Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-18-1986 Planning Packet
T N PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1986 7:30 P.M. 1275 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Tim Adams ATTENDANCE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:30 P.M. #1007 Robert & Carol Trapp 4701 West Branch Road Preliminary Subdivision 2. 7:45 P.M. #1008 John S. Pillsbury Jr. 315 Woodhill Road 3. 8:00 P.M.Zoning Amendment Section 10.41, #B-2 Lakeshore Business District 4.#1003 Hans G. Weiler & Don Kempf 1125 & 1135 North Arm Drive Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Continuation of Public Hearing 5.#1004 William Ulrich 1535 & 1595 Bohn's Point Road Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Continuation of Public Hearing ACTION ITEMS 6. #842 Robert Zimmerman, 3415 Crystal Bay Road Variance - Second Review - Property owners re-notified 7. #967 & #968 John B. Idstrom, 2580 Fox Street Preliminary Subdivision & Conditional Use Permit Continuation of Public Hearing 8. #990 Ward Ferrell, 3405, 3411 & 3415 Watertown Road Variance - Second Review 9. #999 Evan Meline, 3598 North Shore Drive Variance - Sef^ond Review 10. #1005 Ned, Inc., 1390 French Creek Drive Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing 11. #1006 Chris & Dale Palm, 1710 Shadywood Road Variance - Public Hearing 12. #1009 William W. Wear, 2160 Wayzata Elvd Variance 13. Final Review of Zoning Amendment - Original Public Hearing held August 19, 1985 V\ >:¥i IL&i. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1986 7:30 PM ADDITIONAL ITEMS 14. Planning Conunission approval of December 16, 1985 Minutes. 15. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the March 10, 1986 Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT » r- ..--rV ■.i ■ ♦ ■* 4 mm ' /-• PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO cum iU (^0/91• meeting date 11 g/ib. PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS iJl Q II ’■T ^.Uirlu D/? nO(? NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) T&f~T ____1_L i-P.7^}erie g/a:z-e/L ■w Au IX'V> tOocAhill A./CO?, /Oil (Ci ?79 t-jc, (-1 Of„Tx,-, 2:1=^~/~yO f iJy flL \oo / co~7 /oo7 CCiivsGt ^ ^ fbczti T' c’c'A~/=/ac^ YP2~\4 icfJ/A ///CO^ ^%7 4 7<yt)D A u /ao ^ ^ A/eSc<^-/ 7r>/> ^>//r/'/w£> rC'^i AJ /oo ^ ^rX ■H:. 4 ^rl, W VfC-k oo/ lN'vyv:feY\US Cawi Jir (i^Taux^Ci\)l/> ^(X^al LU} I/to 4^ 14. _N'HiY D/9y7-oi\) 1)^. /ccdin'T/).■)! )/^^o oco cRy^F)L B«y/^D ^/fc/<7A/ /yg^CO tx /OoS 5. JcA a AjC'S'A/ + l/jr,a,l Mc/>hf 99o l.h//)/r,l /^yf/7/r II ii. /y.y-9S/^.t^ 3 ^'C'J i/’i/y A' /"(X 9^'^> *r ^Siu- 1 'ViiO A.\.r5i\eg.i/t\ fc. O'). ia|;-4U fo^e iA>--f <3r^<oM7.m ^"1^7 ■r ^ 99. gl 1 L. To:Planning Commission Members From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date:February 7, 1986 Subject: #1007 Robert & Carol Trapp, 4701 West Branch Road Preliminary Subdivision MOTE Request is for renewal of preliminary plat approval granted 6/2/80, application #538. Zoning District - RR-IB, 2 acre unsewered Application ~ 2 Lot Plat Total Acreage - 11.15 Acres (10.81 acres less road) Lot 1 - 5.45 acres total (1.26 acres wetland, 1.27 acres dry near road, 2.92 acres dry contiguous with house) Lot 2 - 5.36 acres total (all dry) List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J - Application - Plat Map - Property Owners List - Proposed Plat - Staff Sketch - Council Preliminary Approval of 6/2/80 - Glenn Cook's Letter of 7/24/80 - MCWD's Letter of 6/18/80 - Hennepin County Department of Transportation's 2/26/80 - Conceptual Road Schematic (By Staff) Letter of This proposed subdivision was granted preliminary approval in 1980 but was never completed. The applicant is requesting preliminary approval based on the previous information on file. This is a 2 lot plat. Lot 1 contains the existing residence and barn, and includes a wetland which discharges eastward through a culvert under the existing driveway. Note that the driveway is proposed to be included as part of Lot 2 and will be shared by Lots 1 and 2. This is an existing driveway entrance and the County Highway Department has noted no problem with it at a 2-unit level of use. City Engineer, Glenn Cook, reviewed the existing 48" culvert in 1980 and found it to be adequate for continued use. The existing house on Lot 1 meets all required setbacks. The barn, which is used for horses, is proposed to be located 70' from the new eastern boundary of Lot 1 based on the existing fence location in that area, also noting that the barn is 130' from the original side lot line. This would require a variance of 80' to the 150' standard for horse barns. Because any buyer of Lot 2 will be aware of the horse barn location, staff recommends approval and formal recognition of this variance. ZoT^ing File #1007 February 1, 1986 Page 2 of 2 From a future planning standpoint, there are two areas of proposed Lot 2 for which the City will require either a road and utilities easement or dedication. During the initial review in 1980, it was determined that a corridor along the east boundary of this division, to connect with undeveloped Highview Lane to the south, would not be a good location for a through road due to 1) poor sight distance at the driveway entrance to West Branch Road; and 2) too close to County Road 19. The better possibilities are to extend Garden Lane or Highview Lane northward further east, and/or continue Highview Lane bacft. to the south through the "Valek” property. However, with the potential that the existing driveway will serve a third house, namely for the adjacent Lot 2 of "West Branch Hill", we will require that a road and utilities easement 25' wide be granted over the 25' wide portion of Trapp's Lot 2. Coupled with an existing 25' R & I easement over the west 25' of West Branch Hill, a 50' corridor would exist in which to upgrade the driveway to serve the 3 properties at some point in the future. We also will require a 30' road dedication over the south 30' of Lot 2 for future Highview Lane purposes. Note that the 40' to be dedicated for West Branch Road meets with all City and County requirements. The proposed lots are unsewered and have been tested for primary and alternate drainfield sites. Proposed Lot 2 has suitable sites for a shallow trench drainfield on the primary site, and a mound system at the alternate site. Proposed Lot 1, with the existing house, has a suitable site for a future mound system. Note that the existing house had a new trench-type drainfield system installed in 1984, and it is functioning correctly. With the exception of the horse barn location, the proposed sub division meets all City requirements for a 2-lot rural plat, and could be developed for single family residential use without variances. Staff recommends approval per the following conditions: 1. Flowage and Conservation Easement to be granted over the wetlands. 2. Variance for animal barn of 80' from Lot 2 property line - hard ships : a) location of existing fencing along east-west property line b) animal barn was located 130' from existing east property line. 3. Dedication of right-of-way for West Branch Road of 40'; dedication of future right-of-way for Highview Lane of 30' along the south property line (not shown on preliminary plat); granting of a road and utilities easement over the portion of Lot 2 that is 25' wide. 4. Lot 2 to grant access easement to Lot 1 over existing driveway This shall remain as a shared driveway access. 5. Park Dedication Fee for Lot 2 of $100. i dat^roc’d by >^y^< CITY OF ORONO SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM foe roc' "** C.aXcL L.Tr^_ 5^ L. APPLICANT Neune /»> V C a /C ql ^ Telephone Q'J Address p*. 0 . ^*4 3-^ A^ ouhc^, _ _ _ _ _ PROPERTY Name ^T~ A» Z.. 7r«y»^elephone Vyj? '‘3^fC7 OWNERS „ ., . I Address P/0 > ^0'/. ^ A^'O (•-< //] n . fTS:> ^ (Attach list of more than one)V;„ PROPERTY LOCATION street Address t~l"70l , lo£’^r\cf\ Legal Description •______________;______________ vJ A4^la n<rL Mh.^rS6f ' a w ' : .‘u (PID)oi ~\v EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size I Z-L^ //. / Present Use (check):L Acres Dry Land Acres v?et Land Acres Total, all parcels Re^dential; no. of units Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ / Present Zoning Dist.efiiB i PROPOSAL lot line rearrangement only (no new building sites) >4 subdivision for new building sites number of building sites: / existing units new units/ total units proposed gross density / units per S'* acres minimum lot size: r.<^. square feet dry buildablc land proposed use: (check) y. residential _ _ other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE APPLICATION (Must be submitted 10 days prior to Planning Commission meeting) 1. 2. Application completed Preliminary Plat information on a certificate of survey Certified Property Owner's list of owners within 350* - from Hennepin Co. Dept, of Finance A-603 Govern 5. Application fee per current sketch plan only fee schedule: $100.00 3.X 2 lot prelim, plat $250.00 3+ lot prelim, plat $240.00 4. ment Center Stamped, legal si^o.d envelopes (D^IO) _ (sketch plan included)+$20/lot Additional improvement pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list. review fees per fee schedule$* * ‘ ^ • DATE DATE /-/7- ^1^ APPLICANTS SIGNATUREy^,,i2f':x"l7^ owner's SIGNATURE X(l^ Hi CL\^ /s sj^app Applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required </r requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Coramission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. I N m of of #1007 Qoif Qlgr Ill'f93^ (?) (3«l») (»*»•;(f\ {^tO If IPJU pi 1 iiip.iH «pai ' -a \ ’^u *• V^Kir >j i -4 _ H O Z > S > X i 3pm m > aa > m 2 a m s o u H O > a a ^ lo c. 0 1 >JI r^^ Mi r» Mi o rv> rN» SS! N| I N| I M Ml rj Ml oro Ml > X 3 -a m > \ -<> m a 70 o 70 832om “o 70 o 70 ifi•o 70 M 01 CO (/> O H H X m m < < Mi m m 0> Z Z < -n ? < m > X r- m X Ml 0» i NJ I Mi r» Ml Ml Ml 4> m z o 70 I 3 H- m -n ®}}!Su Ml 0» O vl I I rs> Ml ro Ml ooro H o -o \ -< > > m 2 a o ;u > o o 2 :o 70 m 70 O M ^ n o X H- M -O m mG i <m m m so M n o X XI n M Z Ml a H M m (0 z H CO m m Ml 0» O >1 Nj IM Ml m ••|N> IN> fSJ Ml 70 M 52}m o o o o (0m Z a o 0 1 I ro Ml rv> IN> o o -< o a 2 > >: a )> X 2 o 2 a m a m > a \ -< > > m 2 a a a > o o 3 a a m D O O Ml X X O CP > > CP a a 4> r- f- o o mm M CO CO I > > Z ►- o o oa Nl Iro Ml to Xs m rv> M a Ml a n oiX Vi m »- X X g a 3 O > X Z > o CO 70 m a CO CO o or- r- o NJ m m a a m H Iro c#i fM o 09 f\> M O o O CaI X X X Vj > > m *- a a ^ r- I- q|SS ? X r- r-gsss“ mm Ml O O >1I i a a a o m H > rs9 rj IN9 IN9 o 0> o o o 0» J.c J “f *■ - n ■4 J tf> y » m \ g a a H o a> z a X 2 O2 S> a -< ► m 2 a a ? a 3 a m H o a 2 a ____o 2 a m a m > a N -< >> m 2 a a a > a a 2 a a m o 4N a a Vi oC O' CD 2 o m O a a o «• Vj O' o o 01 <0 a CJ1 MlCaI O' > z n > X CD Q m vj <0 I -4 fV9 Ml a a s § c^ c^ a r> n a ^ (€C I I 4 4 CD >n X o o > Hm o O' 53m 3 am g iim • aM IN9 ^ O Ml Ml •;T K'. 4^; w • * * -V -—-p CiXi?4 ‘!Y ROAC: rid. isf -3^95 $BB^0ri41E-.Jt-.^/OOl • •■#}\'r WEST BRANCH ROAD-KJ I ill ! • - V. \ '% • 9 N '1 ■ ■ ■' i. 4^.vJ '.vCT lam D '/:n__ . y' •rj;: • -• Z- — J-/-------4 »1 -r-’’li |A'5 -.V' I.2 a\^ 71/ f: j />t'ir* ^ ‘ ' 13, oo « JT 1'^ j'2^ osp VT Cj U'» «VJr. «T\ V- /^.-'//---------------- 3 <Nj / I .rf-D I •' •\ loT 2 tP ) / J-'_____1 _. .;. j-30!. Tr gg -Pft>!C4.Ttg1iy* I ♦ ;'•JU<r I ‘ • • .sa9 ‘09i*~£— — /f*ic*f/Alf^(-wA. JIJ;, 44 «/A'4X ** » HIGHV r I • I > f % f *. , • r •* *.. •< r*- •* f- *^v f ♦ * I I • r?* * • * 4 i t . i,< T> u ■'\1 J REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JUNE 2, 1980 Mayor Van Nest: The lakeshore cottage should be removed now. I believe the other two rental units could be left as out buildings. CounciImember Paurus: 1 would want to see a phased plan to eliminate the rentals which could leave them as out buildings and take the lakeshore cottage down. Mr.' Pearson: The Planning Commission and residents in the area do approve our plan. Mayor Van Nest; Other people's property rights have to be protected. Leaving existjlng rental units diminishes property values. When was the water and sewer installed? Mr. Pecurson: Water - 1972; sewer - 1965 Mayor Van Nest: We want to see that the property totally conforms to the existing codes. If the City does enter into an agreement, some variances might be granted, but we will not allow multi housing to remain on one lot. Mr. Pearson: All structures are conforming. The use of land might be non-conforming. We are here now offering to improve the structures. Mayor Van Nest: Mr. Pearson, the structures are now non-conforming. I believe you and staff should review this application. Paurus moved, Butler seconded, to table the variance request of Milton Seifert, 1856 Shadywood Road, for further review and to enter on the June 30, 1980 agenda. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator, prepared a memo concerning a preliminary subdivision fo;: William Moore, 4701 West Branch Road, dated May 28, 1980, which states: Zoning District - RR-IB Subdivision - Two lot plat Area - 11.153 acres 5.452 cares (Lot 1) 5.361 acres (Lot 2) The Moores propose a two lot plat of their 11 acre homestead. The existing driveway will serve the newly created Lot 2. Page 6 VARIANCE 1856 Shadywood Road (Continued) SUBDIVISION 4701 West Brance Rd #538 William Moore (Continued) REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JUNE 2, 1980 Page 7 Access - Lot 2 will access West Branch Road via a 25' corridor. The existing driveway serving the Moore's residence (Lot 1) is located within Lot 2's access corridor. Lot 2 will grant an access and utility easement in favor of Lot 1. The Planning Commission was asked to consider a road easement to the south linking the Valek plat and creating a potential through road between Tonkaview Lane and West Branch Road. In reviewing such a proposal, the County Highway Department has stated that the access location of the Moore's driveway would never be acceptable as a through road approach. Planning Commission decided that a safer access would be further east on West Branch Road and that the proposed road would appear too close to County Road'19. The City will require dedication of right-of-way for West Branch Road and Highview Lane. SUBDIVISION 4701 West Branch Rd. (Continued) .f,Coptic Testing - The septic inspector reports no problem with locating suitable area for an on-site ^ \ septic system (shallow trench for Lot 2). He will C require a complete site evaluation report before he ^ can recommend final approval of the plat. Wetlands - There is approximately 1 to 1-1/2 acres of wetlands. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement. Please review the Planning Commission minutes of May 5, 1980, March 17 and February 19, 1980 for background discussion and recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of William Moore based on the following conditions; 1. 2. Flowage eind Conservation Easement over the wetlands. Dedication on the plat of right of way for the following roads: a) 40* West Branch Road b) 30* Highview Lane 3. Variance - Setback of animal barn Required: Proposed: Variance: 150' 70' Hardship Findings: a) location of existing "animal" fencing along east/west property line (Continued) II IIJ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JUNE 2, 1980 f b) animal barn was located 130' from existing east property line 4. Park dedication fee for Lot 2 of $100.00 Council Meeting - June 2, 1980 Hurr moved, Butler seconded, to direct staff to prepare a resolution to include staff recom mendations, as follows: 1. Flowage euid Conservation Easement over the wetlands 2. Dedication on the plat of right of way for the following roads: a) 40' West Branch Road b) 30* Highview Lane Variance Required: Proposed: Variance Setback of animal barn 150' 70' 80' Page 8 SUBDIVISION 4701 West Branch Rd (Continued) Noting change in variance under condition #3, proposed 70'; variance 80' Hardship findings: a) location of existing "animal" fencing along east/west property line b) animal barn was located 130' from existing east property line 4. Park dedication fee for Lot 2 of $100.00 5. Minnen^a Creek Watershed District approval of culvert size 6. Resolution to address 25' corridor. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator, prepared the following memo concerning a variance for Don Udell, 1210 Loma Linda Avenue, dated May 28, 1980, which states: The Udells propose construction of an attached 24' X 22' garage that will encroach 3' from the side (north) property line. The building inspector has confirmed that because of topography and location of mature trees, this is the only feasible location to attach a garage. VARIANCE 1210 Loma Linda Ave #542 Don Udell (Continued) :h Rd lioHi€iUoa, Hmh^, /JndeMz A Auodaiu, 9hc, Q^nuMiaa CnQinm%i i33S ^iO. Jtifiumf 36 St. P»U. MimmmsU 55113 Pi^- 612-636^600 —N r-^\ -:ir: \ V. . LJ m* »u July 24, 1980 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth /- - - Re: File No. 139-538 Moore Sub*Dlvlslon ciT\' Or, cr.or:a Oito G, Boncuroo, P.E, Rohrrt W'. RosfUft P,E. Joseph C. Anderitk, P.E. Bradford A. Lembrrg, P.E. Robert D. Frigaard. P.E. Rtihard E. Turner, P.E, James C. Olson. P.E, Glenn R. Cook, P,E, Keith A. Gordon, P.E, Thomas E. Soyes, P.E, Hkhard W, Foster. P.E. P'^bert G. Schunicht, P.E. Sfarvin L. Sorvala, P.E, Donald C. Burgardt. P.E, Jerry A. Bourdon Stark A, Hanson Steven M. Qumcey Kevin K. Wotka, P.E, Charles A. Erickson Leo M. Pawtisky Harlan M, Olson :, Olson Dear Ms. Mabusth: I Ave m. We have reviewed the driveway culvert at the Moore residence, 4701 W. Branch Rd., and find a 48” corrugated steel culvert in place. The exist Ing culvert provides adequate capacity for the normal rainfall but it is anticipated that the road will be inundated in the 100 year storm. We do not feel that this is a major problem and would recommend that the existing 48” culvert be left in place. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:li m i'NV-. ,iTS. ' I n ' #; ^ ^ . t r . i. ^5^ MINNEHAHA WATERSHED O'. CREEK DISTRICT -»i LIKE MINNETONK* P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 yi^^tSOT* (Um •OMO or MNAGEItS; David N. Cochran, Pros. • Albtrt L. Lehman • Jamn S. Raiifll • John £. Thomii • Barbara Gudmundion June 18, 1980 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ■eVTf. O'" orono Re: #538 William Moore, 4701 West Branch Road - Subdivision #556 Richard Hawkinson, 4625 West Branch Road - Subdivision Dear Ms. Mabusth: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced matter. As Engineers for the District, we review development proposals. However, it is not our policy .0 size culverts as requested by your letter. The developer is responsible for the proper sizing of all hydraulic structures anc with providing the District with calculations to substantiate tie design. If you have ary questions, pie?se call me at 473-4224. Thank you for your cooperation Sincerely, EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES Wayne A. Fretheim WAF:lf Enclosure •raiVf tiri V SlL Iv', . * ■ \\ w > ' ‘/ft * - V 7. - “ A ««.i CA(C!.t/< ;sj!sr' ist:?;' -i« i- /Al^ ’"'J - J i 1 0t t s i tkaP/^ f 'p'. S _____________J.«^ ^I*— ? L ’ ■k:"ti-' 'Ti • -4; .*i.Jvli*.i^,,-n ^.j*! M i '. s rsfcSiM^ ♦ • »•***- V,. •■' .fs iVi N ■QT'~. '-i'/ ;V -i ; * ' * - . V‘ • ' ' *. • ^ : :* ’ V * •■ ^ *1 ^ 1 a->[ /yr ‘i:'4 iV T s? niitaiiniii >*i^-^ksTfri> ‘s :i; If i\^:»*: I- • j-r tic «:•^r.s. t * ( .» •- O^ V '!:• '■ a. > '■^'O‘^ J * ■ 'V.; . \. it .' ■•■ ■■ ----------------- |lv/ % Ai* > n:: ry V. I 1 To;Planning Commission Members Fr(Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Date:February 12, 1986 Subject: #1008 John Pillsbury, 315 Woodhill Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Metes and Bounds Zoning District - RR-IB Area - 42.36 Acres Application - Subdivision - Class I - Metes and bounds division of 2 parcels [Section 11.03, Def. "Subdivision, Classification" (a)(1)] Mr. Pillsbury plans to divide his homestead parcel of 42+ acres into two parcels. The larger parcel will go to the adja cent landowner to the east, Woodhill County Club, and an eight acre parcel to a private citizen. The eight acre parcel will contain the principal residence and all accessory structures (garage/caretaker's residence or apartment and tennis court). The residence parcel will be served by an existing driveway that intersects the future Woodhill property. Woodhill must grant an access easement in favor of the residence parcel. All structures meet the required setback from the newly proposed lot line. The septic systems for both the main residence and caretaker's residence above the garage appear to be located within the proposed boundary lines. If a future sub division is proposed for this property, based on the location of the second accessory residential structure, lots can be designed to meet the RR-IB zoning standards. Staff recommends approval of the metes and bounds division application of John Pillsbury finding all standards for a Class I subdivision within the RR-IB zoning district have been satisfied and approving a conditional use permit for a caretaker residence or second residential unit on the eight acre parcel finding that all regular lot requirements can be met by the second unit. