M H» VO VO VO 00 00 00 O M to to to to ^ ^ O M to VO to ON VO O 4^ • • f 4^ 00 4^ 00 ON to ’-•MM VO VO VO 00 00 00 U) 4^ Ln Hjw > 5d to to to^ ^ ^ tJJ (D t-h O CD 4^ (J1 4^ VO 4^ ON to O VO • • • ON vn -o ON to ON Go 3 CD cn rt CD P Qi O CDa H« rt 3 < > G G W ♦ > X 4* k < > IT* G M > X o > > X ►d H D o o o VO M D o o M O VO M P O »-C CD H- rt 3- 3- O d cn CD O Pon CD <Po p 3 rt 5 P tNa CD tt CD M M VO 4^ O VJ1 S P rt CD rt O 3 G O Pa I H 0 z n H CO1 w X 3* H*cr H- ft MM j •• ^ W ^ <1^ Crystal 3ay,Minnesota.U- J S*» ■ ’ . V* . Ulnutea of meeting held In the Village Hall on Sept.22,1958,at 7:30 P.M, Pre.ent: H.R.Rose,Mayor; R. C.Bagley,K.Turaham 2-°J^taeon* G.A.Hans'n.Asaeseor; A.G.Stinson,Foreinan:rrerald Ross.Constable,0.-.Johnson. Minutes of meetings held on Aug.25 and Sep.8,IS53,were r-ad and approved. Attorney Louis B.Brechet,representing the Hub Barber Shop at Navarre was nre2wt regaling ^ situation on County Road 19 at the In^rsectlon Prmntv Road 15 asking for continuance of angle parking versus parallel pIrkffloSStll diolliS®to Lok into the situation further and bring up later for further consideration. The continuance of the present contract with the Suburban Hennepin County Relief Board was unanimously approved. The Minnesota Watershed District Act was further discussed and ordered held ' UP for further review and discussion. The public park situation In our Village was reviewed that an offer be made to the owners of property '***^”f .. 'accomplished legaliy,on a basis $5000.00 per annum until ^ Clerk will consult legal adhorltles and report result at next Maxwell moved that the present trailer restriction be waived In the case of Mrs.Slgafoos,allowing her to use trailer In Its present location. No second to motion was made and the motion died. I i 11 On request of Ward Ferrell for the erection of another residence on his prop!rty on County Road 45,Bagley moved,secondedbe granted eubjfp^ ^owever to the.review and approval of our Planning Com. The budget for 1959 was set at $ 102,000 for Village operation and the County Auditor will so be advised.i 1 A notice of meeting of the Orono District Dev.Corporation,on Sep 25th,at The Orono High School was brought up and representatives of our Council will arrange to attend. Verified Accts.No.607 through No.669 were reviewed and approved with Meeting adjourned subject, to call on October 13,1959. O.E.Johnson,Clerk. Approved; //7?o /u'i >C. { ItA < •>, ,L /. • ' } / I / <« *’ . Wi M'4 •vi >•“V 1 ( »• 0^ ORDINANCE NO. 22 An Ordinance to Preserve the Public Health of the Cilisens of Orono by Regulating the Mini* mum Sise of Residential Build* Ing Xtots WHEREAS, the Village of Or ono has no community sewage system and depends upon septic tanks and soil absorption sys tems for the disposal of waste; and WHEREAS, such disposal methods are apt to create a ser ious problem affecting the health of the community where applied in residential areas serving more than one dwelling per acre; and WHEREAS, other communities have serious health problems by reason of the enlargement of res idential areas with substandard lot sizes served by septic tanks and absorption systems; and WHEREAS, the Planning Com mission of the Village of Orono has recommenaed to the Council that regulations should be estab lished now to prevent the same sort of serious health problem from arising in the Village of Orono; NOW, THEREFORE, for the sake of the general welfare and health of the residents of the Village of Orono, it is c ained as follows: tive 7 Ud- / Section 1. After the effective date of this ordinance, no build ing permit shall be issued for the erection of a residence in any residential zone of the Village, except upon a building lot con taining a minimum area of one acre, and having a minimum width of 140 feet at the building / line. Section 2. It is recognized ♦h there are several built up rcsi dential areas in the Village which arc substandard and overbuilt by the terms of this ordinance. In such areas, building permits may be issued for lots not meeting the minimum requirements estab lished by this ordinance, if the Village Council feels that .such building will conform to the gen era characteristics of the neigh- fSI- I lirh ' j / V ' borhod and will not have an im mediate and specific adverse effect upon the public health. Section 3. It is recognized that the enforcement of the minimum provisions required by this ordin ance with respect to lots held in single, separate ownership at the Tune of the passage of this ordin ance might be an arbitrary depri vation of a valuable right from said owners. Therefore, where a lot which fails to meet the mini mum standards of this ordinance is held in a single, separate own ership at the time of the pas sage of this ordinance, the Coun cil may issue a building permit, provided that there will be no immediate or specific adverse ef fect upon the public health. Section 4. This ordinance su percedes and repeals any provi sions in the platting ordinance or zoning ordinances of the Village which are inconsistent herewith, except that provisions of prior ordinances establishing higher standards than those prescribed by this ordinance are continued in effect Section 5. It is recognized that the establishment of definite standards for all lots in the entire Village is impossible, as there may bo, in every case, reasons to relax the standards, or to en force stricter standards. The Council reserves its discretion to increase or decrease the stand ards hereby set for good cause, whenever the particular facts of the situation convince the Coun cil that the public welfare, and particularly the public health, re quire such modification. Section 6. This ordinance shall be published in the Minnetonka Herald at Wayzata, Minnesota, and shall be effective immediate ly upon such publication. Passed by the Village Council of the Vilage of Orono this 12th day of October, 1959, by a vote of 4 yeas and No nays. H R. ROSS, Mayor O. H *JOHNSON. Clerk (10-15-59) \/ / . I 3708001 I q-n-S ( 1 longer terminal street necessary. J . IkT ^ *7 Such culs-dc-sac should be avoid- V^PQiZldXICO IMO* JC cd altogether where possible. An Ordinance Regulating Plat- ning Comniission * alf terminS^sSM^ *iali*U^ro- The Village Council of the VU- Master Plan and if the sub- fl. Street names may be indi- *•51®/ Orono oid^; division area covers a designated cated but shall not dupUcate nor That the foUowmg regiUations .^o^ghfare, such part of this resemble too closely names of ex- be, and the same are, artery shall be part of his isting streets in Orono or in the adopted and approved; and ^hall ^ ^ ^ dedicated by metropoUtan area. Existing street U known u and *»»y »>«“ thV subdivider. names shall be used where the •pillage of Orono Subdivision design of the subdi- platted street is a logical extcn- Ite*ul.Uani"^____ p,ovi1Sr.h.U U mad. Son o. U..I PMticutar rtr«t. *^**^®“ ^ ^ for the proper connections with AUeys In order to «afe«uard existing streeU in adjoining sub- ~ner»l alleys shall not Interests of the Village of Orono divisions or for the proper exten- *~»rmitted in a residential sub- ud to u>M « iobdivldcr in bK- proposed streeu into the SfvKon sfrviM eSl« SSubimoniiing his inloieets with those property where such of the VIUM. St .!««•. U.l» tSnl proP^rt/ has not been nance b adopted to tto hope ttat jpJjiriged. In considering the S' "“'jy odheience to It wUl hnng resulb .pension of such streeu, e»w !gS?^br^ot tothaVSty (20) beneficial to all concerned. attempt should be made to mam- . width Alievs will be re planning of wbdivisions wm ;^^S^Adjoining develop- g^uL fo^b bring a disastrous disconnected unequal character f, patchwork of pattern and poor ^ot be united by connect- 2. Where two W) ^eys i«f“* circulation of traffic unless its s^ets unless it is deemed sect, a cut-off of no* less thm design and arrangement are cor- ngcessaiy in the public interest ten (10) feet along such property cabM to a Master PUn Study maintenance, safety line from the n^ aiming at a unified scheme of protection to do so.) of the property lines shaU be pro- community Interests. It is, there- rieht-of-wav widths fore, necesaery for the Orono desfen^ to accordance 3- Dead-end aUeya shaU be Village Council to make certain .n.i. ch5i-nrter and use The avoided where possible, but if reguUUons and requirements m suegestedM unavoidable, shall be provided which contribute to the health. SLTum rUh^o^^w to vm- with adequate tum-eround fecU- eefety. convenience and general Ities at the deed-end as deter- weltoe of the community. In -ous types of streeu. the long range analysis, the Plan- Right-of-Way Easements SeMbtoTSm’' .to^'irraurn” “rl” a" ....100 feet Where alleys are not provided DroDerty values for the subdivid- b. Secondary and main at the rear of properties, there SriS^wUl effect manv economies thoroughfares .............. 80 feet must be provided a Pub i® to toe platting and development c. Neighborhood residen- ment as “ ^ ^ •Subdivision’* in this ordinance d. Minor residential provide possible location fm util- mSSlIie Vision Ta parcel of streets ........................... 