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Caretaker apartment is for the sole use of the owner of the principal residence and may not be rented. 2. Future owner of the larger parcel must grant an access easement in favor of residence parcel. > CITY OF ORONO SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM I----- ( V-»r I Date Recvd ^(c By J AJn r^Jp ' r » I ; I Cli V OF ORONO M 2 1 1986 j; i _____________________________ Fee Rec'd fi^^n.r.n applicant Name John S. Pillsburv, Jr.Telephone 338-4382 Mailing Address 1300 TCF Tower, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone 338-4382PROPERTY Name John S. Pillsburv# Jr. OWNER ■ Mailing Address Note; Send copies of all correspondence to; (Attach list if more than one) Thomas M. Crosby, Jr., Faegre & Benson, 2300 Multifoods Tower, 33 South 6th St., Minneapolis, MN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -^ - - - - - - - - -554«-2- - PROPERTY LOCATION Street Address 315 Woodhill Road, Wavzata Property Identification No. (P.I.D.) 02-117-23-13-0001 Complete Legal Description to be attached to applJ.cation EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels 1 to be attached to application#1008 i Development Size 42.36± Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check)Residential; no. of units 1 Other (specify) _ _ Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes 0) (U 4J •H to CO •H X! Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites tj*'P cox: •H -H x> »0 >4-1 -H rH *H ^ •H O C 0) C Q, O • to -H C •H O (d tr» o -H C C 0) to O C *H •H <U C > +1 JQ O H •H O TJ »d 4-» Xi 'O O C 3 <; c-H to Number of Building Sites;Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density *Units per Acres Minimum Lot Size;*Square Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check)Residential Other (specify) (OVER) .jiriA MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE'TRELIMINARY APPLICATION • % 1. Application Completed 2. 3. Preliminary Plat informati<6n on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owner's list of owners within 350' (this list can be Center^348^3271^^ Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government 4. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on theabove list with no return address. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments) 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and acceptable form of security. FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivisions) $150.00 $250.00 Preliminary Review (Class Tii and all non-residential)$300.00 plus 20.00/lot Final Plat Review (Class III) ♦(Plus any legal or engineering charges)$150.00* Applicant has read the above and hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning ^ommission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature u Date i((^ [ - tin ( Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are usually held on the third Monday of each month. Zoning^Officials Signature^^’^*^"'^'"^ Application is complete. ( I % il O O 3D M ^ n ni ssismui H 1 €i ( Hn 39 S o |N> Hm 0 1 m I H >"5O m • TJM U1 Uf U1 i 1 I i 1 i To:Planning Commission Members From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date:February 11, 1986 Subject: Zoning Amendment, Section 10.41 - B-2 Zoning District This item is being re-drafted by staff and the public hearing scheduled for 8:00 P.M. should be continued until your March 18th meeting. 1 3 1 ZONING PILE NO^^To^ CITY OP ORONC P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 TO: Mr. 6 Mrs. Hans G. Weller 1135 North Arm Drive Mound, MN 55364 Date of Notice: 1/22/86 COPIES TO: Donald Kempt Box 56 Navarre, MN 55392 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Subdivision Date of Meeting: 1/21/86 Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled:For reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The Planning Commission was unable to provide a legal guorum (4 members) at their regular meeting of January 21, 1986 and by law was required to table all action on your subdivision application until their next regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, February 18, 1986. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - February 18, 1986 If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Department (473-7357). j To;Planning Commission Members From: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator January 14, 1986 Subject: #1003 Hans G. Weiler, 1135 North Arm Drive - Lot Line Rearrangement Zoning District - LR-IB Total Area = 61,491 s.f. (excluding area of Lot 6) Lot 6 = 11,200 s.f. approximately 72,691 s.f. Total Area i Areas of Residential Units After Subdivision Weiler Parcels B & C = 35,226 s.f. Kempf Parcel A = 26,265 s.f. i^pplication - Subdivision lot line rearrangement of platted properties. Applicant Weiler was granted subdivision approval on July 10, 1972 for the same lot line rearrangement in order to build new house at 1125 North Arm Drive - See Exhibit E & G. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Planning Commission Minutes of 7/5/72 Council Minutes of 7/10/72 Building Permit For Garage - 1135 North Arm Drive Building Permit For New Residence - 1125 North Arm Drive Plat Map Designating Ownership Survey of Lot Line Rearrangement Weiler owned Lots 6, 20-23 & 30-33 of the Skarp & Lindquist's Fernhill plat. In 1972 he applied for a lot line rearrangement in order to build a new residence on Lots 22 & 23. The survey for that subdivision revealed that Weiler's residence encroached into Lot 22 and a lot line rearrangement was also required. Note that a subdivision review was required in that day because the lots did not satisfy lot area and width standards (43,560 s.f. in area and 140 feet of lot width. The house on Lots 22 & 23 and Lots In the process of filing deeds etc. it (Weiler's homestead) encroached Lot Weiler. The subdivision, as approved filed. A house was built on Lot 22 and F) based on a subdivision approval that 30 & 31 has been sold to Don Kempf. was noted that the house on Lot 21 22 creating finance problems for by Council in 1972, had never been a new garage on Lot 2 (see Exhibit created the new dividing line. Staff sees no problem with granting subdivision approval of the lot line rearrangement subject to appropriate combination of remaining parcels as final approved building sites (per Council recommendation of 1972). Zoning File #1003 January 14, 1986 Page 2 Staff asks that you consider the condition of '72 that also asked for an open space easement over Lot 6. In the Planning Commission minutes of 7/5/72, it is noted that applicant uses Lot 6 for lake access only. It is not clear in the minutes of '72 if the open space easement was required as a credit for the substandard areas of rearranged lots or to formally define the lot as unbuildable and recognize riparian use of lot. Staff would suggest that the directive of '72 be upheld by requiring an open space easement over Lot 6 and that applicant file a special lot combination that would formally recognize the riparian rights of Weiler. Staff Recommendation To approve the lot line rearrangement subdivision application of H. Weiler and D. Kempf based on the following findings. 1. All structures meet required setbacks from newly defined shared lot line. 2. Council granted approval of proposed division in 1972. 3. Current division is required to bring existing structures into conformance with code. B.f . Approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Kempf to combine Lots 23, 30 and rearranged 22 & 31. 2. Weiler to combine Lots 20, 21, 32, 33 with Parcel C. ^ ^ 3. City to ask for open space easement over Lot 6 because of sub standard building sites. 4. Weiler to execute special lot combination with City formally approving riparian use of Lot 6 by Weiler and recognizing special ownership relationship (Lot 6 cannot be sold as separate parcel). CITY OF ORONO SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM /Hr'l Date^ Rec' d * /3 » Ss" _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _By ^^JLiFee Kec' f f- 3o t ing lot APPLICANT Jaame ' Q'tfs (S i'Telephone Hailing Address // Air •/ f-f *D‘R. \1Uu nsL lYiy>.^A~' .' ■; . PROPERTY .Name ft ^ OWNER Telephone HI2 3/ ^ Mailing Address ll ^lo Z-jU 7 ^'A., (Attach list if more than one) ' H. i red nto ub- PROPERTY LOCATION Street Address II'^S if^g'A/V , Property Identification No. (P.I.D.) Q"7~*//y^^ Complete Legal Description to be attached to application EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check) hiiyks Dr^^4»nd Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District PROPOSAL _ _ _ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) _ _ _ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per _ _ _ Acres Square Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ (OVER) ' kiNINUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION / 1. Application Completed 2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owner's list of owners within 350* (this list can be obtained from the Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete• Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ _ _ _ _ NINIMOM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION 1* nf fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments) 2. f icate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. iV i * Agreement and^ .acceptable form of security. P ia^"Ttppiicat i o Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) ^Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivisions) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $150.00 $250.00 $300.00 plus 20.00/lot $150.00* Applicant has read the above and hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. T . Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature _"I.- \'L. ' Applicant must have ^ll submittals into thq/Ci'ty offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are usually held on the third Monday of each month. r* ♦o*, S' v»v!;v _ A3 (> O CT vJ m 50 30m13r- o o 3 Z _ m rn 2 z § u c.mz3 M O vj o & &cT3 r* 50 1 0 3 3 3n m H rvj IXI o m m s Z X Ol U1 0) C/)304► ^ ^o U1 m > »-•Ch < X I o i/4 H 50 m m fti O > 3 M M >ro r* o H H <a o m o 1 », i.i/.: Tiio Villai’e Council laot Oii t.io nhovf <I ite v/itli the follov/ii n iucini)cr*.> pre;;cnt: imyur Cbernaiiscr, Councilmcn IJutlcr, I'orn, .iasscugalc, au<I JcCartiiy. Coujici liiKin Dorn left early. Butler piovcd, Masscnnalc ieconJccl, that tlic Minutes of tiic Regular Mcetinf* of June 2u, 1972, as amended, be annroved, iotioa. Ayes (5) - days (0). Dorn iiioved, Butler secoiided, tliat tiie request of Stanley licklimu. Pheasant Lav/n, for a combination and division of Lots 9 10 as siiown on t.ie two revised certificates of survey and to delete one unit water assessment, be approved, iotioa. Ayes (S) - Nays (0), ir.’MTi.:; CO IDI.JATIOW f, nivisioN Pheasant La\/n . 1 ilassengale moved, McCarthy seconded, taat a building peniiit for a canopy in conjunction \tritli tiie multiple dock license v/itn the right to use the structure to run with tlie multiple use dock, for the Power Squadron, Big Island, be approved. Motion, Ayes (f>) - Nays (0), liUILDHG PhhllT Power Sejuadron iJig Islajid Massoiigrle moved, McCarthy seconded, that it be resolved that the llogistcrcd Land Survey for Robert W, Snitii, Casco Circle, be approved Motion, Ayes (5) - Hays (0), RCGISTHUI-n LANn SlIRVLY Casco Circle f J 'H' Massengalc moved, Dorn seconded, tiiat referral to the Planning Commission on the basis of prior consideration by the Planning Co»ami5<vton for a variance for Stephen Pedv:'»en, 3229-C Casco Circle, be waived, ’’otion. Ayes (5) - (0), Butler moved, McCarthy sect-},deil, that tiie request of Stcpiien Podersca, 3229-C Casco Circle, for a variance of 5* front setbaeJ; and 15' rear setback, be approved. Motion. Ayes (5) - Mays (0). jiutler moved, ••asscngalc seccmlod, tiiat tlio reejuest of lla»is ’/ciler, 1135 .’lortli Arm Drive and liliuwood Avenue, for a division and coi ’ib;'.iiation subject CO tiie ovmcr granting an open space case ment to t!ic Village of Oroiio on Lot 6, be approved, lotion, Ayer. (3) - .s'nys (()). VARIAHCn 3229-C Casco Circle VARIAMCU 3229-C Casco Circle CO'BIHATIOM n PI Vising 1J35 Morlli Ari.i Privc fj lilmv/ood Avcim • r .4 F83 cuiiEt::s f.C3 CGriraCATE OF CI«JPA['a VIUAC5 OP OttOfJO, MI^::iSSOTA DIRCCTiCr^: SPACES riUVOCREO 1 THRU 13 MUST OE FILLED IN CEFOne PCPMIT IS ir:USO (PIcbh Pnnl or Typrl 1 SITE Aronccs//s^"/l/o y4^nt 3 LCCUL OECCniPTIOM PLATMUKtOER p^ncEL NUN 4. CV.T:£R (Nomtl (Addrttti $ ARCNITCC1 ir/Amtl (Addroift) |« cuiLOcn 1 iNomtl IAdOrr%%| rtn*/iT NO J415 2 OAT£ , ^2co lf»i N q ) il*i I (If! f4o I T TYPE Of WORK 0 CIZC^FSTfiUCTOnE (Mpid'ii (OfrOij ». W OF 5TCRICS II COV.PLETIO lOATC 17 rropcnir oiwEfniONS T4. lY# E OF CG hfnuCliaN O Pi.Oi'UUV AREA CQ FT 17. FRONT YARD 13 nCARYARO 10 csnwAUDCosr 11 NO Of f AWLJCS Ilf IG lost Afif A PtR FA^flLT SO FT 19 SIDE YAflOS (> #** \ PI OMI f f I. f .1?t STATE ffl_____ PtNALTV ftt_____________ TOTAL FEE___r ^ ^ /oNifio iH*:rMicr » IHt /Ot<E AGGREGATE FLOOR AREA Floor area ratio MATERIAL FILE WITH GffSTRlET PARFIfK» CONSTRUCTION :g___ AC!cr:c’:jLEDGcr-^ENT Ar;D c!cr:ATunE: The undorsuTird hereby rcproscnt3 upon all of tho penalties of lav/, for tho purposo of inducing tho VILLAGE OF OnOr^O to tcKo Iho action horcin requested, that all slalcmcnls heroin are true and that ^ V/ork herein iriciitionod v^ill bo done in accordance v/ith (/u irdh^ nciAnf VILLAGE OF 0n0r:0. the State of Mmnruota. nd rulirigs ol/.^ ' r..\.i.i __ r>-------«-------1O^iliJing Department Oo FnASliriG FINAL_______ Cl RT IF KATE OF OTCUPAfK Y ISSUED APPfinvT.O ■nai llll■■ll|||||l|,.r-^ ^ J3 MaMOOi ACur::^v;LGCcar-':arjT rs.:^ C!c:jATunG: Th?> undorsicnod hereby rcprcsonti upon c!l oMhe pcneltica of Icy/, for the purpsso of inducing tho VILLAC2 0? C.«C«v.D to teko \}\Q oclicn horoin rccraocted, that fill ct-tenficnb herein ero truo end tint fill v;ark herein rr.cnticnod will bo deno in cccordenco with tho ordinance? of Iho VILLAGE Or OncriO, tlio Stole of Minncccta, rnd rulinQO of tho Cuilding Department. Cl eiCiNATune 0A16 / - J}}, S * *** ^ S ' 1 ^ c # 2i; __--------- To: Date Planning Commission Members Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator February 14, 1986 Subject: #1004 William Ulrich, 1535 & 1594 Bohn's Point Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Continuation of Public Hearing Prom 1/21/86 Pertinent Ordinances for the review: Section 10.02 Zoning Definitions 34. "Lot Area" - The area of a lot in a horizontal plane bounded by the lot lines, but not including any area occupied by the waters of a duly recorded lake or river or area frequently under water which serves as a watercourse draining higher land on which sustains emergent aquatic growth or area which has been dedicated as public right-of-way. 39. "Lot Line-Front" - That boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated public street, and in the case of a corner lot it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street. If the dimensions of a corner lot are equal, the front lot line shall be designated by the owner and filed in the office of the Building Inspector. 43. "Lot Width" - The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot line of a lot measured parallel to the front lot line and at the rear of the required front yard. 76. "Yard" - A required open space on a lot, which is unoccupied and unobstructed by a structure from its lowest ground level to the sky except as expressly permitted in the Zoning Chapter. A yard shall extend along a lot line and at right angles to such lot line to a depth or width specified in the yard regulations for the district in which such lot is located. 77. "Yard, Front" - A yard extending across the front of a lot between the side yard lines and lying between the front street line of the lot and the required front yard setback line, which front yard shall be provided on both street frontages of corner lots and double frontage lots. A lakeshore lot shall not be considered as having a front yard, but rather shall be considered as having a lakeshore yard on one side of the building and a rear yard on the other side of the building. 78. "Yard, Lakeshore" - A yard lying between the natural ordinary highwater mark on the lakeshore and the required lakeshore setback line, for the full width of the lot. r Zoning File #100^; February 14, IS86 Page 2 79, "Yard, Rear" - A yard lying between the required rear yard setback line and rear line of the lot, for the full width of the lot. On a lakeshore lot, the rear yard shall be the yard which fronts on the street lying between the street line of the lot and the required rear yard setback line. Section 11.03 Subdivision Definitions 28. "Lot, Width" - The shortest dimension between opposite lot lines measured at all of those points as required by the Zoning Chapter of the City Code and this Chapter. 55. "Setback" - The shortest distance between a structure and a natural feature, property line or right-of-way line nearest thereto. 65. "Subdivision" - The separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, lots, (or long-term leasehold interests where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the creation of streets, roads, or alleys), for residential, commercial, industrial, or other use or any combination thereof, except those separations; a) Where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots, or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500 feet in width for residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial and industrial uses? b) Creating cemetery lots; c) Resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary as long as each of the two resulting lots meets the requirem.ents of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. As requested in staff's last memo, the applicant has submitted a proposed sketch of a lot split of proposed Parcel B, Lot 1 riparian and Lot 2 non-riparian. Our subdivision code provides little direction as far as standards for lot design and actually defers to the Zoning Code. The definition sections of Chapter 10 set the lot standards for the individual zoning districts establishing yard requirements, and contains the only direction. These are often conflicting, confusing and ambiguous. Lot ich the Zoning File #1004 February 14, 1986 Page 3 The City has not always followed these directives giving subdivision approval without appropriate variances, therefore, tending to favor more practical and workable patterns in the design of lots. If you doubt this, consider all the lots approved that are served by private access easements, extended platted corridors and cul-de-sacs approved without addressing the need for a variance because lot did not abut a public road for the required width. Staff recalls the subdivisions approved right after the common ownership issue was resolved (review the enclosed plat). The Smiley application is a prime example for comparison. Consider the specific structure; staff would classify the garage use as the primary use authorized for guest house use with a conditional use permit in 1981. The second floor pool house/changing rooms use is secondary and required a guest house/conditional use permit when a kitchen was to be installed. The kitchen has not been installed. The second floor now serves as additional storage area. A future owner may never divide the property and designate the accessory garage/apartment structure as a principal structure - not on Bohns Pt real estate. As for comments on this specific sketch plan, staff would argue that with minor rearrangements of the lot line providing expanded yard areas around the two structurer>, this subdivision could be as acceptable as others approved by the City without noting the need for variances. The City is being asked to approve the lot line rearrangement of Lots 1 and 2, Lydiard Park. Parcel B’s excess of hardcover within the 75-250' setback area can be resolved by either the removal of the 1.7% of hardcover or adjusting the lot line to provide additional area to offset the excess. The applicant must decide. Per Section 10.09, Subdivision 8, it would appear that the 1981 conditional use permit has expired because the original applicant had failed to install the kitchen within a year of the date of Council approval. The original conditional use permit did not address the use of the structure as an additional bedroom or guest room use. A pool side changing house would not require a conditional use permit. Subdivision 9 of that same section also notes that a conditional use permit will expire if that use has ceased for a six month period. Applicant should confirm if he wishes to apply for a conditional use permit for guest house use. Staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement division application of William Ulrich and that the proposed subdivison is subject to the subdivison regulations of the City because of the need to resolve the hardcover excess. Approval is subject to the following conditions; Zoning File #1004 February 14, 1986 Page 4 1. Newly created parcel to be combined with Ulrich homestead parcel. 2. Applicant must either remove 1.7% of existing hardcover within 75-250* setback area. 3. Applicant to decide if he wishes to apply for a conditional use permit for guest house use of the accessory structure - City would address the need for appropriate variance at that time. Second story of garage structure may only be used for storage and/or pool/changing room. i 004 FGBl2fiB6 { I Cuy OF QRONO PropococJ lot division for WilliamJ. Ulrich of Lots 1 and 2, **LYDIARD*S PARK" Lake Minnetonka Hennepin County, Minnesota “ ISTING UESCRiPTIOn kots 1 *nd 2, "LYUIARU'S PARK", Lake, Minnetonka PROPOSED DESCRIPriONS A. Lot and that part of lot 1,"LY0IAkD'S PARK". Lake Minnetonka, lying lortheriy of the follcwing doscril''‘d line and its SoMthwesterly extension: Beginning at the point of intersection of the South line the fiorih 83 feet or said Lot 1 with the East line of siiJ Lot *•; ‘nonce Westerly along said Soutti line of the Nortli 03 feet a distance of 305 feet; thence deflect inn l‘.‘ft 23 degrees to the shore line of Lake Minnetonka, and said line ther'e ending B. Ttiat part of Lot 1, "I.YOIARD'S PARK", Lake Minnetonka, lying yonUierly of tlie following desenbod iin*^ and ft** ‘V* fMivest.rr! v ion* beginning at the point of intersect of the South line of fifirth h3 fo.'it of said Lot \ with the East line of said Lot 1; th*nro vn '.terly «along said South hne of th^ nr»rth 83 feet a distance of 305 feet; thence deflecting '3 degrees to the sliorejme of Lake Minnetonka, and said line there ending. __ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Mayor Date_ _ _ _ _ Clerk Date Scale: 1 inch » 100 feet Date : Oeceraber 9, 1985 0 ; Iron marker I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervisiofi, and that ! cm a duly Registered Land Survey and Engineer under ihc laws of the State of Minnesota. COFFIli 6 GROrmERG, INC. Mark S. Gn>nberg mN. Lie. No. 12/55 Date January 17, 1986 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator Orono City Offices Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55322 Dear Ms. Mabusth: pum JN2ISB6 ' StEBrono Per your request to John Noble of January 15, the following is an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the removal of a tree at 1595 Bohn's Point Road on January 15, 1986. I received a call from Mr. William Ulrich in regards to trimming a number of trees at 1595 Bohn's Point Road. After inspecting the trees I noticed that one was deteriorated badly and I recommended that the tree be cut down. I felt that removing the tree at this time, with frozen ground, would reduce the potential for damaging the landscape, and I recommended that the tree be replaced at a later time. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Wes Bendickson 479-1107 . ' / /)' iCoyio iu)Ui Ch) ) I )) LLOQia )L.J '^jioiyi : ^ /e->7i ci i)d CtnoruJ Jlc> 00 Lio!duxj Ptr. P(P d'll-lbBf-i IpUMlj^ JHN22I966 CITY OF CRGNO ^ ^(lyrO MJ/ilJloi/1^ dou A.iQCKk.cUPo tUt-lio:LoyO UMjtdeJuj -f^'-fxc^Shp &-TU Pt. Pd yiOr>n Ctncd-) Pj JtxmpjidJ P/d).ohcu Pt. ■M<~Cla.j<XJ ■ Pfd JlCLL^. y(X.tLOO..Li<h jL^yoduC/iy p/ldriOUtdiJu '' Jh/yjui/xJ JbcJoII tiLLCL<\j d-'^P-y ao uyujjJ uh.ju\u jO'yij^iKnyLOx.y b^vu ■-^j^ LUi-L^. d/j_ 0.^1^ Pi 6~piydP (X:t uxptiu ^HOk-J -u-*c^ j-LK.iVPx OiULu P O' --AiiakiP jtivuP'Xpy '■■'^'^^ryuutdo oj /\jUlIPu- LL\l^ ^tBriJLL^<AU cU yOub-H-dz t'lcL. IblAAdiy ^do-^=liiydn Cl^ V2l/ccd tV yUO-A-d-rho^ , J.u.Jz LX}^ ^dUL^ /rtU-d -yyn iiXLAi^ MML olllP ^.(lLh^cc^^^ Mu^ ^CPnidijiLLCliPyU ii^JudO .LXIP'^ hh., UiPJudxJ McLiyy y P-yU tyyixud PjP'l^ Slu^ o jJj uyncLL, d.J±LA O-idLAlCClLtlAJ ^ dALCly ddty^yj-LiiL- \PPXty (lPlL<lM\.Y^.j:ciy OuP OAyYix...'yCA,’ dPit^ ‘-pJ-O'^.d ycxLuijiJ '~k&?7l/yyULy)L0ft/ ^ PddcJohdiAj A aCIjL .JU .kJ / 'A 'I ^ <l Ll -‘XJj u'< .^'XJL^ ^MJl(llA/yLt^ ^0,. L^(ytctl^ ''7yLC0Ji-^ oil jLxj^^ Jc.&OA'U CL-^uL L yCc^vcjx/) ^(l^ul iJ^a LlJ ^00'y\jL,L ^^OL/Y)uAj^^ ^iiCAA^A^x d^ Laju ^'I .^x^Jxx (lLiaJ .0-<}jlJ t^Lsu pjliLyyc^yu^y\<^ (yAiu\^ OA-A -scOJ I . I r . i J .... - LX c/LlJ >_xxM_Ajf'/u.>(^ /OiJ^^yy^ijbi-y', Xui i-l\ju^ UL'V^ OjqAjul^ -cIjU Xiu^hJxJ-r)fJ=^ yt(ryAj3x6 VijC/ h-i ±iA JrJb oJU . a! UwxJ ^XMyr>iMI^ (m,. yluAJ^ ^huuMy o-^y p/jL aJU^ I<t^u O^^toMdy^a.A>< ch ^J iii.i^ ■U.jO-''><pr C ^wi_^ idiA'rUiy Pt '^ UJ-ko C'^-O- y^ CrOuJU . pTLl) X>1UL//U.y ci iX\0 VJ-A AlaJ , oA-r^ - kk^kMA^ JX p-t:, .jx^lcL tot&r^Lt\yV^tcLy (-^k ^d, IxjXokuL^_{X-i-6 '-P-juu -^XxPxjtyyX 'jir^^h.^CL')LO X)6L ^LK-tiy k^LL 'jlaloL XJ- Piz. _xxL-> CicLoip-^dlxf- CXJJytitiC -pyLHAJ-j (ZAjUuP €A’ l-<-U ’Hi-i-'X) xi vyv>Njx-c. XJc^wji-A-x../^ -UpL f=kzct t^XjQp uuup 9iy-i<_J ^ ,>xJvjH.iJicl P^y yXX-yOl LO-^-^Lx XXi-Aji —A—^'—tL^L^xL.' • t-O^ ^ rv-i. : U aJjP- a '-0 yOUi^ CJnLdXP lZ~7i_J nlUdL J ■L tL i t I 'y // r^^(9L-f. '■iL , <-/ .,i-'CUU> ' / 'J/l '-' >---r--......,r Uld-TUliA-LLC 'J i&-n^ -^'V^ pCL^ ^iuA.<l cio-Lp (X la.‘-<l<U^ V ' I L-rt\XA^ .^JuLX' Gp-uyLCp 6-pJ ~tAx. _AjUu-£t^«jM-J iW ^ ■ /X l*o ft Yf> JoNLI _a/i U-mHu, ,'^/<^'xJ Xll'^t-L^ a.i^ ■^'-^ ppppT'X) /In [ ,■.. > ^ ^jjmAL. tx/U ..XiAJypx^ V. £r-Yy<-X X. I J ■ t:,jqjjJJLuL> -^ip ^lALA^ 'tiU_ OyLt-^cix/i-n^ [ o WLl^-O Cicid-^^xiJ^ t^iAulA p ^. [M.. UL nxjujA^ de->^,MUJ^ A/hOL^ ^ OakaJ ^l-fA'LoU Ce-p^^JLA^ XtAi:_ CL-ruix-/ "y (£^To-._. a-fyuJ (XAX' ^~tXcA i-A..'y\^c/l.^XAL^~XKJLA,xX^ nx\— pL . iAA'd-L.yp'X- R't-. ^X.(JCLAXJ (XVXppxijx 'AJ.-L\a.ui / ■1 t.l-AvvC^l / jiSPAyK^yx^-o i) (lip CH-OX-kXA . 'iyUi cxJUiir LxJ-c'l.a^ i A Ca 1 ci V.; Q^i iyy\^O-UL, :) A L.\ V I'V-i__^IAl: 2 'i3-iy^ J'Uv-j'ryuL^ j ^y.'UrXyy^ -^7u4rt'SLi^ CAjJ- i.-^ ■' ^ A> i^*~ L/w^ )2s^'iOj /l /I y 'U A-A^ ^-^XrC£LA-X^i\^ .^''YL^ _ _ l&Xvu^ u.^U<lU ■ , . ^ !i/ h(Wl^ ^ICLtJlfMC*: .AA^aJ<jcLl^ u^<xU,y\^^^y . , . /9 A / y ■AiO-AjA (Xhb^Qy ~-Jl lyrn^U l06AyyU) f^- ■ . ■ ■ c^ A Laid u-^ AAXAAAa,^ <•—t. .L^LUda. V oJiuULALy Cl,^—^ 'tJuu^A C,<xAJ ^ A \ . \ .\Jn . Wi, nnn^l4Axy Ij)^ AHaAlJ ^-yvLl^ _____________ A^aoiA (iAl^ hilk ~7ai kkii UJjLy -AAjCL'-ycJr iB^iytU (Ll^yL^'yyL.u^yvAj-Ci U '(2AlUk-i.y\LxJAy d^<c>CdA At:<-AkLd /X^') \j^lLlJUi^ LLHjUi AUh^ JLLLA^’ 'AtJ-Eciz 0-U^\^j^2AA-pLlyUJ<j. MxU^aa ■ V yO'^cL^vU (lA-nAj^yy^di^A '^-/-'/Uct: "tlljC UAAai^L^o^ “77u 5l/-|^ ^ii-LLxAcL^ (X fl-O-^Yd.—^ ■~XL>~LLki^ c\xk<.A-\aA.Aj.y \/ OAxaJ ^lAnniJA- k AfuJl^LcrynJua CYk 0-<.j->\J 2Jj-&t-oA ■ LiJ-i-' C^AlL- (i-S^- (LL^~'^<Ldl IlLA O'XL^ “ f\JLp 0 . '' l\dX .. • J r / ArAjjii: C \XYUL .^jpL ^yic7^J ^wdz (HLA-- A CjlJIxu.xU Cj-AA 'xll-ull. . bJji uJOx,-ct tlW ^-vu V^ca Z/i/ oA BxAvyxx ft: <^/z./ ■• »____<_ 1 yy___4____.« s___J Jt L rr/oT.^ZLjljljl 1a\jL___ X-- / • ^ ^a^t.a iQ..1 0- J pJiyUl^iijClJ. 6 ml . '-^u^^^7(.Ci2.AXi:xly l.iiC'-^ C>^ cj^fLcdr. cL-laA ^-6 c-»UL^ U)-4 jUcXj ^ \[oluj.-o-^ 0-yy^ ujo-m^ ML ju ^oduu^ (hi. ^LJ (Laal. ao ^LL v^. AX>cw-l:i ^ ■'jiVcWdUA- vyLUU ^j UMJLyK_y 1 r Jk htT* tv r.!itl:y ♦ i ♦ ♦ , • ^4 44# '‘j *.4%i. ■ *:.•• •i.*;; • ri' •J n».rv'’v o;' b : ..0';; I' '.!• : IV, t.r t.i- r. rJ -1 1 ^ 4 : 4 «» t «V ^ va *4f L 1 .4 I. . 4 • . 1 . * X A* I** ' 0 ;x r.h--v o*J. •:t « » I*.’»:.v. r.l, .r - i i’:*!. To:Planning Commission Members / From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator February 7, 1986 Subject: #842 Robert Zimmerman, 3415 Crystal Bay Road - Va.' .ance Zoning District - LR-IC, 1/2 Acre Implication - Garage, deck additions; proposed removal of existing hardcover resulting in net increase of 2.2% hardcover in 75-250' zone. Proposal: Existing Hardcover 75-250' = 26.3% Proposed Hardcover 75-250' = 28.5% No change or slight decrease in 0-75' hardcover (existing 0-75' = approximately 11% attributable to driveway plus 23% attributable to Crystal Bay Road) ^ V.l FN List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Original Proposal June 1984 (40-44% Hardcover) Revised Proposal Hardcover Calculations Memo 7/13/84, Minutes 7/16/84 Letter To Applicant's Builder 2/4/86 The applicant appeared before you in 1984 requesting variances to hardcover and side setback to allow construction of various additions to his residence. On 7/16/84, Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and tabled subject to applicant scaling down his plans so that there would be less of an increase in hardcover. Applicant has now revised his plans considerably so that the increase in hardcover is relatively minimal, and requiring no side setback varaince. Please see Exhibit E. Applicant proposes to remove some minor sheds at the rear of his house and replace with a 22'x24' attached garage and apron. In addition, he is requesting to add a deck to the front of the home. A deck with standard railing at main floor level would be a non-encroachment, and would not affect the neighbor's views. In this case, the proposed deck will be located behind the "average deck setback line" of the adjacent properties. The applicant proposes to remove two areas of unnecessary gravel and the existing garage (or shed) at the rear of the property. This will yield a net hardcover increase in the 75-250' zone of 2.2%, rather than the 15%-plus increase proposed previously. Staff recommends approval of a 3.5% hardcover variance in the 75- 250' zone, conditioned on the applicant removing 2 areas of gravel and the existing detached garage structui..-. CITY OF ORONO VARIANCE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION # 8 4.2.EXHIBIT Fee After-the-Fact 00 ^ Site Address i^C2 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) n-//7-2.3, O/jp^ \ Please check one — Is the property abstract or torrens? - - - - - - - - •- ut-r"' Pl63se attach le^^l description to application if not included on reouired survey. APPLICANT Name /?06lH,l l4. "Z ^ M AjJ Phone Mailing Address 3^!^ /l£> <kC>. gJ/M AfX/ OWNER Name /tSe^L>9 Phone Mailing Address Date Property Acquired I (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property ^ Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ tru^nstructK Describe request in detail; VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) Other /ri/ HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practice] difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; yj ^ h. ^ DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 1. 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 4. Certificate of survey. 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 his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees Lo this application and’ further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date ■V Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. o occo o o 1 '•'"■•7 ''" •ILL w ■ HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS 3415 Crystal Bay Road K ;■ Existing 75~250' Hardcover 12r024 s.f* in 75-250' zone x .25 = 3,006 s.f. allowed Existing house and attached sheds (1980 survey) 22.1 304.5 36.15 791.7 12.2 61.0 8.1 140.9 6.5 37.7 8.8 44.0 1,379.8 s.f. 5.8 X 5.0 X Garage in rear (shed) 12.4 X 16.3 2.4 X (12.4-2.5-1.6) = 202 = 19 ;l} -222 s.f. Gravel in front 26 x 12 = 312 s.f. Gravel on side 125 x 10 = 1,250 s.f. 3,163.8 s.f. 3,163.8 12,024 Proposed 75-250* Hardcover House 14.5 X 22.1 21.9 X 36.15 5.0 X 8.8 5.0 X 12.2 =s 26.3% existing 75-250' Attached Garage Front Deck 10* wide driveway apron 1,197 24 X 22 = 528 10.8 X 21.9 4.0 X 13 10* X 100* 290 1,000 408 3,423 5.^. 3c 423/12,02 1 - 23.5% ’’roposed 75-250' Conditioned on: 1. removal of rear garage shed (222 s.f.) 2. removal of 7;5’ rear portion of gravel driveway (250 s.f.) 3. removal of front gravel parking area (312 s.f.) . c TO: FROM; DATE; SUBJECT; Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator July 13, 1984 #842 - Robert Zimmerman - 3415 Crystal Bay Road - Variance Application - House addition on a lakeshore lot Zoning District - LR-IC - cle-half acre Variances requested - Side setback - hardcover a) Side setback variance Required - 10’ Existing - 9-10’ Proposed - 8' Variance - 2' or 20% b) Hardcover variance 75-250' setback area *= 12,024 sq. ft. Allowed hardcover 25% = 3,006 sq. ft. Existing harcover = 3,098 sq. ft. = 26% Existing hardcover variance = 92 sq. ft. = 1% Proposed hardcover = 4,805 sq. ft. = 40% Proposed hardcover variance = 1,799 sq. ft. or 15% for an increase of 14% hardcover Optional proposed hardcover - ± 4,105 sq. ft. - 34% Using "ribbon” driveway, resulting in a 9% variance List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Application Plat Map Property Owner's List Old Survey Site Plan Architects alternate paving proposals Hardcover calculations Applicant is requesting to construct an addition to the rear of his existing home, including an attached garage with drivcsway apron. The house addition continues the existing sidewall which angles toward the rear lot line, creating a proposed setback of 8' where 10' is required. In addition, the hardcover proposed in the 75-250' zone is 40% compared to the existing 26% hardcover. #842 - Robert Zimmerman July 13, 1984 Page 2 Pleaifc review Exhibit F, the architects proposed alteratives to the extensive driveways required. The “ribbon roadway" appeals to me for this site since lateral vehicle mobility is limited by the property line and house structure so that a vehicle would likely only use the 2-1.5* wide pads in going to the rear yard. This could reduce proposed driveway hardcover by up to 700 sq. ft. along the west side of the house, reducing the total proposed hardcover to 34%. You will note when you visit this property, that the gravel along the west side of the house extends back about 50* past the existing house, and appears to be of relatively recent origin. We have a 1980 survey on file showing a proposed two-car detached garage to the rear of the lot, which was apparently never constructed.■ ! The neighbor to the east has reviewed the site plan and expressed concern that the additional hardcover will force additional runoff onto his property, which already is inundated by runoff from the rear and far side. Applicant should be requested to address these concerns. Applicant does appear to have a hardship in that the house has no basement due to its elevation near lake level. However, my immediate reaction is that perhaps building upward rather than rearward, and not forcing the garage to the rear of the property, would allow for a house of comparable square footage without the major increases in hardcover. Planning Commission may ask for a reduction in the proposal. The Council has approved hardcover variances of 4% and 8% in this neighborhood recently. A 9% variance would appear to be consistent. t .V MlilUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1984.PAGE 9 #827 C.D. WILLIAMS (T#842^<OBERT ZIMMERMAN 3415 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:35 - 10:55 P.M. Assistant Zoning AdministratuiT Gaf f ron noted that the drainage problem is a general problem in the area, not specific to this property, and should be reviewed by the Public Works Director. Gaffron stated that only a 3 percent increase in hardcover is proposed. Kelley asked if the applicant was proposing a deck. Williams stated that a second story deck is proposed but that it is not considered hardcover. Sime moved to approve the Williams' variance application finding that no additional land is available and applicant has addressed hardcover issue and kept hardcover to 30% where 27% was existing and applicant is meeting side setbacks and subject to the following conditions: 1. No other variances will be granted. 2. Public Works Director to look into drainage probler with neighbors. 3. Hardcover not to exceed 30%. Callahan seconded. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (1). Minority Opinion - Rovegno voted nay. Rovegno stated that this entire proposal is within the 75* lakeshore setback line and that the applicant should reduce the hardcover. Robert Zimmerman, C.M. Gables, and J. Frischmann were present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. There was no one present from the audience for this application. Chairperson Goetten closed the public hearing at 10:55 p.m. Rovegno stated that the hardcover should be cut down and that the applicant should consider going upward rather than expanding the house outward. Kelley stated that there was too much hardcover on the property and that the applicant should go upw^.rd. Zimmerman stated that the footing might not be able to hold a second story but that he would have it inspected. Callahan moved to table the Zimmerman variance applicant to allow the applicant to cut down on the hardcover and to consider expanding the house upward rather than outward. Kelley seconded. Motion, Ayes / C % 1 f*; • r -Or •: ( i' ♦’•('*.•,/-i CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, MinnesoU 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 4, 1986 Clinton M. Gables American Builders & Associatesr 3600 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 Inc. RE: Request for permit to construct attached garage at 3415 Crystal Bay Rd Dear Mr. Gables: We are in receipt of your request for a permit for an attached garage at 3415 Crystal Bay Road. Attached to the request was one set of plans and two copies of a certificate of survey. We also have on file a building permit application dated November 4, 1985. My records indicate that on November 1, 1985, I left a message on your answering machine noting that a variance is required in order to add the garage. I have no record that you ever responded to that message. Mr. Zimmerman applied for a variance to construct an addition and attached garage in June 1984. That application was tabled by the Planning Commission on July 16, 1984 to allow applicant to consi der revising his plans. That application was never completed, but may be reactivated at Mr. Zimmerman's request. We cannot issue the garage permit unless a variance is granted to allow hardcover in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in the zone 75-250* back from the lakeshore. The following items would be needed in order to reactivate the variance application: 1) 12 legal size, stamped envelopes (City will address them for re-notification of neighboring property owners). 2) Submit a copy of your revised survey showing the exact dimensions of existing and proposed driveway and parking areas, and indicate any structures intended to be removed. 3) Submit existing and proposed hardcover calculations (form enclosed). 