50 feet ity Unes suto land Into two (2) or more lots or 4, it is desirable that all streets ejs Such easement parceb for the purpose of trans- shall intersect as nearly at right (5) feet fer of ownership or building de- angles as seems practical, taking shall ^ SdVS the^ot line mak velopment; provided that a divi- other factors into consideration. of^S^ (10) feet No don of land for agricultural pur- 5. Minimum center line radii ^ be poees Into lots or parcels o*JJve i^cai „iinor streets shall be not ^ easement. Ade- (5) acres or more and not »nvolv- jqo feet; centerline radii Moment provisions shaU ing a MW s^eet of major and secondary thorough- Je made for area drainage and not be deemed a subdivision. Tlw fares should be not less than 300 water carry off.term Includea re-subdivision and, storm water carry un. when appropriate to the context, ^ location of all curved to^ relate *<> toe procew of sub- should be so arranged as Considerable latitude as to size diving or the land subdivide . natural topography as ©f blocks is deemed desirable by Division of any existing 1^ pM- gj^ggjy g, possible and to make the Council in order that the ®*] • «f «# possible desirable land subdivi- subdivision may be planned in ■idered withm the purview of vehicular traffic, blocks to suit the topography, the thia ordinance. ^ Terminal residential streets general character of the site and ODfERAL REQUIREMENTS or culs-de-sac should be platted the type of deyelopmem appro- fitiMte not longer than 500 feet unless priate to the locality. With the 1. In any areas where the Plan- topographical conditions make a increased use of the automobile. trend in residential subdivi sions has been toward a longer length of block and a reduction oi the percentage of land devoted streets. Under certain con<U- tions, blocks up to 1000 feet or 1200 feet in length may be ac ceptable. Lots 1. Residential lots, os to size and area, shall be governed by and subject to the policy of the Village Council which is hereby declared to be that all lots con form in area to the existing lots in the general area of the pro posed subdivision and in no event shall be less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in area, and minimum width of one hundi^ (100) feet at the build- ing line, exclusive of any ease ment for driveway purposes (util ities easement excepted). 2. Depth and width of proper ties reserved or laid out for com mercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the ofT-street service and parking facilities required by the type of use and development contemplat ed. 3. Each lot shall adjoin upon •1 public street and shall have a minimum width of thirty (30) feet at street line. Lots in regis tered land surveys may adjoin upon private streets. Said streets nonetheless shall comply with provisions pertaining to streets set forth in this ordinance. 4. Double frontage, and reverse frontage lots, should be avoided except where essential to provide separation of residential develop ment from traffic arteries or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. A planting screen reservation of at le"$t ten (10) feet, and across which there shall be no right of access, shall be provided along the line of lots abutting such a traffic art.’ry or other disadvan tageous uses. 5. Side lot lines shall be sub stantially at right angles or radial to street lines. Flood Areas Areas within the jurisdiction of the Village Council subject to flood conditions as established by the Engineer of the Village of Orono will not be considered for subdivision purposes until ade quate drainage has been provid ed. Planting on Public Property The planting of trees, type, spacing, etc., on public property shall be subject to the regulations of the Village Council. No plant ing. gateways, entrances and sim ilar improvements shall be made on public property except with permission and approval of the Village Council. Public Open Spaces It is the declared general policy of the Village Council that in all new subdivisions not less than five per cent of the gross area of all property subdivided shall be dedicated for public use, each five pier cent being in addition to the property dedicated for streets, alleys or other public ways. The Village Council may waive this requirement if it feels that public property, other than roads, is not necessary in connection with this subdivision. The area thus dedicated should be either usable area or area which can be put into usable shape by the subdivider. The subdivider shall leave land so dedicated in a condition satisfac tory to the Village Council. The varying size of lots, the size of the subdivision, etc., will have a direct bearing on the de sirability of and the necessity for such dedication as well as the size of the piece to be dedicated. It will be within the discretion of the Planning Commission to interpret these regulations in the light of the overall plan and pat tern of park development. In the interests of the Village as a whole, and, therefore, of benefit to the subdivision, the Vilibig*: Council of Orono is de sirous oi conserving certain areas of natural beauty and establish ing in various areas the logical distribution of the following types cf facilities: 1 Play lots, for preschool chil dren. 2. Children’s playgrounds, for children from five to fifteen years of age to use for active play. 3. Athletic field, as a specialized center for organized games and sports. ** 4. Parks, large and small, for their value in passive recrea tion and as a long range pro tection from congestion of de velopment. A cooperative interest in this larger program is sought by the Village Council and it is expected the subdivider will aid in assist ing to make this achievement possible. Platting Procedure The Council of the Village of Orono requires that all proposed subdivisions shall have the prior approval of the Planning Com mission before receiving final ap proval by the Council. It is, therefore, necessary that certain steps be taken and data assem bled that will enable the Plan ning Commission to study the proposed subdivision in the light of its relation to the Village plan for growth and development, and in the light of the general topog raphy and the character of the development. To accomplish this purpose, the Planning Commission will wish to submit the preliminary plat to their Village Engineer and to their Consultant for their study in field and office and for their recommendations. ‘This prelim inary plat for the consideration of the Planning Commission shall be i:’;d with the Village Engineer or Planning Commission not less than five days in advance of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to allow sufficient time for review, study and a recommendation pertaining to this plat, at the next regular meeting. Whenevc.7 possible, it is desir able that the preliminary plat be accompanied by a written state ment specifying the intentions of the owner respecting the pro posed character of the develop ment, deed restrictions, drainage, porks and playgrounds and the intended date of beginning devel opment. He should express his willingness to proceed to file a plat of record of his subdivision or such part thereof as he may wish to put upon the market and to install all monuments shown on the plat. The Planning Commission, in its consideration of the prelim inary plat, will take into consid eration the requirements of the Community and the best use of the land being subdivided. Par ticular attention will be given to the arrangement, location and widths of streets, the general drainoge situation, lot sizes and arrangement, as well as any Mas ter Plan requirements such as parks, school sites, boulevards, highways, etc. Adequate street connections will be required to insure access and freedom of traf fic circulation. The subdivider, after the ap proval of the tentative plat by the Planning Commission and prior to the submission of a final plat, shall within six months after the date of approval, or such longer period as the Plan ning Commission may grant, cause the property to be surveyed in accordance with the approved tentative plat and any and all changes therein as approved by the Planning Commission. The survey shall be made in accord ance with the standard practices and principles for land surveying and all monuments shall be sub ject to the inspection and ap proval of the Village and the County Authorities before ap proval of the final plat. Final plats must be submitt^ to the Village Engineer or Pla^ ning Commission not less than five days in advance of a regular meeting of the Planning Commis sion for its approval prior to sub mission to the Village Council. The Council requires that all streets shall be graded and grav elled as a part of the develop ment. Such work shall be done under the supervision of the Vil lage Engineer and subject to spec ifications prepared by the Village Engineer and placed on file with the Village Clerk. Xoleriox Streets The subdivider shall gra and gravel streets at his own ex^ .se. In case this work is not complet ed for a logical reason when the final plat is presented, a perform ance bond with a Surety Com pany approved by the Village Council shall be furnished before final plat is accepted. Boundary Streets The subdivider may petition, prior to acceptance of the final plat, that the grading and gravel ling be done by the Village with full costs assessed against the benefltted property over a period not to exceed ten years. Preliminary Plat Four prints of the preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision .shall be submitted to the Orono Planning Commission drawn to a scale either one inch equals one hundred feet or one-half inch equals one hundred feet. The preliminary plat shall con tain the following information: 1. The proposed name or legal description of the subdivision. 