4 i Bl'ILDINC « /ONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION A FINANC F. - 473 73S«PriU.IC WORKS - 473-7359 \T • r If Items 1-3 above are submitted by Monday, February 10, 1986 by 4:30 PM, this application can be reviewed by the Planning Commission at their February 18th meeting. If the Planning Commission recommends approval, the item would be presented to the City Council on March 10th for final action. We also would need 1 additional set of plans for the addition for review by the Building Inspector. Please contact me as soon as possible regarding your plans to proceed with the variance application, or if you have any questions. Sincerely, iichael P. Gaffr< Assistant Zoning Administrator' * I, enc: Hardcover Calculation sheet 7/17/84 notice, 7/16/84 PC Minutes cc: Robert Zimmerman 3415 Crystal Bay Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 MPG/pp TO:Planning Commission Members % FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator DATE: December 12, 1985 SUBJ:^#96^John B. A. Idstrom, 2580 Fox Street ary Subdivision - Second Review #968 - ^nditional Use Permit for Driveway Crossing Wetlands List of Exhibits - Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey As Revised 11/27/85 Exhibit E - Staff Memo of 9-11-85 Exhibit F - Survey With Originally Proposed Driveway Location & Culvert Data Exhibit G - Septic Report (Portions included for clarity) . . Exhibit H - M.C.W.D. Wetland Crossing & Culvert Approval Exhibit I - Staff Memo of 10/18/85 * This item was tabled at your September and Octo'/er meetings pending receipt of additional information regarding the driveway and culvert, pending resolution of the^ question of access from the adjacent private road, and pending M.C.W.D, approval of the wetland crossing. These items are now complete. The applicant's engineer has submitted a soils report indicating that suitable areas exist on both lots for shallow trench drainfield systems. He has also provided information regarding the necessary culvert sizing for the area where the proposed driveway will cross the designated wetland in order to access the rear building site. This is not a DNR protected wetland. The Watershed District has given their approval of this crossing and culvert proposal, and City Engineer, Glenn Cook, has recommended that a corridor 32* wide be allowed for the proposed driveway, with conservation and flowage easements taken over all the wetlands on the property. Note that the proposed driveway location creates the least disruption of wetlands necessary to access the back portion of Lot 1. Applicant is requesting approval for the driveway to access onto Fox Street to serve both proposed building sites. Access easements across and in favor of each lot would be required. Note that with the proposed driveway location on an easement over Lot 2, only the area west of the driveway easement is considered in the contiguous dry buildable lot area. The applicant's surveyor has re-designed the lot lines and located the proposed driveway 26' from the wetlands, and with a 20* driveway easement, the revised plan will keep 2.0 contiguous acres of dry builable west of the driveway easement on Lot 2. Also, the revised proposal keeps 2.1 acres of dry buildable west of the easement at the lower end of Lot 1, should the applicant wish to divide off a 3rd lot in thci future. Note that with the current division the City will require tha dedication of approximately 18.7 feet of right-of-way over the traveled portion of Fox Street, (Fox Street is platted at 66* wide, but the traveled portion actually extends a few feet into the Idstom property. ) This will reduce the area of the "future" potential lot to 2,0 acres, still meeting the 2-acre requirement. Zoning Files #96.7 & #960 December 12, 1985 Page 2 of 2 The Public Works Coordinator has reviewed the proposed driveway access location and finds it very suitable with good sight distance both directions. Finding that all requirements of the RR-IB zoning district are met, staff would recommend preliminary approval of the preliminary subdivision, subject to the following conditions; 1. Submittal of driveway access e*i&ement documents between Lot 1 and Lot 2 as appropriate. 2. Dedication of standard drainage and utilities easements at the property boundaries. 3. Dedication of standard conservation and flowage easements over the wetlands on the property, allowing a 20* corridor for driveway purposes. 4. Dedication of 18.7 feet of right-of-way for Fox Street. 5. Payment of Park Fees in the amount of $200 for the 3.4 acre lot and $100 for the 10.1 acre lot. Staff would recommend approval of a variance and conditional use permit for the filling of the wetlands in a 32 * wide corridor in order to provide access to the rear of the property, with the appropriate culvert as approved by the City Engineer, per Section 10.55, Subdivisions 8 and 12. VC- / j/ A#9677 \Rec ' d ^ ^ 3 ~cAvS“ By C/ /7C CITY OF ORONO SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM APPLICANT Name TOjQA/ j6. A. //?^ // Fee Rec'd /7r 5>^ _________________________________________________ Telephone Mailing Address ZSi^^ ST^^'6r . U^^r^ATA S“SS^/ PROPERTY Name OWNER Telephone Mailing Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Attach list if more than one) PROPERTY LOCATION Street Address 2S^O ST^C fT U^jirTATA jg"Tj>9^/ Property Identification No. (P.I.D.) C' V- // 7 ^ ^3 “Y/ C^O Complete Legal Description to be attached to application EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check) / y 3^ / fir S Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District i ! PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) ' , Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per /S. 5* Acres //S^ ZiO Square Feet Dry Buildable CcA.'’r*G-ifvnS Land X Residential Other (specify) (OVER) V • MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION $ 1. Application Completed 2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. 3. Certified Property Owner's list of owners within 350' (this list can be obtained from the Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 4. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments) 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and acceptable form of security. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III)$150.00 Aa. P. Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivisions) $250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $300.00 plus 20.00/lot $150.00* Applicant has read the above and hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Date ^ ZJL Date Applicant must havi all iubmittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning CommissionXe^Jfeslng. Planning Commission Meetings are usually held on the third Monday of each month. -ti- ‘IGi-/ W, CITY OF ORONO SUBDIVISION APPLICATION F# Q 0 8 APPLICANT Name 70/^/U J8 , A. // Date^ec’d ^ - Ji, 3 By ^y(/ ________ Fee Rec'd /Vr iuj/ hic^ SKOO -O' ___^5f:;fr4lr='______^ Telephone Mailing Address Z5j^^ A^^X S7A6'<r CUAr;rArA S“SS^/ PROPERTY Name OWNER S/i/>tf^Telephone Mailing Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Attach list if more than one) PROPERTY LOCATION Street Address 2S^O /gyy STACfT ^ £*^Ar2ATA Property Identification No. (P.I.D.) Complete Legal Description to be attached to application EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size y 3^ / /3. 5 Present Use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District - /£ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) v' . 2 Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per /S. 5~ Acres //S^zyo Square Feet Dry Buildable CoAyr*(rc*€^i^fS Land X Residential Other (specify) (OVER) 4MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY 1. Application Completed 2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. 3. Certified Property Owner's list of owners within 350' (this list can be obtained from the Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 4. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments) 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and acceptable form of security. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $150.00 Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivisions) $250.00 $300.00 plus 20.00/lot $150.00* Applicant has read the above and hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Date Hate //sr Applicant must havd all iubmittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commi ssionVecifeung. Planning Commission Meetings are usually held on the third Monday of each month. o 0 Q M 0 TJ O) C-c. ui 0 £ m n vn 0 2 af M ►H ^r- M r* >XI ^ > £ 3 3 1 > P- X3 1 H 0 7: M 3 f- xj Tj -< XIm r- m m £ ►-mo m £ ►-m r- :o XJ M £ 0 z M 'sJ Q ^ S 0 oi (/) r- 1 3 _ > H r- 1 S HZ £ 0 0 r- rvj z a XI M r* ra Z Q C4 XJ X3 m Q m 0 £m X3 £XI M :q 4>(A Z U) Z U1 0 U1 0 H 0 0 ^m 3.6 i AC. Mr c. I 7 N •V.*: /0> 3 tACHS TVTAL 2.Q tAc. mr 7.5tAc.i>fir 'IZS't firepcfeoi tin* — 1^* Certificate of Survey M „ ^ 'john B.A. Idstrom, II of Lots 13 and 14, Auditor's Subdivision No, 229 Hennepin County, Minnesota Im 759.00’ V £aat Xh cornet' \ StC.A-Ml'23 5<5 CSJ ^ I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lots 13 and 14, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUKESR 229, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, using plat distances from the East lino of said plat to establish the East line of the property, and using existing Judicial landmarks,sot in a registration proceeding,to establish the West lino of the property. It does not purport to show improvements or encroachments , except the existing travelled road. AJ />££ c/rr aia£ COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. • /• « i* y Ciordon R. Coffin Reg7 No. 6064 Mark S. Gronberg Reg. No.12755 Land Surveyors and Planners Long Lake, Minnesota i Scale: Date I \ o 9 I 1” = 200' 4“2-«84 , 8~23-8S lot A^ ret^. //-J7 ’8: Iron marker found Iron marker set Judicial landmark found TotaA AA€A s /S.S * 9./t AcAej u>er /O. y -t yicAeS ^Pood as travelled ’I To:Planning Commission Pr<Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date:September 11, 1985 Subject: #967 (Subdivision); #968 (Conditional Use Permit) John B.A. Idstrom, II, 2580 Fox Street Zoning District - RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential - 2 acre Application - #967 - Subdivide a vacant parcel to create two building sites #968 - Conditional Use Permit request to construct a drive way through a designated wetland area List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application - Subdivision Exhibit B - Application - Conditional Use Permit Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Plat Map Exhibit E - Survey The applicant is requesting to subdivide a 13.5 acre parcel (10.4 acres dry buildable) into two new building sites. Proposed Lot 1 - 7.3 acres dry (3.6 dry contiguous acres at building site); 2.8 acres wet Proposed Lot 2 - 3.1 acres dry (2.6 dry contiguous acres at building site); 0.3 acres wet Each lot meets the minimum area and width requirements. Note that the building site for Lot 1 is at the north end of the property. Septic testing has been completed but has not been submitted as of this writing. The site evaluator notes verbally that trench systems can be used on both lots. Access to Lot 2 appears to be via the private gravel road on the west side of the lot. Access to Lot 1 has not been designated; 60* corridors have been shown to the west side and to the south, leaving the driveway options open. In either case, the designated wetlands will have to be traversed, requiring review by the Watershed District and requiring a conditional use permit. No information has been submitted regarding the amount of filling to be done for the driveway, nor information about the size of culvert needed, etc. Staff would suggest that Planning Commission hold the public hearing for both the subdivision and conditional use permit applications, note any comments by the public and make your own comments, and continue the hearing to your October 21st meeting pending receipt of additional information from the applicant; Zoning File #967 September 11, 1985 Page 2 1. Septic testing report 2. Proposed driveway location and other engineering data regarding the driveway construction in the designated wetland 3. Written confirmation that the owners of the private road will grant legal access to Lot 2 The plat will, of course, be subject to the standard drainage and utility easements at all property boundaries, and is subject to conservation and flowage easements over the desgnated wetlands area. " .V !■ £tC.4-in-23 i:. ( I f * • i|r* : » *1•ri -,■1 ii. ■ ■. f f,\: Certificate of Survey for John B.A. Idstrom, II OCT I 7 I9K I '.V f i “I** ' I • y ' V * \ ’ 1 • \ / of Lots 13'an^ 14,” Auditor*s' Subdivision No, 229 Hennepin County, Minnesota £ast y^ccrnciT^ I hereby certify that this ic a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lots 13 and 14, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 229, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, using plat distances from the East lino of said plat to establish the East line of the property, and using existing Judicial landmarks,sot in a registration proceoding,to establish the West line of the property. It does not purport to show improvements or encroachments . except the existing travelled road. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Gordon R. CoffinReg, No, 6064 Mark S, Gronberg Reg, No.12755 land Surveyors and Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale: Date : • o I lit a 200' 4“2“84 f 8 ~23~SS Iron marker found Iron marker set Judicial landmark found ~ /y.S * S./t ACACJ UJ€r /O. yt ACACJ I?AY ^road as travelled ? / •U'' t' u *fk> • •],»• V ^ • ’ I l\ ‘ I ' -/v'^J-:!' ■ %✓’ V 7t >’\ t , ’•• • # . //!( V ^ Nv ^ f »//!(^/ ^ »x . ^ f i i . * t p- ■ w ^ -irrv- ■• SlH..;.-:3i^..';,".W' 3. / ./ , c .- A ‘•-r «^ —— — • -tt* .• -rsr^ • ••^•••••^!* • 'Irf ••!» I \ aW t ____J \*wdE^«.cs .035'—• •t-g* J 'J • ,::Vi/^U I •. /' i r > c- f V 1 /' • » a C I »^./in \- # w r . • V ^ •:• •.•^'i' ^•-•» I E»Kj_arjri=I^ArxrMMWP^JtMMn_JU^AAA.V\* *_*-# » ******* ^ • • • •;.• • ™ rV J ji •• *jhx I ■'. J-. • .i'....J,■>:-!> • yi ! ll‘‘ **^^*^A»......... •, • f * I f r ( « • u • t*! ^ rj li w* I ./ .T' . 'I 1 \ » ) t ! •’.S'* c I X- (.1 -r^.W n % *\* • V =^r~ V- ■' ) H;' ■ ^ ■^.'.. /-......\- \-y .'} I tT- t /— V V « •• y y \ I V \/) {\ \ \X- A l'-!3r-' c 3 r - J • • • • V o I \ \ r* ^ o \ \ \ >\ \:>'n ; 1 •' /»>i ^ i r‘o/o-—p - ■''" yl'oPj- ym y \ V'T^r A V • • • • VsJ-'• • • ^_ ' • •- It . * • • X •-VJI.-...V.:- -) ■_, _// - Il-7 •;•:• \-.\ 'v^'' PV' / \ > I / boun 'darv / BOUNDARTf" /■) I*, t; 'i / / \ ■ » » i |l0'»\ A \5 ■ N-. c.- I >O > / / !J5>. , 'c#' ; ^^fe*. I' r-rl^'• •! V.V \ c\ w'W 3 jfV 2 V • i » ■ > J?' -il V-'Wi ( // ss»^*I. » 4 » <.A1: y% 'X ip A- •V- f "S t > \ '»5- K--3 ^ I C? rr , ' \ » » •:v:a. m • • • <• • • •>T O' y/<S ) /’ -„A > ' • • • • • ■c F »x~=aH r-. • • I • . ‘V r • t • t « 'C.I! . • ': • . • •• n ;---, .a-C\ NV,')'#.; f O:^) ■^ •<r4 W'i.J#* ^1 f yo- -•••/.// • ..• *. :h <• '/• • t '••A ; \ # # •'f*4 • v//. fjv 1.• I •-; > i - v- i,'. h- H r> Q o 3 00 M p. </>. 'io 9 I . .. .• ! t { . ! • • • • j:-,-- ^ • • * • • • . .4 *«««•« ! •• I • • • • » • ♦ ir«Tv=^fm-w«Tvf^w»tt.^^ ^s.-rSisaLrAJ^a SITE EVALUATION REPORT FOR JOHN B.A. IDSTROM, II IN LOTS 13 & 14. AUD. SUB. No. 229 :ORONO. MINNESOTA -------- . i l’l OCT I 6(905 ®S!or6n6 10-5-85 On August 29-31, 1985 two proposed lots were tested for both primary and alter nate drainfield sites to determine their suitability for on-site drainfield sys terns. Testing was done in accordance with Individual On-Site Sewage Treatment System Standards(WPC-40). Lot 1, the north lot, had an average percolation rate of 7.7 minutes per inch for the primary site(holes 1-4) and a rate of 10.4 minutes per inch for the alternate site(holes 5-6). With the possibility of a moderately high seasonal water table, shallow trench systems would be needed for both sites. Lot 2, the south lot, had an average percolation rate of 21.6 minutes per inch on the primary slte(holes 1-4) and 15.2 minutes per inch for the alternate site(holes 5-6). Because of the high seasonal water table, shallow trench systems would be needed for both sites with some fill required over the trench es or an interceptor draintile used to lower the water table. Additional information follows. If any other information is needed, please contact me. Sincerely, PERCOR, INC. Mark S. Gronberg, P.E.*^ PCA certified Vi. K/fMEHAHA CREEK f. \ ^ f t* ; *1'uv/ A I EftSHED DISTRICT l»KE MINNETONIU P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 BOARD OF MANAGERS: David H Cochran. Pres • Albert L. Lehman .John E Thomas Michael R Carroll •Camille D Andre •James B McWelhy •James R Spensley hhi** - *♦ t Permit Application No: 85-180 Date: November 27, 1985 Owner: Location: Purpose: John Idstrom II 2580 Fox Street Wayzata, MN 55391 City of Orono, Sec. 4DB, south of Luce Line, north of Fox Street between Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow Drive. Culvert installation to cross an unprotected wetland to allow access for a 2-lot subdivision. Dear Mr. Idstrom: At the regularly scheduled November 21, 1985 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject permit application was reviewed along with the following exhibits: 1. Permit Application 85-180 received November 13, 1985. 2. Certificate of survey dated April 2, 1984, revised August 23, 1985 prepared by Mark Gronberg, P.E. 3. Culvert design computations, dated October 16, 1985, unsigned. 4. Copy of USGS quad map showing estimated boundaries of tributary drainage area. The Board approved the permit application. This permit is valid for one year. If construction is not complete within one (1) year, an extension must be requested. Please contact the District at 473-4224 when this project is about to commence so an inspector may view the work in progress. EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES E n g i ne^pf fo/' t hp^ tart r Vc cc: Board G^^acomber L-^ty of Orono M. Gronberg Date of Issue '/ > !' I i Certificate of Siirvey for John B.A. Idstrom, II of Lots 13 and 14, Auditor‘a Subdivision No. 229 Hennepin County, Minnesota 7 7$9.00 ‘ —. ‘£ost ^ cornci^ ^ I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lots 13 and 14, AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 229, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, using plat distances from the East line of said plat to establish the East line of the property, and using existing Judicial landmarks,set in a registration proceeding,to establish the West line of the property. It does not purport to show improvements or encroachments , except the existing travelled road. COFFIN a GRONBERG, INC. Gordon R. CoffinRegT No. 6064 Mark S. Gronberg Reg, No.12755 Land Surveyors and Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale: Date } o I 9 1« = 200« 4“2**84 f 8 ~23-8S rei ^ Iron marker found Iron marker set Judicial landmark found AJfCA s /S.S £ 8./1 ACA^J U>£T /O. y-i ACA€S £}Ay Hoad as travelled To: From: Date: Subject: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator September 11, 1985 #967 (Subdivision); #968 (Conditional Use Permit) John B.A. Idstrom, II, 2580 Fox Street Zoning District - RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential - 2 acre implication - #967 - Subdivide a vacant parcel to create two building sites #968 - Conditional Use Permit request to construct a drive way through a designated wetland area List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application - Subdivision Exhibit B - Application - Conditional Use Permit Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Plat Map Exhibit E - Survey The applicant is requesting to subdivide a 13.5 acre parcel (10.4 acres dry buildable) into two new building sites. Proposed Lot 1 - 7.3 acres dry (3.6 dry contiguous acres at building site); 2.8 acres wet Proposed Lot 2 - 3.1 acres dry (2.6 dry contiguous acres at building site); 0.3 acres wet Each lot meets the minimum area and width requirements. Note that the building site for Lot 1 is at the north end of the property. Septic testing has been completed but has not been submitted as of this writing. The site evaluator notes verbally that trench systems can be used on both lots. Access to Lot 2 appears to be via the private gravel road on the west side of the lot. Access to Lot 1 has not been designated; 60' corridors have been shown to the west side and to the south, leaving the driveway options open. In either case, the designated wetlands will have to be traversed, requiring review by the Watershed District and requiring a conditional use permit. No information has been submitted regarding the amount of filling to be done for the driveway, nor information about the size of culvert needed, etc. Staff would suggest that Planning Commission hold the public hearing for both the subdivision and conditional use permit applications, note any comments by the public and make your own comments, and continue the hearing to your October 21st meeting pending receipt of additional information from the applicant; ftsrr- Zoning File #967 September 11, 1985 Page 2 1. Septic testing report 2. Proposed driveway location and other engineering data regarding the driveway construction in the designated wetland 3. Written confirmation that the owners of the private road wilj. grant legal access to Lot 2 ft; The plat will, of course, be subject to the standard drainage and utility easements at all property boundaries, and is subject to conservation and flowage easements over the desgnated wetlands area. m m -- / - p*f-. ,;|,,, OCT I 7 1985 ’ '' t','!Certificate of Siarvey ________ for John B.A. Idstrom, II ' !:/ (>! iji\ ...