2. Its location with reference to known existing thorough fares or section comers, etc. 3. The boundary lines with di mensions of the tract to be subdivided. 4. A topographical map of the area Showing contours of the land in general not greater than one foot intervals). Map should indicate location and width of existing adjacent streets and utilities with es sential elevations and make note of bench mark used and its elevation. 5. Owner’s name. Subdivider’s name, and the Surveyor’s name and certificate. (Sur vey shall be made by Regis tered Land Surveyor.) 6. Scale, North point and date of plat. 7. Preliminary street profiles showing present grade, pro posed grade (every 100 feet), complete with percent of grade and showing satisfac tory disposition of storm wa ter. Two prints of profile— one to be returned to the subdivider when approved end acceptable. 8. All plats and profiles shall bear the standard State B''**rd of Registration Certifi cate, properly executed. 9. Proposed building lines on all lots intended for residen tial use and in some cases re quired on lots intended for business use. and at least the setback required by the Building Ordinance and any applicable Zoning Ordinance. 10. Owner’s name of unplatted property, lots, blocks, and name of subdivision of plat ted property within 150 feet of the boundary lines of pro posed subdivision. 11. Copy of the provisions of any protective covenants where by the subdivider proposes to regulate land use in the sub division. Final Plat Raquiramant ’The preliminary plat as out lined above is a prerequisite to the submission of the final plat. Approval of the preliminary plat is tentative only. Approval of the final plat shall be obtained from the Village Council after first re ceiving approval from the Plan ning Commission upon submis sion of same with the complete information outlined in the re quirements specified herewith. The final plat shall conform to the preliminary plat as approved, and, if desired by the subdivider, it may constitute only that por tion of the approved preliminary plat which he proposes to record and develop at the time, provid ed, however, that such portion conforms to all requirements of these regulations. The following data shall be shown on or submitted with the final plat: 1. Boundary survey. 2. Dimensions — all necessary. 3. Angles —at all boundary and block corners. 4. Purpose for which sites, other than residential lots, are ded icated or reserved. 5. Minimum building setback line when required by the Village Council. 6. Location and description of mo-numents. 7. Other data: such other cer tificates, affidavits, endorse ments, or dedications as may be required by the Village Council for the enforcement of these regulations. 8. !n lieu of the completion or installation of any or all of the above improvements, and before the final plan is ap proved and recorded, the Vil lage of Orono may accept a cash deposit or surety bond to secure to the Village the actual cost of such improve ments as estimated by the Village Engineer. 9. Streets and alleys (by angles and distances). 10. Above description should in clude all centerline curve data. 11. Street names. 12. Block lines ond block num bers. 13. Lot lines and lot numbers. 14. Easements and their widths. 15. All necessary certificates re quired by law. 16. Name of subdivision, scale, date, north point and all oth- # • • • •r pertinent information gen> erellp required on pleU. 17. The fonn of approval shall be as follows: a. This plat was approved and aceepisd bj the Village Coun cil of the Village of Orono, Iflnneaota. at a regular meet ing thereof held this....»..dajr o f 1^* If .Jfayor .Clerk>»>——•••••••***********^ b. TUi plat was approved by the manning Commission of the Village of Orono at a reg ular meeting thereof held this ......day of.............JtJD. 10..... ..............................Chairman c. Checked and approved this ......day of..............~AJ>. 10...~ County Siurveyor, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Should any section, paragraph, clause or condition of this o^i- nance be declared by the courts to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the ordi nance as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid. This ordinance shall be pub lished in the Minnetonka Herald published at Waysata, Minnesota and shall be effective from and after such publication. Passed by the Village Council of the Village of Orono this 12th day of September, 1055. R. R. Ross, Mayor. Attest: O. E. Johnsem, clerk. V -* * V .trici «hirtl' i • •t li£R KB-j NED, Thfif district ial «, aod thf^ lated 4*' a| .^jTowti at Utwsatf tha isSria ru Tifa^'- '•two (8^, Ircd SIfh* wnty>thrM ly, M&ib^ v« (». SU maXilp Odc 117), Hence Hennepin escribed as jilepetot, flaeiowB* Hcnib mi ion line of nMhip One 117), lUmge Hennepin intersects f the right ^sota West* own as the n a north* along the id right of ta Western where said rest line of >i) of Sec* , Township teen (U8). (83); thence loith-South »cttaa Thir* ion Sis (I), lied Seve»> eenty-three. olBt of sail mship ChiOt 117), Range [hence East int* of the St (SEVa) of' mship Ono 117), Range > the North* I Northeast SoutheMt SB14) of ^-nship One 1 17), Range lence SouUv' ne of the] ter of the* ter (NKV4, : (4), HeiWB» Sciwolttli r-tlnee OD IHne e of «l J . • . VI' • :'i* i.i»r I ncvi!'.* v , •' ;)ir \\\\*,, >4) ri u •. I r: ' * i- V •t • *‘4» • li' ;n* r\ • ’• t.. tiijpVf •. ( ;.'o;n‘ vh>’* < ,ii! li • >,'< ra.' • i;*v to -j j . ‘•'•I'l rly uj. . i.n:.- l.v o) M.vnwc I! O V» i •'' j • I \»I » v*t \'»l, * iCJ i thi n rv Uvh riieCt; txs\(\ :r^UoK!> »ic:v, Lak^ *vhn- I i ;T.’* Only o'lf- *irr 'l7 . notonk., tiK'iv.e MorlVw.-v-UfTly }c'.AtU:r,; v/.'h i.cco^soo- nniidinVs- J nlor.Lt th*! wi'i'-.rly iieft cf ;Mid cliannrl to a point where it «n- icjsccts tho shore lino oi Stubbs Hay. Lake Mlmietonka; thenoe westerly, northerly and custeilv v*«‘Sor>- nniidinf f.'jr.S(i:aa',iIy us.':rj it; cor.iuncti'in [ with lariwiy civvellints and cor>-i oidrred r> pa“l of such family clwellin,; may be erected on anv ^ c:»e '‘buildinj: lot." Acccssor> ' alcn^ the west shore ILne of said . l'uild!i.;'s deemed to in*. OvUt'OO iiay to a point where the j eluoe .v.'ch 'jie’id.nc? as t;uost cot- r.ai(. shore line intersects the ; tapes, yar.-.ges, boat I.oiisc-,. pun:p e-si side of township road run* I or well bout. s. ddeken houses,.’ I riint? niorth and South on cen- i bar;:*; «ml c.intr farm buildings. icr section line of Seetion Five tlvlhinc, herein coiitained shall be • c liundred : consid':ed to peiinit or author- ^c\enteTO (137), Ranpe Tvvo.nty-! til ;;ny nenseu whftst cvcr ti.'. ivT ^ Cxleucied: thenci*utili/e such arvcsr-cr>' building-:,. .Nofih alOTig the Wert s;dc of r; or nuy of them, m o: related to t-.'itcnded to lam- re»mmercial enlerp: ise con- I l.io point orbeginniru;. dudtd upon tb' me>rn:se-.s. jonci w'h'.ch said zoning district j shall be referred to as the Slubb's Noti.i’jg herein contairu J I Bay district. shall be construed to prolubit aii ; BE rr JrtfRTHKR RESOLVED within the said l^VN'D ORDAINED, .That the lol- from continuing oi; I lo'.v ndcs. reguiauons and rosTric- owned b> him. uru’ trade. 1 lions with respect to u.-es of P>''Jfe-ssion u;.;ch is [lands and builil}r»g5■ within the|*i’ c-'<*!^*-er.ro on satd !.,nd at t.ho zoning disadcf^shall be and *’*•' •'•dopRan of tbs;; reso- [«;■;* herebv adopted ca follows, <jetimar.cc, and the en- ';o-\vi‘- , • ai irr.ont of thi<. vi guLt-.on and ! 1 Said zoniig dirlrict is here*!; ? Z -teclaied i. »A- a privat e ro-i-’‘ ,^1 ...d-ngs fur u-.. :n \ .:tial distiict. and no bidldm,. 1 or other structure oi improvement ' " ! ‘ ‘ Tl '^btrh >» ir [iUnll hereafter be erected, alteiedr.'- . r;r’ ? . jo;- repaired tor (isc or be -used i'v. i 'V.i*. !v' on.v purposes o.!»er them pi i-.T'C'!*! ,, ^ ^''y V' r-.id.nbal pi-.'poses. ' r*"’ '=• fof t-.m rcm ia , j 2. No biilbrordr or jthcr ad-!‘’J-r '-I -V, bo; ein cor.air.ect he r •n- jvc.li;-ir.g sign*, dt.spiay- or oth-. ripi"hii'it the- u. e of ;, o! any kiud sha’i be ci-cet.*d I ' *•' '-^'d eht*: -’ -•» rn Ijitaintd in «:ai.d roning'Jis.l'-'i' ‘''i.'ieuHuial or farm :;g \ .r [ tr\' t oe opt bfc. ing oni.v! P‘> '*’ I'.br* Tv.-s of the r-^sidentii of the^ j b»t; e; ;u;d the name.-- of dwell- ii;. ?-- iheren, exo.p. street aivi !:o.T.i n.-ones ar'i traffic s'gn.-:, and !|'‘R'-'l-!. \NP 0;tDAlWED Tha> je;.(. .'pt sigr..s a-iveilisinp Cor Bak;|!^'‘ b.iimvng area and dirtrit t in jor refit, the piein-s.j n* v/hicb |*‘d 'U'o.’o 'J be, rad '.he itb'.'V m: .v be loeat-d. ' c. :io building c .ta-.-r sltuc-j tur': -b.i'i .be cr. eted .ipon sm.., ! iaiv! ..:lhin the zorung di • [triet •.‘.•■'cpt w.heie liio land uper. j whi-.h i!»e building or o»her s'rui- ture js to be erected censtiiutes! u bu’iding lot” a? hercir.rdtcr .f. j srr.'bed. A ‘‘buildim; lot" ,a i ''- -: ' b.v d<fined to be l;-.!.'i .'iiiTer o*" • Vl'lllCIi cn-TT; • tf ;• .-'I ih-i;t; I Cl- ■» J M' ( ' |v>r •-• dll . I -: II :k'.i; Jii- Ml .1 . (iiiM ):t •• of i •:«'!r;'.' i ; ,;1 I fi v.iy to ' r.rle.'; acl'un .if .i.-iij - i a- , r ii'ie •>! :;iil(o.»d oi ■y '.\;t!'. ilii. '. ulh\et!sti.rly ’-re .\udiler*.-. S’.Ii)division iCt/ii* r T!i:ei« Hundred Fifty-s'x i>'J). li-nnepi;! Couutj’. Mume- ta. extend'd northwesterly;. running .southecslcrivl mig the said southwc-itcrly ne of said subdivision, and Us orthwesfeiiy extension to the : fnlei sect ion of said liue with the rdinaiy low water mark of ,ake M;r.neto:dia; thence run- lim; along .said shore line in a lofthc.osterly direction, and then r an c.-sterly direction, and then in a southerly dixectlon, and then in a northerly dlTCction-foUow* ing the line defined by the ordi nary lo'w water mark of Lake Minnetonka, to the point of be- giniiinij, and which said zoning district • . hall be referred to as the Brack ett’s Point digtriot. ^SUwllOll I N il HK IT r'.’UT»n-:i , RE- • r: u.' /'• i f ro b \ r] tj v; j ii!: n,; i: ci i lhf ‘ ‘W, \i) \hi' •t’ a*'S • . f .Mii.m t.( \v;f ■SiT‘k'"ot TioWe\’th. rHa’ or t'x- rrtt -rn.T,r.~pr7T ’iiV i »'Cr'T It*.' imo tills rcsoiutio.i ,*np o: !’»• >ball take 'u. b n/ • 'M\»i plallrd inio ’ot!. j.id , ' >lcl 'led < I rc'.'oiu v.-ith »iie iug- sl.'r *if ,>f of Hciincpin Coun ty. Mj;i or ;he Rog 'txii-- of Tiilea uf Herni”pin t junty. Muimsoia, and Where tl.c area of kny '■..ith pb.tteil lot. .'--pr th<.n * V U' .,. IV in .,r!:a. --a- p i(-. J. brsek^tJe P.iini Diufricl 1 |i)u- p;s.:s u: Soclinru 'Icri tlO) i ';:i Kl -vi r (in. T-Avnstup Grm | Scv(M'!rcn (U7;-, ! f . .'y '; c^i-il. u 1* :i .J y 1 ;i I Miti'-i ;oU;, »>(.• .•vii .'o a.« { [cU.iw...- f'lHi.rv.c.i'-injs: tlu-* (.r,? x^licif iiK* Ncrl'i Ihic oi ' I'ti'jn '.’fi .11), To'.r-.ir.’fJp I Hiir.'lr-d .jovr-ntecn OlVV IVri'.V*' Vv tf... -thi—'• t2'r. inter i f *; .Ti'’ u.iliuii'j' li'v/ V..!t‘:r'! narK of i.ba '.'/cal ..'"irv of !h;it ! in-ri^.p r.f Lnue Mir'ootv'nka ; lr, v,M.- flruA'.i’; ."uy, j [lyr.n.oj WftT'.eriy r-ii/r./; t.if| Airth, U*i* SiTlion Kievan ' . 1 ^ th.‘ ‘l ; ‘i !.(<••: ,-n :< . ; i» f f, * 'V I I i ‘ • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND - '' a’AlNED. That the fol lowing rule;-:, regula'ijcns and r^- .-^Irictinns with re5pe>.i to 'uses of th'.- land:! and buildings v.iil-jri he abc've zoning d'-stiict shall be md are hereby adc;,lfcl as fel lows. i.o-v.'if. A. Uf-s Dislticfs Said dio'rj. t i- hcv'ji'y viJrd int.-j use aistriet..-, to be Lsictna.i-l as 'res’.irntial Jis- icf mil Tomr.ici ciai district." • 1. All tlivU pr.rtior of zon- ^ .g d’strii. l j*he- ti.i-r h-re- * lutfie.- -.e.sc; ibf'.l and rhsignated- |s th:' ‘‘comi:;ci»iol d;.'’friK’’ is le -ob'- d Aignatcd a.-i;: established a.i the residential <ii.str.ct.” 2. The foJJov.'-.ng described pction of said zcirng aistrict is 'iierr-by de.'-igr.alcd and t!-,tabliihc'.l . s ;; * otnmcrciai district". Paitr of Govcr.’*'ieut Cars Om* (i» ai.d TW(.> ',2), .-i.^otion .Eh wn tlJ'. To’.vnsiin .>tr* Hundred Sc.entc^ (U7\ Range Tw-.mty- tbr-,e £^}. Heeri'^pin Cour-iv. Miiinesota. dosaritied a*i follo-.v.«i: That part of Government Lot One (1) desrritjfd as foliow.s; • Coinnieming at a point ch the V* ,,-r v.f kb,id l.,jk ; which P'-iint i.s cleter.minLd ar f';Huv.-.j Cm. -.'.cnci.n.t at ;yoU*t O'.i ti\c Ini:.- rhrrr n; ;M;ru..'»t -!nkn w hich P'.iiit t Sover-'y '70) tcet nui ti.weetiT'y :x riyh‘ an gler- tmm a Unt; Vv.iini* .N.'tl.'i biuty-.1-.1 M ci-‘gr'e 'N. f.Tly .-igin ykisi (o7 ‘4?'; i-om .i p'um which is South Tfij dv ■'w.f i 'inu r,.u.? f'lgM fluf.'Jrt'ti T h i • y - Sir rxA ave.'tcnthr <hoC.ro Icet from the Northeast ■.j'.r '/'-.vi —Li t 'h'r % <I » A .1 V. To: From: Date: Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator November 15, 1985 Subject: #991 William Ulrich, 1535 Bohn's Point Road - Conditional Use Permit Zoning District - LR-IB Application - This is an after-the-fact application for a conditional use permit and variance to do grading and filling within 75' of the lakeshore. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Staff Sketch of The Site - Note that the revised grading and drainage plans submitted were too large to copy effectively — these will be presented at the meeting. The applicant is constructing a residence on this parcel of approximately 3.5 dry acres. He has also acquired the Blohorn residence to the south and is anticipating a lot line rearrangement between the two properties which will increase applicants lot to nearly 5 acres and leave the former Blohorn property with about 2 acres. (That is the subject of a future application.) Mr. Ulrich was granted a building permit to construct a new home at 1535 Bohn's Point Road. Grading plans had been submitted for that property and were considered as normal and customary for the residence in question. Note that applicant had been permitted to fill portions of the property in the years prior to conLitruction in anticipation of the project. On October 21, 1985, staff became aware that grading was occuring in the 0-75' lakeshore setback area. Staff subsequently visited the site, noted the work that had been done, and discussed with the owner the immediate protection measures necessary and the application pro cess for an after-the-fact conditional use permit. Applicant was told by staff that he should finish-grade the area and seed it as soon as possible- This was completed as of 11/8/85 and at that time staff requested further shoreline protection measures including additional hay bales and silt fence, which has also now been installed. Staff review of the site and grading plan indicates that the major changes in contour occurred outside the 0-75' area. There would appear to be some minor filling and smoothing of the land surrounding the lagoon; however, this leaves a fairly flat slope and slowed run off within 50' of the lagoon and the lakeshore, consistent with what previously existed but a more uniform appearance. k Zoning File #991 November 15, 1985 Page 2 of 2 The engineer, in his review, has requested that the applicant indicate the location of the outlet of the pond near Bohn's Point Road on the Blohorn property since this pond receives the drainage about half of the Ulrich acreage. Applicant should also be advised that the City will require a drainage easement to be granted over the drainageways and the pond area. There has also arisen the question of the final grading of the berms located on either side of the driveway entrance. These are indicated in the grading plan as "temporary storage" with final grade undetermined, depending on the need for fill at other locations on the site. Applicant has been requested to move these berms off the right- of-way and is in the p^iccess of complying as of this writing. Because these berms are so visually evident along the road, their final grading and appearance is an item for discussion. Staff would suggest that these berms be the subject of a separate conditional use permit application in order to help cover the costs of staff time, especially the engineer's reviews. Applicant should also be made aware that in the event the conditional use permit and variances are granted for the work at the lakeshore, that there is an actual lakeshore grading permit fee required in the amount of $400 ($200 fee, $200 after-the-fact investigation fee) in addition to the $400 conditional use permit application fee already paid. Note that the above application and permit fees are required because the current work does exceed the "normal and customary grading in the area of a newly constructed building" per Section 10.03, Subdivision 21. Any motion for recommending approval should address these items: 1. maintain adequate shoreline protection until lakeshore area is fully vegetated 2. notify applicant that no hardcover or structure is allowed in the 0-75' setback area 3. notify applicant that the grading outside the 0-75' is also subject to conditional use permit review, and that the City engineer has requested additional information on the pond outlet and discharge, that drainage easements will be necessary, and that the roadside berm configuration is subject to review. CITY OP ORONO ^0.0^} GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION i . PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 1535 Bohn ’s Point Road, Wayzata, MN 55391 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) OS'/J </<V c>o/S 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 Williani J. Ulrich Phone 612-54 1-934A x511 (work) Mailing Address 1535 Bohn's Point Road, Wayzata, MN 55391 OWNER Name William J. Ulrich Phone 612-541-9344 x511 (work) Mailing Address 1535 Bohn's Point Road, Wayzata, MN 55391 Date Property Acquired September 1981 (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 $250.00 $200.00 c) Duplex Credit/Bldg d) Commercial/Industrial Use f) Land Alteration (grading, filling) i\o ^PRD/PID - see fee schedule Other Applications $250.00 Vacation $250.00 Rezoning $100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule Present Zoning District i l> Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) rrens? DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __________ Blending of contours to prevent faTcesnore erosion luded on REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. y Completed Application Form. 2. y 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 f legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 0 . -/■ \ o Certificate of survey/^^ ' Construction plans, if applicable 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 cer,tif ies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best, of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature / OWNERS SIGNATURE > / / //' . / ;Date 29 October 1985 ^ s/ The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission memberr, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request* Owner's signature V ‘jfL Date 29 October 1985 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. j Hot)2 > 33> X 2: o3 -o rn tj m > 70 > Ml 2 6o tj > oo ::: 30 33 m 553 T3 m > \ -< > ri o 33Cl33 O tJ m u 33 > 3 a > a 3 33 m r >> X3 -Um > N -<> m a 33 a33 o t) orn *X3 33 Z § > o3 » m H O XI Z > >• 33 > X Z O 5^5H O 3 2: o:t TJ m T3 m > 33 \ H >> m Z o a 33 > a a 3 33 33 m H Z >> X 3 33 m >> \ H> m o 33 a33 m33 u33 O 13 >aa33 C3> HnX oo 33 i a >Hm H MOm mm H a (/I €D >HnX XI i oo a >Hm 0 01 0» Ml m • TlM O U U1 o 4 #i iI 1 k : u-'-i s err^ Xii! (5^c of'^ (?