•iSU ; of Lots 13 and 14| Auditor's Subdivision No. 229 ‘ “ Hennepin County, Minnesota .? 759.00 ’ £asf earnedStc..A-\n-23 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lots 13 and 14, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 229, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, using plat distances from the East lino of said plat to establish the East line of the property, and using existing judicial landmarks,set in a registration proceeding,to establish the West lino of the property. It does not purport to show improvements or encroachments . except the existing travelled road. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Gordon R. CoffinReg. No, 6064 Mark S, Gronberg Reg, No,12755 Land Surveyors and Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale: Date : o \ 111 = 200' 4*“<i“84 f 3 '23'‘QS Iron marker found Iron marker set Judicial landmark found TaT/iZ s /S.S i AC*<S S./t ACAfJ Uf€r /O. yt ACACJ VAY Fct £>irce.f as travel!^ • • COP o 3 ^ “ • • ■ 1 • §" i1 • A-W ti.-* § 3-»V^r= •. lls^.V . IV- “H CP •--1- ~ •’ I ■•■ . i . I . » - • . ..4 mtMm Wii SITE EVALUATION REPORT FOR JOHN B.A. IDSTROM, II IN LOTS 13 & 14, AUD. SUB. No. 229 :ORONO. MINNESOTA I V*-/ L/, OCT 1 6{9 qc «E®ron6 9u: % 10-5-85 On August 29-31, 1985 two proposed lots were tested for both primary and alter nate drainfield sites to determine their suitability for on-site drainfield sys terns. Testing was done in accordance with Individual On-Site Sewage Treatment System Standards(WPC-40). Lot 1, the north lot, had an average percolation rate of 7.7 minutes per inch for the primary site(holes 1-4) and a rate of 10.4 minutes per inch for the alternate site(holes 5-6). With the possibility of a moderately high seasonal water table, shallow trench systems would be needed for both sites. Lot 2, the south lot. had an average percolation rate of 21.6 minutes per inch on the primary site(holes 1-4) and 15.2 minutes per inch for the alternate site(holes 5-6). Because of the high seasonal water table, shallow trench systems would be needed for both sites with some fill required over the trench es or an interceptor draintile used to lower the water table. Additional information follows. If any other information is needed, please contact me. Sincerely, PERCOR, INC. '^Mark S. Gronberg, P.E.*^ PCA certified !v iu?r\{EHAHA CREEK UVATEftSHED D5STRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 BOARD OF MANAGERS; David H Cochran. Pres ‘Albert L. Lehman • John E Thomas Michael R Carroll ‘Camille 0 Andre ‘James B McWfethy ‘James fl Spensley V-s4^ t. im MINNETONKA .» ;h ri - *14 Permit Application No: 85-180 Date: November 27, 1985 Owner: Location: Purpose: John Idstrom II 2580 Fox Street Wayzata, MN 55391 City of Orono, Sec. 4DB, south of Luce Line, north of Fox Street between Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow Drive. Culvert installation to cross an unprotected wetland to allow access for a 2-lot subdivision. Dear Mr. Idstrom: At the regularly scheduled November 21, 1985 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject permit application was reviewed along with the following exhibits: 1. Permit Application 85-180 received November 13, 1985. 2. Certificate of survey dated April 2, 1984, revised August 23, 1985 prepared by Mark Gronberg, P.E. 3. Culvert design computations, dated October 16, 1985, unsigned. 4. Copy of USGS quad map showing estimated boundaries of tributary drainage area. The Board approved the permit application. This permit is valid for one year. If construction is not complete within one (1) year, an extension must be requested. Please contact the District at 473-4224 when this project is about to commence so an inspector may view the work in progress. EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES EnginM^ foX X i X X X’ cc: Board G^^acomber LXAX.y of Orono M. Gronberg Date of Issue / / t TO:Planning Commission Members > U ^ '• PROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator DATE: October 18, 1985 SUBJ #967 John B. A. Idstrom, 2580 Fox Street Preliminary Subdivision -- Second Review #968 - Conditional Use Permit for Driveway Crossing Wetlands List of Exhibits - Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Staff Memo of 9-11-85 Exhibit P - Survey with proposed driveway location and culvert data Exhibit G - Septic Report (Portions included for clarity) This item was tabled at your September meeting pending receipt of the septic report and information regarding the driveway and culvert; also pending resolution of the question of access from the adjacent private road. The applicant's engineer has submitted a soils report indicating that suitable areas exist on both lots for shallow trench drainfield systems. He has also provided information regarding the necessary culvert sizing for the area where the proposed driveway will cross the designated wetland in order to access the rear building site. This information was received too late for the City Engineer to review it. Note also that applicants engineer will be bringing this driveway/culvert application to the MCWD for approval at their November meeting, with no problems anticipated. We still have no written confirmation that access can be gained via the private road immediately west of the proposed division. Although this is still a possibility, applicant is requesting approval for the driveway to access onto Fox Street directly, to serve both proposed building sites. Access easements across and in favor of each lot would be required. Note that with the proposed driveway location on an easement over Lot 2, only the area west of the driveway easement is considered in the contiguous dry buildable lot area. Assuming a 20' wide easement centered on the driveway as plotted, the area west of the driveway easement would still be about 2.0 acres. Staff has suggested to the applicant that a driveway along the east property boundary would cause less restrictions for Lot 2 and any future division to the south. As it stands now, the proposed driveway would negate the southerly portion as a future building site because the area west of the easement is less than 2 acres. (See 10.03 Subd. 6(B) and 11.03 Def. 24) Botn lots meet all width and area requirements of the RR-IB zoning district.I #968 Idstrom October 18, 1985 Page 2 Staff would recommend preliminary approval of the proposed subdivision, subject to the following conditions; !• Final driveway access location on Fox Street to be approved bv Public Works Director. 2. Submittal of driveway access easement documents between Lot 1 and Lot 2 as appropriate. 3. Dedication of standard drainage and utilities easements at the property boundaries. 4. Dedication of conservation and flowage easements over the wetlands on the property. 5. Payment of Park Fees in the amount of $200 for the 3.4 acre lot and $100 for the 10.1 acre lot. Staff would recommend tabling the Conditional Use Permit application pending the City Engineer's review and the MCWD approval for the wetland crossing. Note that when finally approved, the Conditional Use Permit would include a variance to Section 10.55 Subdivision 15(a)(1). U ■ iCi. .'a- / *»•*. I V •-i ^ -V-»:■«•. ,w^4 -t:5.. •' "‘-i \*iud^ ■. ih^1 < -V, isv ';T" ^./»A •■ ^ - •“ fe-^’ '‘.t ■• ' ^ •‘ “i '* ^ . b. i E-------^ J- - - 0- " cvif ..............,-------tOT-l4> Tw» ? -I , - . -.-y- : .:I7~ •. ’ ■. -:-^m j ■•i. 4^, ■t ••'^ ^ /• ■ Vv •M jf^ . \» w’- NO^-' 4*’*' ' ^ ■'/.'. ^v, .,^ ,y«. //•^. ' -f -S^c. - •■; •• .y • - •■ ■if * - <‘2il ;i •*•'•“ * ,\ A/- .911 ./-^r • ‘ 5 ^' -'i f ■• ,4 ^ ^11; V • '*r' <5^ • < -• • ;; ^ ^ iTf .1 * <t* I.iii: A-1.* ‘.:fi=1 5r --* " ■■ A - CO m —4 *: ¥•** ■ ■t ’ J 0 . : * . v>y^ j ‘wi' ■m^mm <i- 3i2;w:.;:.;:.^ tectkr; TT^ • •m -• • * ;• . T“|- •^^~.N8?*S5 ‘W ??l-42 k 4 • *M:V ' " JF_ i ^ ^ %r . .^•'•■ li.s*’ ' ^ H • mSM. NfcrSa tt 5 ‘J'^. 5 P. STREETFOX iT » ’ # i rf^------9 A « • • ■ • .V* <*•"'•.' ,*r i' ' mJ^ \ f \'» ■ H rt - '^ 'v To: From: Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date:February 6, 1986 Subject:#990 Ward Ferrell 3405-3411-3415 Watertown Road Variances - Update to Memo of November 13, 1985 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Memo of 11/13/85 With Exhibits Exhibit B - Survey of Property With Existing House Exhibit C - Soils Report, Site Plan For Existing House Exhibit D - Planning Commission Minutes 11/18/85 Mr. Ferrell has now submitted the additional survey and soils report to show an alternate drainfield site for the existing house. Given no future encroachments, there is adequate area on the lot with the existing house to replace the septic system with a fully conforming system. Please review the memo of 11/13/85. As noted in that memo and considering the additional information submitted, it appears technically possible to place a house, garage, driveway, well, and primary and alternate septic systems on each of the lots. The possible house location would be somewhat limited by the drainfield sites. There would be potential conflicts if a situation occurred where an extremely large house, pool, tennis court, etc. were proposed. The properties lend themselves to relatively low levels of development. Finally, from a zoning code standpoint, even if only one new building site is granted, this is precedent setting. In the past. Council and Planning Commission have generally held the line in similar unsewered common ownership situations. Approval of 1 or 2 new building sites might have long-term impact on Orono's effectiveness in avoiding sewer. Weigh this against the applicant's real and preceived rights as a property owner and the history of zoning code changes over the years. Are there sufficient justifications to grant a variance? r i y \ \ '/min' CITY''OE QR^U I Plat of Survey for Ward P. Ferrell t^f^PLS Pi • \ , A? /;V / / in the SE 1/4 of Section 32, T118N, R23W' I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct super*ms prepveu Dy me or unuur my uii 9U|Ai^- viaioa au ttat 1 am a duly K<^btered Liuid Surveyor the laws of the State of Minn* ars‘<fors4>) »»»»- -.. SK ct*mr «f sr ^ •r Sec. S<*llt*29 Cortificato of Surv^: „f this Is a true and correct mpresentatlor oT o survo" of the binderies of that part of tha Southaast X/4 of Section 32 TU3,\“^» Sout^'iin« th^ Southeojit corner thereof; thence West alonr said nubile anflea to aald South line to^the public rond, .hence ooutheasterly along aaid road to a point directly North of f o^^rlnnln^; thonce South to the point of beJ^nSlnr; and ^ rror/°"jfir,',i. “11 ''^”1‘>1“ ^r.croactoents, ^If my, fron Wr,^ a •*: iht'^ : o : l '« a 0' Jenuiry K». 17^,9 Irm r.ar^or K«lley, Jr. Bruce n. Kelley Cordon R. Coffin !ep. 1342 Rep. Jo. ‘713 Rep, \o aC64 KELLBl & KSLLPy, Ehplneers Lonp Lake, Minnesota r, :l i ^ ■ t>4 iA t4f 4Hl, y*^ 0 *■■. » V^ ' ',H i •JaLiCJD iiifc^i ii MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 18, 1985. PAGE 4 1988 MERTES continued Tom Corson, 3241 Casco Circle, was present and stated that the lot in question was not consistent with the other lots in the area. He also stated that the existing garage on the lot should be removed whether the variance is granted or not. Mr. Corson felt that the original variance should not have been granted being this lot is only 54' in width. Jim Mertes stated that they felt they would not have a problem meeting the setbacks and hardcover requirements. Goetten stated that the entire Casco Point area is a high intense residential area. She noted that the lot size was consistent with the area although it would be one of the smallest lots. * Tom Corson stated that they would be making a crowded situation even more crowded. He questioned the initial intent of the ordinance requiring a 100' lot width. Chairman Callahan stated that the lot was intended to provide a residence and the hardship is that there is no other adjacent property available. There were no more comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Rovegno, seconded by Goetten, to recommend renewal of the lot width and lot area variances noting that the Issues (1-7 ) and Findings (1-19 ), prepared by staff, were found to be sufficient. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 1. Kelley voted nay stating it would be overbuilt for lot size. #989 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION HENDRICKSON ACCESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 11:40 -11:50 Hennepin County proposes dredging approximately a 20'xl26* wide corridor, removing 4.5' of lake botton along the edge of the Hendrickson boat ramp, and constructing a 126' long seawall along the sides of the inplace boat ramp. There were no persons present regarding this matter at this time. C#9^ w!aR1 ^41d<341 Planning Commission table this matter until the December 16th meeting. :D FERRELL 3415 WATERTOWN ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:29 - 9:37 Applicant requests lot area/lot width variances to construct homes on two substandard vacant commonly-owned lots adjacent to the exisiting residence at 3405 Watertown Road. >lem <tded tial (ride ther blic mend that were oted :126* ge of long this mber HINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER IB, 1985. PAGE 5 #990 FERRELL continued Chairman Callahan noted that the application was incomplete absent a survey of property containing the existing house and septic site information necessary for assurance of an alternate septic site if needed. Mr. & Mrs. Ward Ferrell were present for this matter. Mr. Ferrell stated that there should be no problem with an auxilliary system being the lot is 3/4 acre, therefore not necessary. Mr. Ferrell felt that a survey of the property with existing house was also not necessary. Chairman Callahan stated that this information was necessary and was requested from him last May and they would not act until this information was provided. % Mr. Ferrell stated he had a survey dated 1958 and would submit it. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaf f ron stated he would look at the survey and determine if it would be adequate. There were no persons present regarding this matter at this time. It was moved by Chairman Callahan, seconded by Kelley, to table this request pending a complete application. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Chairman Callahan advised applicant that they would give him their general opinions regarding his request although submission of the survey and septic site information may make a difference. Goetten stated she was personnally opposed to three lots. Kelley, referring to his statement in the Planning Commission minutes dated 4/15/85, felt that Lots 7 & 8 should be combined into one lot to allow the existing home and one other lot. Taylor and McDonald agreed with Kelley's opinion. Rovegno and Callahan felt that two lots with dwellings would probably be reasonable with the proper septic site testing, three lots would be setting precedent. #991 WILLIAM ULRICH 1535 BOHN'S POINT ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:40-10:37 Chairman Callahan explained the after-the-fact application for a conditional use permit and variance to do grading and filling within 75' of lakeshore. truct a cent L.re.«: c ■ V^ ( ir- O Planning Commission V. Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator 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 Oj. 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. j 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-IB 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 Zone K-IC, 1 acre and 140’ width. Single Family Residential. That 1967 Code stated, re garding lots of recj??rd, as follows: 31.200. Existi6,^ Lots. A lot of record existing upon September 14, 1967 (the effectix?? 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 ownership includes joint ownership by not more than two persons. The 1967 Code did not discuss common oivnership 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. i 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, and 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. 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 lots, 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 amounts 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 appropriate amenities in the rural zone? If so, 2. Is the Planning Commission and Council willing to set a precedent, i.e. do away with the common ownership limitation in the unsewered 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 as separate building sites. 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 .75-1.25 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? .1 c:Y-' CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional project) After-the-Fact Fees (Additional $50.00 payment per each project) PROPERTY LOCATION f * Site Address 2^ /1 j/j//) //4/V 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 ^ V .i Mailing Address 'A' J^V4 OWNER Name Phone 4'7^'' 9 Mailing Address 3^^//" J'//'/ 7/^’ ‘Z’'' 7f/t Date Property Acquired a7./- 5 I (do) 7 (month/year) ) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property / i Residential Other (specify) 7/)y^^V / DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ /\r'/ Describe request in detail; / ( 7/ /_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ VARIANCES REQUIRED iiii ' 7/.^- ^Lot Area /yy Lot Width / Setback Variances ( Other Front _ Hardcover Side Rear) iiu i cr> I (2) N o ocno o (OVER) . i i HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; . _ _ _ _ / REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2.Certified Property Owners List of owner ^vfithi?^^ ' ^W^fcan’%i^ain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3. Stampedr legal sized envelopes ( #10 ' pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Plat Map. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application,* ,-^;-PTearemember that your variance application is not complete if th.e-^-l^v^^r'forma has not been included. -i-i. \APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE VV.\\ vV#' The applicant hereby agrees to provide all informat'^c^'ff^iQeeNa’or ifequested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/^rjfiSustTarexpenses 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^/'^^^:;!^/i Date I OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature / .'//r Date 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. HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resultinq from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS nq t: ^ V'A M Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _r REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. 3. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150 ' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271 ) Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10 ) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 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 XICI--S-I985 The applicant hereby agrees to provide all informationClU'irld'6t\-rfegiested 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 '/'/)2/' OWNERS SIGNATURE Date The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of'this request. Date ^Owner's signature //'/^y / /C/') /V Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commi ssion Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. ISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 8 e o ^ Q o o «o o o w-4 O QC in o q:in o a in o in O ro o m o m o m inin o in a in <ri:i o in flc in •J ^ < o in o: in 4* O ill uj ^ O ^ o H ^ H ZH cn io _ K-1- OJ Ul t.xH. Plat of Survey for Ward P, Ferrell in the SE 1/4 of Section 32, T118K, R23W- F.. «npr«MilM«Td/ h !r*n Ap p roM i L/^ Him or SE V< of Sec. 32.