*'■ / '■'■' Planning Commission Members Jeanne A. Mabusoh, Zoning Administrator November 13, 1985 #993 Tonka Transmission, 1960 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit Zoning District - LR-IA Application - Conditional Use Permit required to amend original permit, approved May 9, 1983, based on the proposed changes in use; 1. increase in parking approved = 10 stalls proposed - 18 stalls 2. dispensing of gasoline has been reduced functions as full service station station no longer iP 0 I ♦ i U • List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Application Property Owners List Plat Map Original Site Plan Easements - Sketch Resolution Determining Number of Sewer Units Resolution #961 Resolution Approving Original Conditional Use Permit for Craig Olson Amended Parking Plan In the process of determining an accurate and fair assessment for each of the properties within the Crystal Bay neighborhood. Tonka Transmission was assessed 1 sewer unit. Based on the current schedule provided by the M.W.C.C., a service station requires 2 sewer units. The applicant's business involves merely a transmission repair operation; gasoline dis pensing has been cut considerably. Gasoline is sold merely to customers of auto repair operation. The enclosed resolution (Exhibit F) establishes the criteria by which the property will be assessed an additional unit at the time the station reverts back to a full service station. When the current level of operation for Tonka Transmission was re vealed, staff advised the applicant that he would have to reapply for an amendment of the original conditional use permit because of the change in use. The applicant was also advised to seek an increase in the parking allowance for the property as this has been a major concern of the Council since Tonka Transmission began its operation. Reduction in gasoline dispensing - Review Resolution #961 (Exhibit G) the resolution that established the legal non-conforming use - specifically Section IV that establishes criteria for continued use of the service station and non-conforming use. nf i-i I T Tl "If n iifT Ti‘r mit. >nger each ssion y the ant*s dis- rs of s the t the s re- or an ge in rking uncil •it G) cal ly rvice Zoning File #993 November 13, 1985 Page 2 of 3 The applicant has advised that gasoline sales have dropped over the past year. Olson states that gas will continue to be sold to repair customers and to any other person who seeks service. Transmission repairs will now be the principal use on the property. In the resolution that approved transmission repairs (Exhibit H) with the service station operation, the findings note the recent history of the failures of the full service stations that operated under the controls of Resolution #961. The applicant is well liked by the surrounding residential neighbors. Olson notes that he still provides gas for the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The City has never received complaints from the surrounding property owners but Olson has been called twice to appear before the Council regarding violations of parking allowance. At his last appearance before Council sometime in late 1984, Council directed Olson to bring back an amended parking and landscape plan. Olson advised Council that he could easily increase available parking on the site because an attendant/employee would be responsible for parking cars. Review of Parking Plan As noted above Olson was advised to submit an amended plan and an increase in parking allowance would be considered if the following standards are maintained: 1. safe sight distance at access locations 2. fire lane maintained along front of building 3. landscaping for site - low planters along roadway - possible need for screening along rear of site. The amended plan has been provided to scale (1 ”=15') - note parking stalls are not at required 9'x20* since parking is done by employee. I have placed an X over the parking sites that violate Council's specific directive. 1 & 2 will create sight problems at east access. 3 violates fire lane requirement and 4 will create problems with maintenance of new lift station. Staff would recommend that parking allowance be increase 4 units for a total of 14. I have been advised that the City will replace all curbing along the street right-of-way that has been damaged with the installation of sewer lines. Application should specify the type of plantings to be provided - 3 feet height must not be exceeded along street lot lines. Does Planning Commission feel additional screening or plantings are necessary? Special care should be taken within the 5 feet wide utility easement area so that no permenant improvements are planned (review Exhibit E ). with the s of >ors. ood. ners ding ncil nded si ly ould d an wing need king I :if ic ates E new ise 4 Zoning File #993 November 13, 1985 Page 3 of 3 Staff Recommendation To approve a conditional use permit for Craig Olson, owner of Tonka Transmission, allowing the limited transmission repairs as a principal use and a reduction in the full gasoline service and an increase of 4 parking spaces for a total of 14 approved parking spaces based on the following findings: 1. The level of operation will remain the same. There will be no intensification of use, only the reduction in gas sales. 2. In a*^proving 1 sewer unit \ r’he property, the City formally recognized that the station is nuy operated as a full service station, 3. The City has never received any complaints from neighbors con cerning the operation of the transmission repair shop. 4. The applicant still provides gas service to local community when needed. 5. All controls on the limited tranmission operation as set forth in Resolution #1483 are still in effect. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant to work with City staff to determine best type of land scaping for limited corner site. Special consideration to be given to utility easement areas, sight distance at access points, need for screening along west lot line. 2. Parking of cars to be performed by applicant or employees. 3. Parking spaces to be maintained at a total of I ^ 4. Applicant to advise City if underground tanks are to be abandoned with this reduction in service, and if so, the date these tanks are to be removed. 5. Complete the execution of all utility easements with the City prior to Council approval. 3 the sewer a - 3 ming ?cial that rr onka use king wing e no ally :ion. con- when ;h in loned re to City CITY OP ORONO GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION #993 Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Please check one - Is the property K abstract or (for Conditional Use Applications only)torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Phone Mailing Address S. V\c<g P. Vaka vL CNO OWNER Name ^ A Phone Mailing Address Date Property Acquired _(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the 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 rr ► PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY » t, , Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) rrens? uded on ! » [ ! DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail: o^ Cuot Pc:>g* OVA r^tsK.\.^g=L IIRBD 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. # 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 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 W 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 thir Monday of each month. s list -3271) on the member t been sted by ourred is true 'urther itantSf .gation >re the o third 10-117-23 42 0012 E. Robie Wayne 4418 Ellerdale Rd. Minnetonka, MN 55343 10-117-23 31 0096 Harriet Spates Torangeau 2060 Central Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 42 0006 Ronald Prineas 1980 Heritage Dr. Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0089 Daniel Crear 1980 Spates Ave Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0090 Richard Stinson 2040 Central Ave. Wayzata,MN 55391 ,«• 10-117-23 31 OOOi George F. Rovegno 2010 Shoreline Dr. Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0002 John T. Spence 2040 N. Shore Dr. Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0008 Helen Bowers 2055 Spates Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 42 0005 1930 Shoreline Dr. Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 42 0007 Kenneth & Elsie Harter 1940 Shoreline Dr. Wayzata, MN 55391 A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF SEWER UNITS AT 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE WHEREAS, the use of the property at 1960 Shoreline Drive in Orono is currently under a Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Conditional Use Permit allows for the operation of a "service station"; and WHEREAS, a service station operation requires two sewer units as per the schedule provided by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission; and WHEREAS, the current use of the property is an automative repair shop that does not dispense great volumes of gasoline; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that under current conditions the operation does qualify for one sewer unit until such time as the operation changes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that one sewer unit will be assessed immediately and one sewer unit will be deferred until such time as the operation changes back to a "service station" in which the dispensing of gasoline is a major part of the opera— tion, requiring a change in conditional use; purchase by a major oil chain or key use in which vehicle repair is no longer the principal usage of property and intensified sewer use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that when the deferred assess ment becomes due, that the assessment will be spread over the same amount of time as all other units. Adopted by the City Council, day of _ _ _, 1985. Orono Minnesota on this ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Cl=*rk Mary C. Butler, Mayor • % t \ i I ..:a RESOLUTION NO. ^/o ! A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPERATION OF A LAWFUL-NONCONFORMING USE OF LAND WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter City, is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and •, the City Council of the City of Orono, hereinafter Council, has adopted a Comprehensive Guide Plan which sets forth the unique characteristics and constraints affecting development within the City and which Plan establishes goals and guiding principles for planning and reviewing development within the City; and WHEREAS, the Council has adopted a Zoning Code which establishing performance standards and criteria for implementation of the guiding principles of the Comprehensive Guide Plan; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Code of the City provides for the continuing use of land or buildings as lawful non-conforming uses whenever such uses were lawful uses under prior zoning regulations but have since become non-conforming uses because of a lawful change in the zoning code; and WHEREAS, the property described below has become a lawful non-conforming use of land and buildings in the manner described above; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby establishes a Conditional Use Permit for continued law^l use of the following described property according to the following conditions: ° I. Property Description 1. Legal Description - "part of Lots 24, 25 and 26, "Ora Park" on Lake Minnetonka and that part of Lake Street lying between the extentions of side lines of said Lots 24, 25, and 26, and between front lines of said Lots and Northwesterly line of the Right of Way of County Highway No. 15 (formerly No. 7) being a line parallel to and 33 feet northwesterly from the center line of existing pavement of said Highway", all of which is intended to be replatted as Lot 2, Tourangeau Addition. 2. Lot size: (ave.) 145.58 ft. wide by (ave.) 7^.55 ft. deep =• 11,435 sq. ft. (.26 acre). Resolution No. Page 2 Dve; the lued Lowing 3, Existing structures: One single story masonry gasoline consisting of L^auto sewice Ss^with ‘hoifL[^one^^x‘ir'^ four pumps; one advertising sign base; concreL drives over fuel tanks and at pump island, gravel surface elsewhere. 4. Existing Ownership: Land owned in fee by Harriet sincrfgw’ to Robert Reutiman, ^®“biman owns the building. Reutiman's nterests sub-leased to Texaco, Inc., in 1963 which leasee s use ceased on or about September 23, 1978. II. Existing Use 1. Since 1963, Texaco, Inc. has subleased station to one or more operators who have used the property for retail gasoline and motor fuel sales, ]tisht_repair and exhange 2tJi^ts_in motor vehicles. Vehicle s^grvlce included s^tem« tuoricitionT-ETr^ repair, replacement of exhaust systems, engine parts, etc. Sales included gasoline of various grades, tires, batteries, additives, and parts when installed in the vehicles. P«»rcs included vending machine sale of soft drinks and cigarettes. 3. Recent year's use has included hours of operation generally running from 6 or 7 A.M. to 6 or 7 P.M. weekdays, reduced operation Saturdays and no operation on Sundays. 4. Recent year's use has NOT included bulk fuel sales, large n®brng or repairs, auto body repairs, welding, retail or wholesale auto parts sales, retail or wholesale sales of any other commodity except as noted above, or outside storage Ot parts, equipment or trucks. l^ggoXution No. page 3 III. Zoning 1. Ordinance 214 adopted November 14, 1978 provided for zoning of this property to LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential consistent with the adjoining properties (and a portion of this property). 2. Prior to Ordinance 214, a portion of this property was zoned B-1 Limited Neighborhood Business District. 3. The B-1 zone provides for gasoline service station use by Conditional Use Permit. The LR-IA zone does not allow gasoline service station use except for continuation of the existing use by Conditional Use Permit as a lawful non- conforming use. 4. Even as B-1 zoning, the service station use was non- conforming because of substandard lot size, substandard setbacks and lack of conformance to zoning performance standards. 5. The zoning was planned to be changed from B-1 to LR-IA in 1974 concurrent with adoption of the city-wide rezoning and implementation of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. IV. Conditional Use Permit for Continued Use 1. This permit is issued as an automatic condition of the rezoning occasioned by Ordinance 214. 2. This property may continue to be used for the existing gasoline service station according to Section 31.100 of the zoning code and according to the conditions set forth below. 3. The manner and extent of the use shall be as previously used. 4. The principal business shall be retail motor fuel sales of various grades of gasoline, specifically including diesel fuel and/or gasahol or similar fuels used for motor vehicle propulsion. 5. Accessory business may include other existing uses listed in Section II above. Resolution No. page 4 IV. Conditional Use Permit for Continued Use (Cont.) 6. Other uses may be considered by the Council upon application and upon a finding that the proposed use is less non-conforming than the above permitted uses. 7. Specifically included in this permit is authority for the following: a) Operation between the hours of 6 A.M. and 10 p.M. daily including Sundays and Holidays. b) Installation of one new 6,000 gallon underground storage tanks, subject to building permit. c) Installation of new or revised pump islands and fuel pumps, subject to building permit. d) Interior and/or exterior renovation and remodeling of the building, subject to building permit (and Council review of work where required by Ordinance). e) Installation of new advertising signs not to exceed size of prior existing signs. 8. Specifically required by this permit as a condition to authorized operation are the following; i-^) Installation of traffic separation curbing and landscaping shown on the attached plan and required as a condition to subdivision of the property. Work to be completed no later than July 1, 1979. i/b) Installation of fencing required by Section 38.501 of the zoning code. Work to be completed no later than July 1, 1979. 9 c) Closing of rear station window with masonry (per State Building Code). Work to be completed prior to building occupancy. d) Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy by the zoning department prior to opening for business. 1 Resolution No. Page 5 9. This permit is subject to review by the City Council upon violation of the conditions set forth herein or as provided by Section 32.490 of the zoning code. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their regular meeting on the of ty oi William B. Van Nest, Mayor ATTEST: Walter R. Benson, Clerk/Administrator *•!' ■r-3 >». 4 ; 1 • f • r GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 31.100 File #742 WHEREAS, Craig Olson, hereafter "applicant", has made application to the City of Orono, hereafter "City", to permit the repair of transmissions of cars and light trucks at the service station located at 1960 Shoreline Drive and legally de scribed as Lot 2, Block 1, Tourangeau Addition, hereafter "the property"; and Whereas, per Resolution 961, a resolution that approved the service station as a legal non conforming use, under Section 31.100 of the Orono Zoning Code, the applicant, or the future owner of the service station, seeks to amend Resolution 961, Section 11, item (1) "Light repair and exchange of parts in motor vehicles " to include the repair of transmissions and replacement of parts of transmissions and engines. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Coulcll of Orono, Minnesota: Findings 1. The application was reviewed as Zoning file No. 742. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA Lakeshore residential Zoning District 3.On December 18, 1978, Council approved Resolution #961, a resolution that approved a Conditional Use Permit establishing a lawful - non conrorming use on the property. / 4. The lawful - non conforming use has continued on the property since April, 1978. 5. For the past two years the station has had three different operators. The periods of operation ran from 6 months to 9 months. 6. The station has been vacant for long periods of time but never for 12 contiguous months. 