* lie *23 Certificate of Survey: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of ell 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, 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. /2x ^ Wra, S, Kelley, Jr. Bruce R. Kelley Gordon R. Coffin %g. No. 1342 Reg. No. 5713 Heg. No. 6064 KELLEY 4 KELLEY, lihgineers Long Lake, Minnesota Scale: l'« = 50' Date : January 12, 1959 o : Iron marker i-'V:loS« , Sacorner ot of Sec. 3Z*fl8'23 ^ . . ^ % ♦ # , * A •", , . • • • r m • ‘ . or% ^ . t , • ..Irfo - % • c , myp 0 4 *p t rv->v..• 0 • % 1 hereby certify that this survey, plan, or repoi was prepared by me or under my direct supe^. vision and that I am a duly Registered Liuid Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minn- •• • , ^ 3 & p\ i JS CJ 3 ? 3 :o S O 8 a o i: 6 Ko . f* * >% «« ao. ^ 6 a S-i:. ,-^1 ------ —-----------r4.. O' ' Plat of Surv’oy for Ward P. Ferrell in the S£ I/4 of Section 32, T113K, K23W MproKim^i^ly OH H/v4/ Imt ^ ><■ irorv i*proxiwoif(y> oa C^rs^Jft Q> kl L‘'v S fiivc of SE M of Soc. 32-118*23 ~ - 0b- 0. 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 hcrt.h at right angles to said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to its intersection with a line drawn horth 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 encroac^jnents, if any, from or on said Vhn. S, Kelley, Jr. Keg. No. 1342 Bruce K. Kelley f:eg. No. 3713 any, from or on sa , Jr . Keg. No . Cordon ii. Coffin i .pg. No. 6064 KhlLLhY .*i K.*1,L‘!.Y, Fingirieers Long Lake, Plnnesota /V 1-t = January* 12, 1)39 Iron marker I- ♦ — \ZX% SiC c.«rn«r oY SC ^ yf Sec. I hereby cer‘ *.'‘y that this survey, pinn, or report Wflo preparofl by me or under iny direct super’* vision and that I am a duly Rc^^istcred L^cl Surveyor under die laws of the State of Minn* tsota. *»« or report ct super* cd Land of Minn* in O m «> JO i/9 -Je I h- Ul CO o»>*to Ui inno X Jit: i|g| 5? 5i5 r> MINUTES OF THE OHONO PIJVNNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD Al’KI 1, lb, I 90S PAGE 3 #895 T.M. CROSBY Approval is subject to the following conditions: PID 11-117-23 32 0004 and northern portion of rearranged 11-117 —23 32 0005 to be combined with Crosby homestead lot. 2.PID 11-117-23 32 0006 and southern portion of rearranged PID 11-117-23 32 0005 to be legally combined for tax purposes. 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 tlie 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. 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 vSxiances. 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. Gaffron reviewed with the Planning Commission the tax bSc:fnrv rvf thr^ r^r r f-v _ _ _ _ _ _- J KINUTHS OF THF OKONO riJ\KNlNG CUKK1SS30N Mi:i%T3NC HKI.I) APIU1. ib,] 98 5 PAGF 4 #903 WARD FERRELL Rovcgno 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 thinking 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 Callahan suggested that the Planning Commission be polled as to their feeling on the application if it w’ere an actual variance request. Kelley felt that Lots 7 and 8 should be combined into one lot, thereby only allowing two lots [the existing lot with the existing home 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 felt that there is very little doubt that staff interpreted the zoning code correctly, but whether he agrees with the basic premise is another point. Sime felt that there are a bundle of rights that go 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. Rovcgno moved, Sime seconded, to confirm staff's interpretation of the zoning code that these lots do need variances. Mv,tion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). Roveqno 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 applicants 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 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO ri.ANN]NC. COMMISSION MKETJ NC HELD APRIL 15,1 y a 5 PAGE 5 house. Mrjbusth 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 TBOMPSON 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 j^>lace 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 construction on the Thompson home, staff kitchen and a separate apartment area being felt that a conditional use permit should Mabusth stated .nat Thompson has agreed apartment will never be rented out. that during noted a second constructed and be applied for. that the guest Kelley moved, Sime seconded, to recommend approval of a cor.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). #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 tliis application. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron not J the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant is requesting a variance 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 a»_ some point and it could not be repaired, a i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1985. PAGE 4 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. \ X Councilmember L. Adams moved. Acting Mayor Frahm seconded, to adopt Resolution #1768, 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 Comniission for their review. Motion, Ayes (2), Nays (1). Councilmember T. Adams voted nay. . #897 CHUCK PETERSON 825 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Chuck Peherson was present. Assistant Zoning Adminis trator Gaffron stated that the surveyor reconfirmed the dry buildable ^rea 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 ^«tW^ATERTOWN ROAD ZONING APPEAL Mr. and Mrs. Ward Ferrell were present. Assistant 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 J MINUTES OF THE 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 unite 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' width 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 t MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1905. PAGE 6 #903 FERRELL Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that in 1967 the standards changed when the zoning code was revised effecting the applicant. 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. Councilmember T. Adams stated that before deciding the Council should see 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 weren'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 to the Crystal Bay neighborhood in which the City would have to go back in the future to correct the problem by sewering the area. Ward Ferrell stated that his septic system is 28 years old and has never had a problem v;ith leakage. Ferrell pointed out that he has paid taxes on the property as if they were buildable lots since 1948 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 lot 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 REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1985. PAGE ^ 1 es #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 Vs interpretation of the zoning code. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). #908 & #924 JOH 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. Gaff ron 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 review 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 i t, and then they would be able to live in the basement. Scherven confirmed that he will agree to any stipulations the Couiicil wishes to place on the guest apartment use. /// i ZONING FILE CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 TO: Ward F. Ferrell 3405 Watertown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OP APPLICATION: XXX Zoning Appeal Date of Meeting: 5/28/85 Vote: 3 COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice 5/31/85 COPIES TO: For Against 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 diainfield site for your existing house. 3. 14 stamped legal-size envelopes - we will use the pro perty owners list you h.ve 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) Less $.100 Credit From Appeal Application Additional Required Fee $150.00 50.00 40.00 -100.00 $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 twc vacant lots, and showing a suitable alternate drainfield site for your existing house. 3. Same as (3) above. 4. Same as (4) above. 5.Fees a) b) c) d) e) f) Lot Area Variance (1st new lot) Lot Width Variance 1st new lot) Lot Area Variance (2nd now lot) Lot Width Variance (2nd new lot) Lot Area Variance (existing lot) Zoning Application Sign (refundable) Less $100 Credit From Appeal Application Additonal Required Fee $150.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 40.00 -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 the existing house. 3. Same as (3) above. 4. Same as (4) above. 5. Lot Area Variance (westerly lot) Lot Width Variance (v.’esterly lot) Lot Area Variance (existing lot) Zoning Application Sign (refundable) $150.00 50.00 50.00 40.00 Less $100 Credit From Appeal Application -100.00 Additional Required Fee $190.00 Please contact City 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. » * * ac M* 3 rttromo o Zi 0) rt •y T) rf 0) X -<oo 0 Qi 'J) 0 3 0 M» 3 Qi M«o D rr O rt 3* < 2) 3 o •-t* QJ 3 Oi D 3 Qi cn rt co c o CA O '3 w rt (T) G (A H« 3 rt 3* O o 3c *-* fi) < > Gcd lr< H- 3H* rt O Qi < 01 co o H-* 0) 3 Oi 3 3 Qi CA ft ►1 3 Ort C ►1o 3 ft Q Oi < 0) c 0) o Hi !-• 3 3 Qi 'O O H rt o 3 < > G W Oi 3 Qi 01 3a inrt Hcort C H 0 (A » » «• ♦ 3t ♦ Z 2 C 0) Oi 3 X cro o ►1 3 H X-o ft H* 3 'O Oi Hro 3 ft 3* CA CO rt CA Ho c CA O M < Oi 3 3 M Qi 3 (0 Oi 3 O Qi Hi M- (A 'O O ►1 ft H- O 3 H* 3 3a ft 3 O H (0 lT< CA 3 H* ft (0a < Oi H* 3 (0 oHi M Oi 3a H rt H*o 3 O3 M ^ H* VD VO VJO ^ vj ^ lU ui a CO ui u> % ^ % fo to cn o o o o o o M H* M 4!fc cn cn M M • • • CO M 00 ^ 00 CO to CO fo ro cn o o o o o o M M M cn cn H» .1^ H* • • • CO M ^ 00 00 » ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ » ♦ » « « M M »-• CO lU4^ cn cn M ^ o • • • VO iCk 00 CO cn \0 VO VOo o o 4^ CO f • • O CO VOo <n N) »-• H* H- O "vj *vj fo ^ cn 00 o ^ • • • ^ O VO ^ .u VO •vj M VO 00 H* VO vj VO iu ' ^ N) O O <noo cn M Oo l-» av VO «u cn H* 00 CO • VOo VO 00 • N> to O O cnoo O O Mcn VO 4^ as M 00 CO • VO o M VO 00 • 49^ N) 4:^ 4^ cn cn cn ^ N> CO ro VO o Ui 4^ O 4b O ^ cn o o o o o cn cn cn CO cn 00 00 •cncn H* «• cn 4k • VO Ni »-» O M O M N) O 4k • O 4k CO VOcn CO • 00 00 o o o • cn VO ro ocn o • CO ro ro o-o cn t as 4k VO VO VO 00 00 00 O M to M M VO O O ro 4k 4k o o o o o o ro CO CO 00 cn 00 CO 4k 4k • • • VO CO CO 00 to o cn o> o^ 00 ov <n o o o o o o ro to ro H-* to 4k to 4k u> • • • VO 00 00 c cn 00 H* M M I-* lo CO 4k 4k cn VO ro M o cn o o o o o o * ♦ M h-» »-• 1^ « ^ cn cn cn VO CO ro cn 4k 00 • t • •O to M o o ro ro to ro o ro ro o o o cn ^ 00 • • • 00 4k M ro 00 to to ro ro % ^ O M to VO ro cn VO O 4b • • • 4k 00 4k 00 cn to M M M VO VO VO 00 00 00 CO 4k cn cn cn cn % ^ ^ o o o o o o o o o M ro H* VO O VO CO cn 00 cn cn cn O 4k o cn cn cn^ % o o o o o o o o o M ro M VO O VO CO cn 00 • • • cn cn cn O 4k o ro to to cn cn cn o o o o o o o o o ro ro ro ^ ^ O M O VO ro cn M 4k • • • VO ro OI ro ro ro ro to ro o o o o o o •O 00 -o • • • ^ ro VO 4k to 4k ro to ro « ^ ^ cn 4k VO 4k 0> ro o VO • • • cn cn cn ro cn W <D Hi O H O G O3o (A rt (0m Qi 2 •-3 < > f G W < >tr* Grt < >rt G rt < >rt Grt o H <0a H* ft rt M a O o o > X 2rt rt Mo o o O 00 > X 2 rt •-3 rt M a o o o VO > X If «• 2 rt rt Mo O o M O > X o >rt > X H- < i Oi o o -O lii 3 D O Hn> (A 00 cn Qi O H Q < QI O 3 3 rt O ^ • H* VO ft M 3* Cl 3* O O H 3 (D (Aro o < • 3 O O Qi 3 Qi n H (0 ^/A/. X 5: Q) Ha rto H Ho C*i 4k O cn G > M O Z QI 33 ft H (0 H W rt O O 3 rt rt O Qia 4 t I -■^1 rt X 3- cr ft > I • »•- ^(A. ft i ‘I Crystal Bay,j'.Unnc3ota./'I ^-j ♦ C Mlnut6s of mooting held In the Village Hall on Sept.22,1958,at 7;30 P.M. ProB^ntt H. R. Ross, Mayor j R. C. Bagley ,K. Turnham, 0. i7ood, C. \7,I.\axwell, Trustee a G.A.Hans-n.Assessor; A.G.Stinson,Foreiuan;rrcx-ald Ross.Constable;0.£. Johnson. Minutes of meetings held on Aug.25 and Sep.0,1958,were r'*ad and approved.I Attorney Louis B.Brechet,representing the Hub Barber Shop at Navarre was present regarding the parking situation on County Road 19 at the Intersection of County Road 15,asking for continuance of angle parking versus parallel parking.Council decided to look 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 and Turnham st^gested J^that an offer be made to the owners of property deslred,lf this c^l^ be ^ '^accomplished legally,on a basis $5000.00 per annum until cl eared; Clerk will consult legal adhoritles and report result at next meeting. 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. On reauest of Ward Ferrell for the erection of another residence on his property on County Road 45,Bagley moved,seconded by Turnham,that his request be Rranted subj^> however 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. 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. i Verified Accts.No.607 through No.669 were reviewed and aooroved with the exception of one Involving the purchase of tools from the Sears^Boebuck Co. on which further details will be requested Including memo.Invoice. Meeting adjourned subject to call on October 13,1958. O.E.Johnson,Clerk, Aoproved; /i/ / / f ' i • f f'' ^ ' /O/ ' /. ‘ .r.. ^ V . f. ^ * V.tL,, / / / ; ■1 %'» J'J • f • * < • OnDINANCE NO. 22 An Ordinance to Preservo the Public Health of the Citizens of Orono by Regulating the Mini* mum Size of Residential Build* ing Lots WHEREAS, the VUlage 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 arc 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 recommended 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 ordained as follows; ___ 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 that^~*l i-there ore several built up resi dential areas in the Village which are 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-■ J /o-n - u / '/ • borhod and will not have on im mediate and specific adverse cfTect 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 lime 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 bo effective immediate ly upon such publication. Passed by the Village Coimcil of the Vilago of Orono this 12th day of October, 1959, by a vote of 4 yeas and No nays. H. R. ROSS, Mayor Attest: O. E. JOHNSON. Clerk (10-15-59) / 370H001 • *• ;-/2 - Ordinance No. 7 An Ordinance Regulating Plat* nicg Commission has adopted a ting In the Village of Oroao. part or whole of a Master Plan, Henaepia Couatr« Minnesota. the proposed subdivision shall footed u^a^om^'and”^ ** “Village of Orono Subdivision »ubd» ider. ReffuUtions*’ 2. In the design of the subdi- * nil Ilf vision, provision shall be made *^“*“"* . w- a for the proper connections with In order to safeguard best gristing streets in adjoining sub interests of the Village of Orono divisions or for the proper exten- and to assist a subdivider m proposed streets into the monizing his interests wim thrae adjoining property where such of the Village at ° ^ ! adjoining property has not been nance Is adoptwl in the hope tlwt g^bdivided. In considering the adherence to It will bring results extension of such streets, every bencdcial to all concern^ attempt should be made to main- It is obvious t^t tain property values in adjoining planning . . subdivisions. (Adjoining develop- brmg a disMtroiu ments of unequal character patchwwk ot ^t^ “,1 should not be united by connect- circulatlon of traffic ^ess lU j3 deemed desi^and necessary in the public interest related to a Masttf Plan Study street maintenance, safety aiming at a unified and fire protection to do so.) community interests. It is, there- „ . • u* /. . fore, necessary for the Orono 2. Street nght-of- *fay widths Village Council to make certain shall ^ designed m accorda^e reguUUons and requirements with their character and use. The which contribute to the health, loUowing widths are suggested as safety, convenience and general minimum right-of-way for var- welfare of the community. In mus types of streets; the long range analysis, the Plan- Right-of-Way ning Commission believes these a. Major arteries and regulations will aid in raising parkways ................. 100 feet property values for the subdivid- b. Secondary and main er and will effect many economies thoroughfares ....... 80 feel in the platting and development c. Neighborhood residen- of a logical subdivision. tial streets .................... CO feet “Subdlvfailon” in this ordinance d. Minor residential means .the division of a parcel of streets ............................ 50 feet land into two (2) or more lots or 4. it is desirable that all streets parceb for the purpose of trans- shall intersect as nearly ot right fer of owner5hip or building de- angles as seems practical, taking velopment; provided that a divi- other factors into consideration. Sion of land for agricultural pur- 5 Minimum center line radii poMs Into loto or parcels of five streets shall be not (5) acres or more and not mvolv- t^an 100 feet; centerline radii ing a new street or alley smU major and secondary thorough- not be dMmed a suMiv sion. The ^ ^ban 300 term Includes re-subdivision and, when appropriate to the context, /, m. , « n j ■hall relate to the process of sub- ^® ”, curved dividing or the land subdivided, streets should be so arranged as Division of any existing lot. par- t^® topography as cel or plot of land shall be con- sidered within the purview of P“*‘‘^J® d®sirkblc land subdivi- this erdinance. vehicular traffic. _____ 7. Terminal residential streets OElfCRAL REQUIREMENTS or culs-de-sac should be plotted Streets not longer than 500 feet unless l. In any areas where the Plan- topogrnphicol conditions make a longer terminal street necessary. Such culs-de-sac should be avoid ed altogether v/hcrc possible. 8. A turnaround at the eritt of all terminal streets shall be pro vided of not less than 100 feet in diameter at the property line. 9. Street names may be indi cated but shall not duplicate nor resemble too closely names of ex isting streets in Orono or in the metropolitan area. Existing street names shall be used where the platted street is a logical exten sion of that particular street. Alleys 1. In general, alleys shall not be permitted in a residential sub division. Service drives shall be provided on major thoroughfares. Where alleys are necessary and approved by the Council, they shall be not less than twenty (20) feet in width. Alleys will be re quired in (he rear of all lots to be used for business purposes. 2. Where two (2) alleys inter sect, a cut-off of not less than ten (10) feet along such property line from the normal intersection of the properly lines shall be pro vided. 3. Dead-end alleys shall be avoided where possible, but if unavoidable, shall be provided with adequate turn-aroimd facil ities at ^e dead-end as deter mined by the Council. Easements Where alleys are not provided at the rear of properties, there must be provided a public ease ment as a part of the plat. The purpose of such easement is to provide possible location for util ity Lines such as sewer, water and gas and for location of electric and phone lines. Such easement shall be not less than five (5) feet on each side of the lot line, mak ing a total of ten (10) feet. No garages nor structures shall be built upon this easement. Ade quate easement provisions shall be made for area drainage and storm water carry off. Blocks Considerable latitude as to size of blocks is deemed desirable by the Council in order that the subdivision may be planned in blocks to suit the topography, the general character of the site and the type of deyelopment appro priate to the locality. With the increased use of the automobile, / •• trend in residential subdivi sions has been toward a longer length of block and a reduction of the percentage of land devoted to streets. Under certain conch- tions, blocks up to 1000 feet or 1200 feet in length may be ac ceptable. Lots 1. Residential lots, ns 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 hundred (100) feet at the build ing line, exclusive of any case 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 Ihe off-street service and parking facilities required by the type of use and development contemplat ed. 3. Each lot shall adjoin upon a 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 least ten (10) feet, and across which there shall be no right of access, shall bo provided along the line of lots abutting such a traific artery or other di.sadvan- 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 lor 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- 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 live per cent of the gross btcb of all property subdivided shall be dedicated for public use. each five per 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 subdividcr shall leave land so dedicated in a condition satisfac tory to the Village Council. 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 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 pet- tern of park development. In the interests of the Village as a whole, and, therefore, of benefit to the subdivision, the Village Council of Orono is de sirous of conserving certain areas of natural beauty and establish ing in various areas the logical distribution of the following types c( facilities: 1. Ploy 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. 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 m field and office and for their recommendations. This prelim inary plat for the consideraUon of the Planning Commission be filed with the Village Engineer or Planning Commission not tfn 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. Whenever possible, it is desir able that the prelimiimry 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, park:; 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- ticulor attention will be g.ven to the orrangement, location and widths of streets, the general drainage situation, lot sizes and % • arrangement, os well os 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 submit!^ to the Village Engineer or Plaiv 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. lalarior Streets The subdivider shall grade and gravel streets at his own expense. In case this work is not compact ed for a logical reason when the final plot 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 ^e 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 benefitted property over a period not to exceed ten years. Preliminary Plat Pour prints of the preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision shall be submitted to the Orono Planning Commission drawn to a scale cither 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 o- «:ection comers, etc. 3. The boundary lines with di mens, r ,3 of the tract to be subdii'ided. 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 and acceptable. 8. All plats and profiles shall bear the standard State Board 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 opplicable 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. 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 ume 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 monuments. 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. In 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. Street's and alleys (by angles and distances). 10. Above description should In clude all centerline curve data. 11. Street names. Final Plat Raquiramenl The preliminary plat as out- 12. Block lines and 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- % # « • • er pertinent information gen erally required on plats. 17. The form of approval shall be as follows: a. This plat was approved and accepted by the Village Coim- cil of the Village of Orono. Blinnesota, at a regular meet ing thereof held this........day .........Jfavor b. This plat was approved by the Planning Commission of the Viliage of Orono at a reg ular meeting thereof held this ......day of.............AJ). 19..... ...............................Chairman c. Checked and approved this .day of.............AJ). 19 County Surveyor, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Should any section, paragraph clause or condition of tl^ ordi 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 Wayzata, 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, 1999. H. R. Ross, Mayor. Attest: O. E. Johnson, clerk. 'j i • Vcr*i-•: ^ sir.r»r, di^'ptny.H. or o^iii r ’ CV»-. l**il W K \ such piiWJc df.r.ar. r.t j;;i^tis <>t r*nv Irirrl iimll hr v.-ilir.« of V«ever»igcs roT>*.«:r.i-!^ ,or nuii i,;in.-d in ;• lij ?on:nr, -in-'; jyicul.'jl r«t lh»* (itrte.of tlir a'i'p- 'irt Cv-'roi .s;);nr. benrin*! ouiy tho 1 jtioM of this r<t>ol (lien a-.d cnli-:n.-.inoi jf'u.p rcsi-irnls of iho dw-l» •mr.ov, nfid th<» tojcfricnl. of th:r.];ri<.t, i.r;d M-.o jn'?;d.:i;ion and rc^tncticyi.; itlivrcin,* cxcc TuiS't r< pI dwelling; opt sfrccl Lnd rone i Section III. jn.imes and ir. ffic aims, and cxii i i t't signs ailwnising for nalo o! AND BE IT FURTHER ’tE-|rcnt, the prcmi'.t t on v.'2ji«'h tho\ SOLVED AKD ORDAINED, That may be locat-d lho foJo^v;ngrrr>w«^^^^ 3. Ho iKlIding ,.r olhcr atruc ;s:-id Orono lON^rui.iip be, and the luj-g 5^.1, |SU':>- ^rcoy «-> O jland ^viliun the above zoning di^ d;3tarl 0/U\o Town of-..i, ..,. .u , t...j .._. i jOreno. pursuam the laws ct fhv Stale c£ Mim e..ota, to-wlt; ‘'1. Orono District • That part .of Sections Two (2> and Three <3), Township One li-jiiiied Sevrnt..en (117), Range T%vt;:*y-lhrc.o <?3), II o O n e p i n County. Iilinne.<<7t3, and of Sec tion Thuty.five (35). Township Ore Hundred •Kighteen (118), Barijje Tweiitj'-thiec (23), Hen nepin County, Wiiuicsota, de scribed cs folio wi .-Vll oI Section ^Two (3)i Town ship One Htndrpd Seventeen (117), Range Tyrcnty-llurce (23), platted lots h less than one _ except the trloAgular piece of ^ one-half acres in area, each cu land lying noriheastcily of the'lot shall constitute one “buildi right of wry of the main line p('iot”; and provided further, th the Great Northern Bailroad,' where, at the time this rcsoluti nod excel ! ih^ triangular piece 0 ordinarute shall take eff of land lying northwt^crly of t area of aiji’ unpIott9d sopara trict except where the lajii upo which the building or other tlruS* turo is tij be oiccted constitutes “building lot" as borcinafrer df- fined. A “building lot” is here d( lined to be land owned undlr one ownership which equals Ir cxcoedi an area of one and onl- haif acres, provided, howev that where, at the lime this rc, lufion and. ordinance shall ta effect, the land has been platl into let: ’.i a plot filed of rc-l- ord with the Register of Deeds if! Hennepin Ounty, and the Rc trar of Titles of Hennepin Coiu ty, and w here the area of anv su the- light of Way of th(| Minne sota Western Rail.“oad. (also kr.'.v'r -s the J-iy<;..linc); ' , and * All pf SccticD Three (3), Town- ’ fhip One Hundred Seventeen * fll7). Range Twenty-three (23), P cc of property under one bvi, ership is less than one cr.d \jn ha’f rcres ia area, each such sel-’- crate piece cf property shall co rlituto one “bi.jUhng lot.” On one family dwelling a1th acre sory buildings customarily u lying East of County Road Nurn- in conjunction with family dwel bvT One Hundred Forly-.six (146), and .southeasterly of the right of way of the Miiuiesota V/cslern Railroad, (also known ; ^ry buildLijj.s shail be deemed ns ihe-l-ucc line;; and ings and ccosldrccd a part of family dwelling may be creel 'Jpn any on« “building lot.” Acc include such buildings as gu< cottages, gaiagfi. boat hoi That part of Section Thirty-five | pu.mp or w<d: hcuics, chiclcfu . (35), To'vnrhip One Hundred 1 houscu, barns or 0! her fa:.m bui 'P Eighteen (llo;. Ru.'ige Tv- enty^* ings. I tliree (23), contained In a trian- 4. Nothing herein shall be j gh’ of land fonned by the .south-^i stnicd to prohibit an owner * ' “ easterly line cf the right of way ,i land f'o.m co.ntinujng on the I of th" Ntinnc;;ota Wectcru Rail- roid, (also known as the Luce" liue.i, ;.rd the southwesterly lire of the right of way of the main ^ line of the Great Northern Rai!-- road and the Souiii lino of 'aid .Section Tl.iny-fivc (35). RE IT FURTHER RESOIA'ED AND ORDAINED. That the fol-, lowing rules. iegulalic.os and rc- .'tru tionii wnh rc-.'pocl to t.ri*s of tli<* land;* and buildings 'witiiin th * nfo.-vmcntioncd zoning dis trict shall l>'* and are hereby :irii>rtcd ns follows, to-wit: 1. Said zoning district is here by declaretl to be u private res i- denlhi! diilrict, and no building owned by htm. any trade or dtistry or profci^don which is cxi-'lence on the land at the ti of (he adoption of this reso a- ijon and o.-dinance, and the actment of this regulation and o- stiiction. or from constructing c buddiog 01 buiJdini;;3 fo: use connection with such trade or du.rtry or prcfebSion which i;-. exx^tcr'e on the hind at the ti cf llio adoption of this resolut and ordinance, and the cnacUn4tt of this rc-gulatio:i and rostrictii t; nor ihall anything herein Ci»i- tained'be construed lO prohi the u» of on^ lard in the r;ld Tuning distriet for agritultural fanning |'urj>*>*,es; nui shall ur I • 1/ ; *t cii a'ly '.••.tun . That raid zoning Vlistriti ehnU^ be reft iTi 'J Section IV. ' /.i* AND BE IT FURTIfER fiOL'v'ED AND ordained , That the following area and district in.' said Oreno Township be, and the same is hereb>* designated gs a zoning district qf the .aTowft bC Orono, pursuant to iHc lain Of the State of |i(Kmc?ota, to-wit: 1. Slubb's Bay IXstzIct. nial part of Sections Thirty- one (31) and Thirty'two (32), Township One ’Hundred .Eigh teen (118), Range Twenty-three (23), Hennepin County. M£os^ seta, ond Scctions. JTve (6), Six (6) and Eight (6), TownS^ One n-andred S ivCnteen (117), Range Twenty-three (23), Hennepin County, filir.ncsote, described as. foUq.'V.s: Conunen^g a| appoint where the \ri^st lice ^ thtt town ship road rtittj)ing Horth and South on center section line of Section Five tjS), Township One Hundred Seventeen (117), Range Twenty-three *(23), Hennepin County, Minnesota, intersects the southerly side of the right of way of the Minnesota West ern R.^ilroad (also-known os the Luev line): thence in a north westerly direction along the • Boul.berly line of said right of way of s.tid Minnesota Western: lUaLrotid to a point where said) Lnc intersects the West line of; the East one-half (E’-a) of Sec-j tion Thirty-one (31), Township | One Hundred Eighteen (U8),, Range Twenty-three (23); thence | .South along the North-douth, center line of said Section Thir- ? ty-onc (31) and Sectiem Six (d),[ Town.-.liip One Hundred Sevm-i teen (117), Range Twcnty-thfeei (23). to the tenter polni of sai^ Section .Six (G), Township Onej Hundred .Seventeen (117), Range Twenty-three (23); thence East, along the North line of the' Southeast One-quarter (SE%) of* Section Six (0), Township. One J ITundtvd Seventeen (117), Range* Twfiity-throo (23), to the North-1 went rerner of the Northeast One-quarter of the Southeast One-quarter (NEV4, SB(4) of Srclion Six (6), Town.ship One Hundred SevenU en (117), Range • Twenty-three (23); thence South ' along the West line of thei Northeast One-quarter of the* Southeast One-quarter (NE)(i, SEii) of Section Six (6), Town* .'hip One Hundred SeWoteeiK (117), Range Twenty-three (^. to n point where said line iMw-' si'cts tlie shore line ot Nmih < Arnot Latte Mlr^etonka; .southerly aiyl ewterty alogiMhd^) satd Hue o| Uif iin.-U «hnuV , ^ irty. (32). Kigb- three dine- . Six ) On* Lange oepin ed as patoX< own- and tie of I One Lange nepin rsects right yccst- \s the lorth-, the • ht of stem: ^ said * ne of; Sec-j Dship, CU8).j lencef South. Thir- * («,( said; Onei tenge ^ East, the* V*) of- . OnoJ tenge; rorth-1 hcast hcast >) of One Lange South j : the; the* ffEVt, tewae DtetK > dl). f rJ t 4» • ♦ ( • *'V* u J 1 f't" * < \ iV I ^!- :*.• i.ttr « ; • V :v . .),• . .. A.4'iir . .‘41 1 1;* V •« j.rr. /nnHOi r. M iv-./oii i ^ ^ ; ciiti L ik»'Min f-',.'’i‘ ' ’ ■ '1 ” ; ! noionk : thiiv e jioVl’'•• .-»i !|.-i i ' '•'•T ’-ly n!or.2 the v/i-^i..r:v --aid I!*',?.nuildiof s • chHnnr] to a point whf -t« it* in «v n.sr.a cc.n.iunctiun. terscots the shor? lino oIawolhnts iind cor.-i•• - - ^ Ma..'bs o'drrcd 9 pari of such family ' • ’ • !* . t I ■ t ' !».i* ; . . • • ... .• # .. ill* I*;. t*. •. . I . ' : V, , u;. . -.^.o OV..I ; .. * * !•*• J v; fii* *M; * *'• I t III*, j j.f • of » id V.LV ^.1 l;.: tcjscots the shor? lino oI Stubbs I W'Slerly on cted on anv 1 i alrn2 ill West "builriin;: lot.” Accc-ssoi v i ^ ® buildn.i's |v> dcf/ned to io' j jaw lina'Z; " iir'-’ ir i Wofct side of town.h'D read run*^ * ;:a;..str. !.oat l.o.:so>, punni ' ninp North ^ *■'’**” hou.-.-s. cUd.cn hou.:t-.v ter sc-clion ‘ b;.rns end t.'ihtc farm buildings.' (5) Townchin n/ V?*‘ Nothin*; herein coiitained shall be three (23) exlpru-iny- »u ^ . fior.sori whnt.-oevcr to < North Sig xT%t'i .viJrof I sai.l ♦owxehip road cxtoiulcd to*) ”W-’‘‘,vn mr^^"\* Ihn point or-beginning. | In.-, j" ‘^n m jund which said zoning district j P - •• oicmj.ac*. ! slaaii referred to as the Slubb’s I V> -**-■* *•1. Nothin;; herein contained shall be construed to prohibit ail owricr of land within the raid /toniiii’ di.^trict fronri c-jnfinui.o" on , . _____________ .v^.wv-j owned by him, unv i.--. i.. if.j.os with respect to , u.;es of thely or pro.Ussion which .lands and builti^IHf>-^^•itl^in c-'cistcr.vo on said land a* t.hc , i.bov* zoning districKshall be and th-.i adoption of thi.. ;eso- aivl ordinance, and the en- !Ba.v district. ; BE IT rUJlTI-fKR RESOLVED j.VND ORDAINED..That the tol- I lov/ ndes, regulations and rcstric* . •» .Mr. _________ f .lands aiid builtUng^-witljin , Kb'.v* zoning districKshaU be and ^ jii: -- hereby adopted as foiiowa,; ; lo-wiI ) / 'if'clarud :o be i p»*lv?i'? rf>j ' ..-tiRl distiict, ^.r.d no buildin;;^ j«tr othoi structure or irnprcvein^nt ‘sh'tll ht^rea::er be ertvted, altered »» . , ______________ — . -M .1 . Said -tonin;; ui.'trict is hoie-^'i ' '-'cnsti uciir:, «>iv or bui’.dmgi- for u-- :n c<.nn-.ti.Dn wth ...ich Ua-J^ u,- dus*iv or p^orrrrior whirh »; iv -W r.cc and in . • :.i:on 0: v..,m I at the I 'r.c <.l adopt;.-: ^.... .. . . .m-,1 . '••.‘.'.iden'ial pL-.-pos*:-s. *'•••- ■ ;j,.» iftiacttncpi of Ih.u a-i^'nia- .:;on and n-stricl-'on; nor shall •» .1 •u •’.» • j*’!l ;*4 r.* ;r;.j. .-a..,n ..f .?;.;.j •, ni. : • 1 ‘.vi: !:,.i(0:i(i r 01 y Uii •..*!.v.-.'.';{( r.y .'.t e .\UJii. rV ‘shidivioieri Ni.;,,'. i r.no!- r-ifiv.,...x .>’J). .’i.;nncpi;! Counpy. wLine- t<*. c::ter;d'-'J rorthwciicriv • cnee running ...southejistcrivj titf* said southv.-otirily ne of said cuMivision, and its orth-.vc‘;tt>; jy extcnrioD U> the nteisf (.lion of said line with Ike ordinary low water mark cf -••ik< Mi.cnt-toi.ka; thence run- ling along .said shore Ime in a iortheastt-rly dircxrtion, and thra r. an e..slorJy direction, and then in a southerly direction, and then in a northerly thrcction-follow ing the line doRned by the ordi nary low water mark of Lake iiliirnetonka, to the point of be- ■ ginnini*. and which said zoning district - .<hnj be referred to as the Crack- etf.i Point diatriet, . !J I*URTNER RESOLVED -\ND ORDAINED. That the- fol lowing rulcri, .^enuktiicns and rr- .'•Irictiors with re.'ipca to u.u-c of Uh« land.t and bui’din/.s v.-uhiri Jo; vep^aircil U- use or be ust-d i'-.-. ; ' ^ ony purposes oi.-'.er than puvMi-:*'' '••.‘.'.iden'ial pL-,-pos*:-s. ‘.t:-;'etiacti: ! ., X- u M. , ' J-on and n-stncl-on; nor shall biilbi'ardi; or clhor ad-^-1 ”>tlheieincon.jir.c-db.;-e..n- I vc»i!.-ir.g signs, di.splay. or of.'v.ripiohiiiit tin.- um nf - 0! aJiy xind .sha’l be crect:-d j * *be .’’aid zoptn'; ..-.- m iiJitaintd in cai.;J roning-Ji;;.] Ur .rj.-icub.uiir bi.-.’sis bfv.'ing onlyP^.-a: t'he .-..-I t)--s of the resi(ients -of al or far.-i;.: .r p.i- '.•’.d -nc hereby adc;.t-.-d ns fc-l- ows, ro-v.-it; A. XJ:^ Di'.liicfj Sriil .-p.-itj.., ;v V.-,-o;-,y vided iui<» .f itiict*; to be I'.^ngnaic-:! r.s ' rei’.icntiaJ dig- ict and ro.nr.te; eta; uislricl.’' • 1. .'ill iiict p''.rt;*:n of -:aid zon- f.g n j*htr liu'-r ;h.at hv-e- * lafiei --c.se. ibeO arid ric s-gnated ■ '!-; “comirmifial d;rtriri’'19 b.'*.;- <•;. and the- name.-- of d-velL if :• -.nert-'o. excvp: street and iN'D BE n rrUTMER ,y:c.pt s,;.r» advrtor salo'li'.- art.-, ai.d d;:!ri,-'in k-H-y dc-'-ir-ilcd „h,. i,?'* 'i .It cb- d..-«igrutcd and rstabli.shed a.s the r-.'ridcnt.'al iii.str.ct.” Tlie foJJov-ng described # ' «.-. :io building f.i- .t.'.er 'it''uc-J '.Hir : i.a.r. y-. fn-n the .said zoning -ti . 'tpl wd'tie int- land ; '•■•r-ivh the building or c-thtr s»rvu ,tu!o js ;o be ercc'.-f’ cunstitutf‘.s! 1 1 • uu'kiing lot” as hereinafter .f.- i s^: :b-U. A ‘‘building I n" a; i-e-p.! I b.. dt firi-ad to be Ja..-a t‘.r.',rcr *p* <> ■ I • ' • . d ifj H iiJtii d’h'i-a ot-one-nrr>~-;~frrrr~ .1.;i i Vi: rrx*r?T"T^ I * 1^“-- i. n-oWtVer, thaf vTTierc <y I'iic thJ.s rcsoiutiou <ijia o; ;<V ••«* >?)al) take on<-ci, '.iv U.ii-, n.a. -uvn platlr-d inio 'ot-.- a:i.j pwl r ( i-o-'.-tAcl V.th till-, r*. ,;- of Hc.-in- .-'in Couii- V . ot* p> riiifc-; of J-teTuiftpin < -oumv ®‘wuKSoua, and Vrhere Uio 4r<»a «•! nf'-y sack pb.UeH Jot i.-i tl ui b- J. •-♦• in J ;'t irat >f ih._- ».u;:;t:unt .0 t]-.a ’a--s of t .''U* • . f .1- 1. Brsek-tf':, Pnlnj Di-ifiJcl 1 ■Jie pa;;s of Sectif.v.i 'i*.-i MO) I l-.nd LI--v< n (1.11. T'.wnslup C.ia < [ ^;no!--d Srv.“j-:c?n OiT'. r«'- ‘ Tv.'. (•:;<>. ij,, ,y ,, i .io!;;, dc- .v-lil .-.j; { vUmw,.*' (*o»:- tfif* * «-.o- Wi.r i,ia North bnt oi ' ............. ... acii'j!! * cf. .11), Towiir.hip j hoint hir ifiiri.Ji--a .'Jcv'-ntr.er: ^'-Vv tect ,nu ii. U;r.yi fV cr.-.-.-thr -- <? •.'. j/.-.-r r-'-t;- :r,n ].,y^. v. !(-l' mark of tJic '-'.ical .a-on.- <.£ !h -t lortior of Lai.1. .Mi: nct-.-nka - J» t '/WT 1,-i Druv.l': .0 ,v ' .yri.Cff, W^tcriy r-iiWi; tin;' of .said S.Tlion Elev.-n 1 * T ii. . fhii:s of Govt Ptas One (D und Vw-. -.3). . v?cttcn .Ch -a n GJu To-.vnf.iin H-..nd:v;i bc.cntocp (H7\ lAin/>- Twenty- t;.ree Hepr.--pir Ccuriv. M:::nc.';ota. de-.’iiixyi an foll-r.-v.*.' T.hat pa:t of Govcmir.cnt Lot One (J) deac'i.'-.c’ as? foli„w.s: f-'>m.niciKing at a ;ioin; on 1)... - I o.-e --f ihid I j>:-.- which pt.ir.t 1.' iif-‘.-r.'r.ir-:d a- toRo*.. , J.jir. • cnci.'iiT a« p.u:>t c-.i '.hr t-.i:,- if'o.'T fi. :Vr:.':i,'-?-'nk;i w .hich c't ? Ui ■;. t *' '•*<*/» * V ^ 70) ivoctcr;/ ;jn ”icr- iiofTi a iL"!'.) .‘i*;..nnj.'’ biu;y ,1 -1 ci -ntf s. f« r.y :.-igai ni-n.it'.. ha-yi ((.w'-lfM 1 'no''. <1 ,-oin! ..vhich iS .'ToutH hi f] dy ^ tr»« ______-'if. io*; r.*.- r;T.'.i . luoj- th.' p • 4*‘V j; ( C(r :):v ,i r k K \ * : y - ;;x v*r/t?mhr (HSfl.fO ‘cot from the NoiUwaiit .'I V •. * /. * ‘'r«f. < v*.