7. The applicant claims that at the current level of approved uses, setforth in Resolution 961, the station cannot compete with other service stations. 8. The neighboring residential property owners support the service station use and claim the following: a) The property has been in use as a service station for over 35 years. 9. b) They support the return of a well run, full service station at a level of operation that takes into consideration the limitations of the physical site. The applicant proposes to operate under the approved level of use set forth in Resoltition //961 except to ask that transmission work be included under whatever controls or conditions of operation the City deems necessary. 10. The applicant will operate between the hours of 7.00 AM to 9:00 PM daily - all repair work to cease on Sundays. 11. The applicant will hire 1 full time employee. 12. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports of the City Staff, comments of the applicant and other interested persons and the effect of the proposed use of the property on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 13. The City Council finds that granting a Conditional Use Permit to the new owner of the property and operator of the service station and to amend Resolution 961 to permit the repair of the transmissions of cars and light trucks at the service station will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other changes to neighboring property, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objections of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Conclusions, Order and Conditions Based upon the above findings the Orono City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit to amend Resolution 961 to include the repair of transmissions of cars and light trucks on the property subject to the following conditions: 1. Repairs on trucks limited to vehicles of 1 ton capacity or less (light trucks) 2. All repairs are to be conducted within the existing building. 3. The parking of motor vehicles limited as follows: a) 3 stalls provided for gas, and general sales portion of operation. b) 7 stalls provided and limited to repair use of operation. 4. Building inspector must be notified when gas storage tanks are inspected prior to filling. 5. The City Council hereby reserves the right to review and/or modify this Conditional Use Permit, if at any time in the future the Council finds the conditions of the I subject pennit to be violated or if the proposed additional use is found to be detrimental to the health, safety and public welfare of Orono Citizens. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditons of this permit shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. its Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of May, 1983. ATTEST;CITY OF ORONO City Clerk Mayor se cs) Applicant / Owner STATE OV MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 19 , before me, a Notary Public within and of said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person (s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES iitional 3f the this document Is being recorded for the benefit of chc City of Orono p Minnesota Statues 38*1.77. State Deed Tax Due Hereon: Exempt This instrument was drafted by; City of Orono P.O. Box Crystal Bay, HN 55323 To: Fr«n: Date Planning Commission Members Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator November 13, 1985 ument I- Subject: #994 Frank Kokesh, 4100 Watertown Road - Conditional Use Permit S Variance Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.03, Subdivision 18 - Farming Section 10.20, Subdivision 4 - Home Occupation Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (F) ~ Conditional Use Permit For Riding Stables Section 10.27, Subdivision 4 (A) - Variance Required For Keeping of Domestic Animals For Commercial Purposes Zoning District - RR-IA Area - 35 Acres List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Addendum Exhibit C - Planning Commission Minutes 9/16/85 Exhibit D - Property Owners List Exhibit E - License Application Exhibit F - Survey of 6 Acre Parcel With Homestead and Barns Review of Kokesh*s Horse Operation The applicants' ask the City to consider the following activities in its review; 1. boarding and raising horses owned by applicants and others 2. stud services 3. brokerage of horses for applicants and others 4. riding lessons 5. horse shows (no more than 2 a year) 6. tack catalogue sales - no stock in trade or over counter sales At your September 16, 1985 meeting. Planning Commission advised the applicants to file appropriate land use applications with the City. The applicants have filed a formal conditional use permit. Review of Application I have already listed the uses related to applicants* horse operation. Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (F) requires a conditional use permit for riding stables. The applicants' daughter gives riding lessons on site and applicants also note that they provide boarding facilities for horses owned by others. Per definition 66 (Section 10.02) Public Stables or Barns. This use covers boarding, rental of horses and riding lessons. The conditional use permit will cover boarding of horses, rental of horses and riding lessons. j in the The :ns. The and Zoning File #994 November 13, 1985 Page 2 of 3 We have already noted for the public record per Section 10.03, Sub division 18 - Farming - a conditional use permit is not required because there has not been an increase of more than 25% in horse stock. 20 horses in 1975 25 horses currently maintained 5 total increase or 25% Per current area allowance for the keeping of horses (Section 10.27, Subdivision 4 A) 1 acre for homestead, 2 acres for 1st horse and 1 additional acre for each additional horse: Total area of 35 acres would allow the keeping of 33 horses. Applicants maintain 25 horses. Home Occupation (Section 10.20, Subdivision 4) the applicant has confirmed that a variance is not required to this section because they deal in catalogue tack sales. There is no stock in trade stored on premises ncr is there over the counter sales. Per Section 5.40 of the Municipal Code a home occupation license is required — review Exhibit E — application form for license. Keeping of domestic animals (Section 10.28, Subdivision 4 A) as in the Dennis Thompson application, staff must also recommend that applicant seek a variance to this section because of the commercial aspect of the horse operation as follows: 1. raising of horses for show and sales 2. stud services 3. brokerage of horses for others As with the Thompson review this is not applicants' primary source of rsv-enue. The horse operation, although classified commercial, has taken on what appears » hobby farm use to an outside observer and appears consistent in use with aciiiacent rural farm properties. In regard r-o two horse shows held each year. The applicants have applied to the Orono Police for the necessary licenses per Section 5.25, - License required for shows and large assembly. We have had no reports of any problems or accidents resulting from this special use. Staff Recommendation To approve a conditional use permit for Frank Kokesh to permit the continued use of his 35 acre site for the boarding of horses, rental of horses and instruction in horse back riding. To approve a variance to Section 10.27, Subdivision 4 (A) to permit the applicant to continue with the keeping of domestic animals for «aarcommercial purposes specified as follows: »ub- luse ,21, id 1 Bes. has deal nor de a form I the seek orse ;e of 5n on stent have 25, - ts of t the il of 2e to with sd as Zoning File #994 November 13, 1985 Page 3 of 3 1. raising of horses for show and sales 2. stud servies 3. brokerage of horses for the public Approval is based on the following findings: 1. Applicants* principal residence is located on a 35 acre site. 2. No other variances are sought to performance section of Section 10.27, Subdivision 4 (A). 3. The proposed level of use is compatible with surrounding 5 acre "hobby farm" neighborhood. 4. The property has been used as proposed in this review for over 15 years and has not resulted in any harm to the publics' safety or welfare. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant to apply for a Home Occupation License. £t>c 2. Any changes or additions in use or intensification of approved uses should be reviewed with the City so that staff can determine if a new permit is required, 3. Payment of $150.00 for required variance. O $100.00 a) $150.00 b) $150.00 c) $250.00 d) $200.00 f) PRD/PID - s follows: (1)Boarding and raising horses owned • by the occupants; (2)Boarding and raising horses owned individually or in syndication? by others, either (3)Stud services; (4)Brokerage of horses; (5)Riding lessons; (6)Organizing and conducting horse shows not to exceed two shows per year; (7)Selling of products as a representative but not from stock or inventory. OBERHAUSER & ASSOCIATES. RA ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW LOUIS B OBERHAUSER LAW CLERK 1421 E. WAYZATA BOULEVARD - SUITE 210 WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 (612) 473 2521 OFCOUNSEL MARKV GRIFFIN ROBERT K RANDALL November 13, 1985 rf» CITY OP ORONO Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 #994•• I Attention: Jeanne A. Mabusth-Zoning Administrator Re: Condition Use Permit/Frank Kokesh Our Pile: 8014-1 Dear Ms. Mabusth: The activities that the applicant desires to carry on on his property are as i follows: 1 J (1)Boarding and raising horses owned by the occupants; (2)Boarding and raising horses owned by others, either individually or in syndication; (3)Stud services; (4)Brokerage of horses; (5)Riding lessons; (6)Organizing and conducting horse shows not to exceed two shows per year; (7)Selling of products as a representative but not from stock or inventory. It is proposed that these activities be conducted on Parcel 11-0007, Parcel 14-0005, and Parcel 14-0004 v<hich comprise a parcel of land of approximately 25.47 acres, plus oi minus, and Parcel 14-0006 comprising of approximately ten acres. / I- city of Orono Attention: Jeanne Nabusth November 13, 1985 Page Two Kfft 9 y The initial purchase consisted of approximately twenty-six acres in May of 1968 and at that time the property was used for the purpose of boarding hor sea to others than the occupant of the property. The balance of the acti- vies are incidental to operating a horse farm. A reading of the Orono Zoning Code does not provide any comprehensive guidance as to performance standards for a commercial stable or stock farm but none of the above activities should result in emy detriment to adjacent property values and %#ould be appropriate for the zoning district in which the property is located and consistent with its historical use. Sincerely, LdtJJS^^y<)BERHAUSER LBO/ejw cc: Frank Kokesh c, ' MINUTES OF THE PTJVNNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 16, 1985. PAGE 5 #928 RICHARD PULA 2015 WEBBER HILLS ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SECOND REVIEW This application was previously tabled pending receipt of required septic testing and system design information. Dick Pula was present for this matter and explained that his existing septic system was found to be adequate but he still intends to improve the system. Mr. Pula explained the purpose of the need for this guest ^P^^tment in an attempt to care for the elderly and his own, and is not ever planning on using it as rental property and is against rental property in his area. Chairman Callahan expressed concern for this turning into rental property in the future. Kelley, Rovegno and Sime stated their agreement with the applicant's request and felt this was an appropriate use. Goetten felt the lot was to substandard to allow any more variances. McDonald stated that a precedent would be set by approving this type of use and standards should be set first. Callahan stated that it was too much of a variance from the code to allow. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Sime, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to the property not being rented in the future, one occupant only, and entrance to apartment be internal. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 3. Callahan, Goetten, and McDonald voted nay. Mr, Pula was advised that his request will be heard by the Council for a final decision. RECOGNITION At this time, Mr. Pula vished to publicly thank Building Inspector, Tom Jacobs, for his assistance in dealing with a problem with his contractor. Cjl9^ PRANK KOKBSH 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD APPEAL - INTERPRETATION OP STOCK FARM AND HOME OCCUPATION SECTION CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 10:12 - Lou Oberhauser, attorney for the applicant, was present for this matter. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 16, 1985. PAGE 6 #952 KORESH continued Mr. Oberhauser explained how the issue of the necessity of a conditional use permit came about. He stated that since the ordinance came into effect in 1975 this property has been permitted use as a stock farm. Mr. Oberhauser referred to two issues that have been brought up, the selling of tack and periodic riding lessons. He explained that Mrs. Kokesh takes orders over the phone for special types of tack and it should be considered manufacturer's representative type of business rather than a production commercial type of business. He also explained that the Kokesh daughter periodically gives lessons to accommadate the boarders. Mr. Oberhauser requested direction on the types of permits required. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that within the recreation section of the code a conditional use permit is required because of the riding acadamy nature; and a variance would be required for the home occupativon. Mabusth recommends that Mr. Oberhauser's client file formal applications for a conditional use permit and a variance. Earl Dorn, 4045 Watertown Road, was present to state his feelings regarding this matter. He stated that it has taken the City a year to act on this and it is clearly a public stable. He feels that the ordinance should be applied equally to residents. He stated that the problems include the increased traffic because of the horse shows, chuckwagons, loudspeakers, tack and lessons are advertised. He also noted that the City building inspector should check to see if all the buildings on the property were built under the authority of building permits. Mr. Dorn stated that if the applicant were to apply for the necessary permits, he would be opposed to the unlimited expansion of the operation. Kelley stated that there seemed to be no problems at the horse shows he has attended at this property regarding the traffic and operation. He further stated that he never saw any type of over-the-counter sales of tack. Sime stated that he feels this is a proper use in this area and encourages it. Goetten stated that conditions and limitations should be set on these types of operations. Mr. Oberhauser stated that he felt the type of sales of tack involved were covered under the home occupation section because the sales were limited and of the catalogue type. Planning Commission concurred that applicant should file the appropriate applications upon staff's recommendation to be heard before the Planning Commission. h Kostk< ad 55359 License No._ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICATION FOR HOME OCCUPATION -$20.00 fee Orono Municipal Code Section 5.40 CITY OP ORONO 1335 BROWN ROAD SOUTH BOX 66 _ CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 Name: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Address: Date Received Date Expires Phone Number of Employees within operation Provide list of Names of Employees on back of this application. Description of Request_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PERMIT MAY EXPIRE IF ANY VIOLATION OCCURS. CITY STAFF SHALL HAVE FIVE (5) BUSINESS DAYS IN WHICH TO INVESTIGATE AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION PURSUANT TO ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE. IF A SITE INSPECTION IS REQUIRED BY CITY STAFF, THE REVIEW TIME WILL BE EXTENDED TO TEN (10) BUSINESS DAYS. ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS ON HOME OCCUPATIONS PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.20 SUED 4(C) Prohibited Home Occupation Practices. A. It is unlawful for any business operating as a home occupation to engage in operation without proper licenses. B. All persons engaged in the business must reside in the dwelling. I C. No commercial signs permitted other than signs permitted in a residential zone. D. No excessive stock in trade may be stored on the premises. E. Over the counter retail sales is not allowed. F. Entrance to the home occupation must be gained from within the structure. The undersigned hereby agrees to the conditions.quoted above from the Orono Municipal Code and any additional requirements the City staff may have. Signature of Applicant:Date: FOR CITY USE ONLY: After review of application, staff recommends the following: _ _ _ _ Approval of application _ _ _ _ Denial of application Signature of Zoning Official Signature of Fire Inspector; Date; Date: (OVER) TO:Jean Mabush FROM:Kathleen A.Blatz DATE:November 4r 1985 RE:Planning Commission ' ' t-;- /. * ^4 "n ■ i i City*s Planning Commission is comprised of seven official members. Therefore, a quorum would be four members, and an "official action" of the Commission needing three votes. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please give me a call. KAB:jk cc: Mark Bernhardson 3596e 2- --'mmM ■ 1 I • '•TMff ««•* ♦»**• 1* • *rv* •* o.irT^-» ifrPBMi*«»1«« >^ • «r •»» «' »•» r>»»t • •• rr ,.*r»t LJi ' •*» jf L t . <rtf« faU«rt«f liw «w WJ lHVt*vtns *• >»••*• -jf •< I »i ‘f ti» <« » witi« • ll»» »rw» p*r**l»l mUh iwl »«'' f"« ^ 'r\^ l»ir %#•»> . IW” ft ^I'l 1*<* * ^il »Mir «*• W.- •(•« lW> tHi#r<«wx*«I », «tiA • unr par»ll«'> •I*f‘ wpi%fi4r»< «* r%0a «•’»•. r? m «l I Airih tl< •l«n« br^ !'»#• * mt *!<*▼» *n!iq|. Ili|i> 4 Mil 1l I in fpTi V.»»,. ,r ■»» i|^ KW>«**'>* •••< LAKCSHORE&MTlAMOe REGULATIONS ORONO OROINANC6 RO«etT9 excavation, filling. ORAOlNa DREDGING. TREE REMOVAL OR CONSTRUCTION OF ANY KINO WITHIN 75 FT OF ANY SHORELINE WITHIN 36 FT OF ANY WETLAIC8 PERMITS ARE REOLHF^ FOR OOCKa SEAWALLS. R9RAP ^S^ssao J p.c n • m i**—♦ F^*w* ^uaLi t»m» * »n tuB-^0 v^ m nt»’«M0t • !<% t*4 « « Mt M /*. ***^ ’* • W'.<*r 0' ** *• M*' O* ttrpfm^e* •P.^ «W ROBERT J. BAUMANN IN LOTS saw, AUD. SUB. NO. 217 HBNNgPIN COUNTY, NINNtSOTA -a fe: . ;• A >6li« limits ■■‘.sM mm m fit i>\ ••Mhs LAKE MINNETONKA HENDRICKS CHANNE («I)CIN61rl«i ,NG DATA (0) t s (W Of SMO-MS t («•■«) CCO^. r>CT ATI M A** ' 1 ^ i.r T(t*M&tS lO M %<^09 f. .«%' \ r M iiSifi \ . \ (BB; \ \ SCKWC • pcfl^. n ^-w- ti- *'rjJ .fe Z7 \z^ (^1 1 iiiii i',1 \ nio j] 5 5 « i « -I !l..i 1 .1 j lU i