—Li t N t Date: Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator February 12, 1986 Subject: #999 Leslie LaBresh/Evan Meline - 3598 North Shore Drive - Variance - Second Review List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhioit D Exhibit E Exhibit F -- Planning Commission Minutes 12/16/85 - Letter From Neighbor Fegers, 1/10/86 - Administrators Response To Fegers Letter 1/29/86 - Letter To Applicant 2/5/86 - Memo and Exhibits of 12/5/85 - 2/13/86 Letter To Hennepin County Department of Transportation Planning Commission tabled this item on December 16, 1985 so that the applicants could firm-up plans to purchase additional property from Hennepin County. As of this writing, the appli cants have stated that the County intends to sell some portion of the adjacent property at a public sale in March. The County apparently intends to keep as right-of-way a strip 40* from the centerline. It is not known how many of the 6 adjacent lots will be sold. The City has advised the County that the subject properties will not constitute a building site, and no dock may be placed on the property, hence it has little value except to the adjacent property owner. Because this land is owned outright by the County, they have a right to sell to whomever they wish, i.e. highest bidder. Presumably, Meline will be the only bidder. If the applicant does acquire additional property, it appears that the majority of it will be in the 0-75' setback area, hence the requested hardcover variance in the 75-250' zone will change little. Please note the correspondence from Fegers and the Building Official's notice that further hazardous building action is pending. From a technical standpoint, the foundation remaining is definitely a hazard, and the documentation exists to ascertain that a structure did in fact occupy the property, hence there would seem to be no viable reason for futher delay in demolishing the structure. Please review the memo and exhibits of December 5 (Exhibit E). Are there any hardships or unique circumstances which justify granting of variances? MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD DECEMBER 16, 1985. PAGE 11 ^AN R. MELINE NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 10:03-10:34 PM Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the affidavit of publication and certificate of mailing. Even Meline and his associate Bennett G. Belden were present for this application. Lou and Marilyn Fegers of 3590 North Shore Drive were present for the public hearing. Mr. Meline commented that the foundation is still remaining because they felt by capping the foundation through the winter it may not shift as much. Also, this should eliminate water running into the foundation in the spring. Mr. Fegers congratulated the applicants on their achievement of tearing down the old house. He had no opposition at this point to the proposed house. Mr. Meline continued to explain that property to the west is currently owned by the Hennepin County Department of Tran sportion. He has tried for months to acquire this property or a portion of it. This is still pending. At this point there is no plan for a garage, which may be considered if additional land is acquired. Currently, owner would have to back out onto County Road 51, but there is a shoulder which extends out so as not to back directly out into a lane of traffic. Kelley suggested that should additional land be acquired, perhaps the garage could be located on the Fegers side, thus both properties would have a backup and construct a 1/2 moon shaped drive at the end to eliminate backing onto County Road 51. It was moved by Chairman Callahan, seconded by Sime, to recommend to table application for a variance for Evan Meline until the February Planning Commission meeting until the applicant has the information he is waiting for. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. #1000 WILLIAM WEAR 2160 WAYZATA BOULEVARD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:34-10:40 PM Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted publication and certificate of mailing. the affidavit of William Wear was present for this application one present from the public for the hearing. There was no \ . t.j ♦ f- JAN I 31986 : * CITY orc:;Giv'^ i January 10, 1985 3590 North Shore Drive Uayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mrs. Butler: Last Spring we wnet to several Planning Commission and Council meetings at the Orono iJi 1 1 age Hall. Ule applied for a variance to build a 10 x 10 deck. Several weeks ago, we were notified that the owner of the house at 3598 North Shore Drive had applied for a variance. Mhen we arrived at the meeting, another name was on the agenda. The man on the agenda was one of the two men who ;ook the house down and had applied for a variance as he intended buying the property and building a house to sell. What I would like to know is why Orono hasn't enforced their condemnation order? On June 21, 1985, the building was condemned. Why wasn't it enforced and removed within 60 days? Now that the top of the house Is gone, when will the rest of i t be removed? The rotten floor and cavIng-in foundation can be hazardous to anyone accidently going over there. I don't want to take any credit away from the two young men who tore the house down, but have you driven by and seen what it looks like now? Please do! How can the lot be sold while It is in the middle of being condemned? How can someone attempting to buy the lot apply for -a variance to build on a lot that is only 50 feet from the lake and Is too close to the road to build, and before It Is even purchased? Whi1e we haven't finished our remodeling yet, we don't have debris and junk laying all over our yard. Last year when our contractor dug our foundation and some of the dirt rolled Into LeBreshe's yard, we were reported and construction was halted until one yard of dirt was removed from their yard of weeds. Have you ever tried to have a nice yard and garden when on either side of you the weeds get cut once a year? For 23 1/2 years we have had to look out at this decaying house that wasn't fit to live in. Everytime a window or door was broken, 1 was accused of It. Before the road was posted with no parking signs, our guests would be arrested by the en, 1 was accused of It. Before the road was posted with no parking signs, our guests would be arrested by the Orono police when the LeBresh's would say they were blocking their driveway, even though they didn't have a driveway. r If anyone is given a permit to build on this undersize l(^t <2300 square feet), I am sure that the future occupants Mill be back for more and more exceptions to the building code. My wife and I would like to see Orono fulfill their obligation by leveling it and forbid anyone to build on it because it can^t be done and stay within the Orono zoning requirements. a Ue would greatly appreciate your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, ■ V ■ $ \ ' r* CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66*Crystol Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka January 29» 1986 Mr. Lou Fegers 3590 North Shore Drive Wayzatar MN 55391 Dear Mr. Fegers, In response to your letter dated January 10, 1986, and as indicated in my phone conversation to you a few days later, we have presented your concerns to the Council regarding the property abutting you at 3580 North Shore Drive. Additionally we are taking steps to attempt *:o correct the various safety features on the property in discussion with the current property developers, so that it does not present a hazard to persons in the neighborhood. As indicated on the phone we are anticipating this will go back to the Planning Commission for their consideration in February, but would like to correct the hazardous problems prior to that. Should you have any further or comments, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ^iaVk Berri?ral:dson City Administrator cc: jJeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator BUILDING & ZONING - 473-7357 ASSFS.SING ADMINISTRATION & FINANCIi - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 1 •r>;v'Y5r‘» CITY of OKONO Po«l Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 5, 1986 Evan R. Meline 3509 Pilgrim Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 Re: 3598 North Shore Drive, Orono - Hazardous Building Dear Mr. Meline: On February 4, 1986, I conducted an inspection at the above subject property which revealed that the basement has not been removed. I have spoke with the Zoning Department about this matter and they have told me that your variance application has been tabled. The basement is left in a hazardous condition and must be removed within 20 days or the hazardous building action will be continued. If you have any questions on this hazardous condition, please feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Thomas J. Jacobs, Building Inspector cc:Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administr?»*-.or Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Adminis* .ator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zr ling Admininistrator mill DING & ZONING - 473-7357 ASSISSINf; ADMINISTRATION A FINANCH - 473-7358 IU ULK ’ works - 473-7359 ... ■».. K ' y j To: Prom Date Planning Commission rK »■ •• • ' Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator December 5, 1985 Subject: #999 Evan R. Meline, 3598 North Shore Drive - Variances List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Composite Survey With Staff Notes Hardcover Calculations Zoning District - LR-IC, 1/2 Acre Application - Requesting variances to construct a new home substandard lot. on a Variances Required: 1. Lot Area - Required = 21,780 s.f.. Existing = 5,300 s.f. dry buildable Variance = 16,480 s.f. = 76% 2. Lot Width - Required = 100', Existing = 49' Variance = 51' = 51% 3. Street Setback - Required = 30', Existing = 8' Proposed = 20', Variance =10' or 33% 4. Left Side setback - Required = 10', Existing = 10* Proposed = 5', Variance =5' or 50% 5. Right Side Setback - Required =10', Existing = 6.5 Proposed = 7.6', Variance = 2.4' = 24% 6. Lakeshore Setback - Required =75', Existing (measured from assumed 929.4 elevation) = 64', Proposed = 57' (house), 51' (deck), Variance = house 18' or 24%, deck 24' or 32% (also requires variance to allow structure in 0-75' setback area). 7. Hardcover (calculations based on assumed 929.4 elevation) 0-75'; Lot Area =3,800s.f. Existing = 190 s.f. = 5% Proposed = 700 s.f. = 18.5% Allowed = 0 s.f. = 0% 75-250': Lot Area = 1,500 s.f. Existing = 535 s.f. = 36% Proposed = 380 + 360 = 740 s.f. = 49% (house)(deck) Allowed = 375 s.f. = 25% Zoning File #999 December 5, 1985 Page 2 Notes: - There is no house to the west of this one, so the average lakeshore setback is based only on Feger's house to the east. However, the proposed house is closer to the lake than the Fegers, hence some views may be encroached upon. - In cut-and-pasting a composite of the three surveys for Meline (LaBresh), Fegers, and Pemberton, all done within the last year or so, note there is little consistency as to the location of the shoreline. On none of the surveys was the 929.4' elevation shown, which is technically the contour that lakeshore setbacks are measured from. Based on the 3 surveys, staff in conjunction with applicant's surveyor has created an "assumed 929.4' elevation contour" for setback purposes for this application. - Applicant notes that Hennepin County may consider selling the properties directly west of this property. If this was to occur, the City would likely allow only the adjacent property owner (Meline/LaBresh) to purchase them, giving a little more dry buildable land in the 75-250' zone. The County as of 12/5/85 has made no final decision on sale of these properties. - Applicant has not proposed a garage for this lot - this should be an item for discussion. The applicant, Evan Meline, is purchasing this property from the LaBresh's subject to being allowed to build a new house. There has been an existing structure on the property for many years, but it deteriorated to the point that the City declared it hazardous, and this fall the cabin portion was demolished, leaving only l capped basement foundation which is caving in. As noted above, a number of variances are requested by the applicant. The dry buildable lot area as it exists is 5,300 s.f. or 0.12 acre. In the LR-IC zoning district, with a total of 631 developed properties, 619 are greater in area than the property in question, based on the lot area/common ownership study done in 1983-84. A review of the j lat maps indicates only a handful of vacant lots in the LR-IC district similar in size to this one and in single separate ownership. From a planning standpoint, it would be preferable that this become a vacant lot based on its substandard size and proximity to the lake. However, we must also consider the substantial property rights of the owner, especially in light of the fact that a house has previously existed on tha property. i Zoning File #999 December 5, 1985 Page 3 If you choose to conceptually grant variances for this property, you should carefully consider the following points: 1. No garage is proposed. Is this realistic? Should we be asking the applicant to put a garage into his plans at this time rather than dealing with it later? 2. No turnaround or backup apron has been provided, hence the potential exists for cars to back out directly onto County Road 51. Is this acceptable, or should a backup apron be provided? 3. The magnitude of the variances requested is somewhat greater than those granted to Fegers next door, but in line with the standards the Planning Commission conceptually asked the Pembertons to meet. Because of the discrepancy in the indicated location of the shoreline from survey to survey, it may be somewhat arbituary to compare hardcover percentages between Fegers, Pemberton and Meline/LaBresh; however, these do give an idea of the relative magnitude of the variances granted or requested. (Granted) Fegers (Conceptual) (Proposed) (Required) Pemberton Meline/LaBresh Standard Dry Buildable Lot Area 6,250 s.f.7,000* s.f.5,300 s.f.21,780 s.f. Lot Width 49.96*49.9*48.71'100* 0-75* Hardcover 5.0%20%**18.5%0% (north) 75-250* Hardcover 56.8% 52%**49%25% Lakeshore Setback***63*51*51*75* Street Setback****20' +20'+/-20'30* Left Side Setback 6*10*,5*5*10* Right Side Setback 6.5*15*7.6*10* **** From R.O.W.line (33*from centerline approximately) *** Depends on actual location of 929.4* contour ** Planning Commission recommended maximum * This figure only includes area north of the presumed County Road right-of-way. Pembertons actually own all the way to the lakeshore across County Road 51 for a total dry area of 11,130 s.f. Zoning File #999 December 5, 1985 Page 4 4, Remember that the property is served by and has been assessed for municipal sewer. Are there substantial and adequate hardships shown to justify granting of the requested variances? If not, is there a lesser magnitude of variances you would consider acceptable? Finally, if CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION f-9-Asn Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional project) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address # Shd>'£- Dt'mt. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3> ^ <^033 Please check one — Is the property abstract or torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. 1 APPLICANT Name R. fh^J / i>L^Phone 03 Mailing Address 35&J Lu 5&/4/ . OWNER Name . Phone Mailing Address 7*^pL^ci Lj . Date Property AcquiredvAvt^. /(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: ,Q st‘^'uc:tQapfhnxr^rh^ D ^ y cT L>p/ pimJj gM ,1 ct^ Arf'’ ’___________________ j VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances ( X Front Side ^ Rear) Other (OVER) ■ I ■ I I T Tnii HARDSHIP id Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; erf- f^ ^ 4?^ ^_ _aJu> auo/ cylf<r,i. hhu'/^»^a. i^H^c K \ ! DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; uau^., fyeicAC. !aa iKT CCry^rfr<>^ T>Lt^ “hu* 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 :-^member that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signaturel^PlvuOu &'Uij Date I OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission membe&^s, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner • s signatuj^^ , // • . x\ p ■ V-/., Date// " X "2. _ _ _ _ _ _ _tv o \" 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. Certificate of Survey for Evan R. Hellne in Lot 9, Block 2, Baldur Park Hennepin County, Minnesota < I d fh N cn o cn (D (D 9 0 0 l-cn H' 3 M- 3 rf c 1 3 1 a 3 (D 3* 3 1 O 0 fl) 0 3 H-M a 0 H* 0*Di C H- ft c 0*0» rt »Tl H-a < 3* Qi a 01 >rt <fl) H- 0 fl) <0, H*tr H-CO Qi H 0) 0>H- 3 K (D fl) rt H* 0 CD ft n ft H-H- 3 C T3 3* ft PI 3* 0)0 fl) rt fl) *r H- fl) 3 3 01 3*(D 3 O D) 0» 3* O (0 fl) I 0) n>M 0 CD X 3 h-»Q To: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator February 10, 1986 Subject: #1005 N.E.D., Inc., "1390" French Creek Drive - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-IB Application - Conditional Use Permit to regrade a designated wetland (pond) List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Layout Exhibit C - Property Owners List (From Subdivision Application) Exhibit D - Letter From Applicant 1/15/86 Exhibit E - Survey With Proposal Exhibit F - Glenn Cook's Letter of 2/7/86 The applicant is requesting permission to regrade "Pond A" of the French Creek Subdivision on North Shore Drive. Pond A is a Designated Wetland and serves as a siltation and "debris collection" basin. Per the review of City Engineer, Glenn Cook, (see Exhibit F), the proposed grading may not accomplish one of the applicants intended purposes, i.e. may not solve the algae problem, but will provide a suitable duck nesting area. Cook has recommended that 1) a timber baffle structure be installed to eliminate floating debris from moving downstream; and 2) placement of silt fence at the outlet during construction. This proposal has been submitted to the MCWD for review and comment with no response as of this writing. Staff would recommend approval of the conditional use permit for grading within a designated wetland subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer and sub ject to any applicable requirements and permits from the MCWD. Applicant is advised to check with the DNR regarding the shaping and seeding of the island areas for duck nesting purposes. V. • 1. / CITY OP £SSq GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION 005 Site Address t~ C |2 ^ o G>0‘ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Please check one - Is the property S t o ir c abstract or (for Conditional Use Applications only) torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name rOEO,Phone 0 3 -03^1 Mailing Address i 1 < Z. . y,u o y 2 n r n o. icny^nTH OWNER Name ITOEO I |\jc:Phone V 03- t:>3 W| Mailing Address ) 1 < 1 E. u? r> y2(^ T o lcn72orr-) rnro. l‘i f Date Property Acquired rooo . i (month/year) I (do) (fdonotj^lso own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - 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 and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS _ _ _ _ $150.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $150.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ;■ ■ OTHER APPLICATIONS - CONT. _ _ _ _ $250.00 Rezoning _ _ _ _ $200.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail: REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtai this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Governmen Cernter 348-3271) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the name on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey. 5. Construction plan, 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 authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 davs befnro 4-u r Charles J. Schoen 2430 North Shore Dr orono, MN 55391 H Douglas & Cheryl Hill 2425 Scotch Pine Lane Wayzata, MN 55391 Irene Woytcke Box 112 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Frederick W Curtis 2180 Prospect Ave Wayzata, MN 55391 Jay & Barbara Wood 1285 Arbor St Box 43 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dorothy C Levy 2425 North Shore Dr Wayzata, MN 55391 John Story P.O. Box 91 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Joyce F Sprague 1022 E Gardner St Wayzata, MN 55391 F P Peterson P.O. Box 164 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Albert & Arlene Hoppe Crystal Bay, MN 55323 xixtit. iOi ftxuuy weu uaytoii Lawrence J Whalen 2435 Scotch Pine Lane Orono, MN 55391 Stephen & Randi Carlson 1205 Arbor St Orono, MN 55391 Bobby D Johnson Box 123 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Maribeth Andrus Swanson 1271 Arbor St Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Marcus & Judy Blue Box 62 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Faye Hartranet 1290 Briar St Wayzata, MN 55391 Adeline Quast 1251 Briar St Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Emory White 1291 Briar St Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Ronald Anderson 1355 Briar St Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Herbert Shepherd 1335 Briar St Wayzata, MN 55391 MTKA CTR of ARTS & ED P.O. Box 158 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dianne J. Mattila 1270 Briar St Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Alexander Jentilucci 1295 Briar St Orono, MN 55323 Mabel M. Belt Box 162 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Gammon Brian L. 15601 Sunset Rd Minnetonka, MN 55343 James Stowe 1250 Briar St Orono, MN 55323 Gary Printup P.O. Box 104 1261 Briar St Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Emilio Garcia Box 114 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Elizabeth Johnson Box 161 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Richard Kiemen 1212 Briar St Orono, MN 55391 11 I I i Ju *^ JU V.« • • • 4 *1.1 -k,f l; ^ KJ \J ^ Lt^\.K LJ *~<J[ C> v.>i i Kingsley Murphy Jr. 2265 North Shore Dr Wayzata, MN 55391 Karen Bjerkeng 1245 Arbor St Wayzata, MN 55391 Michael McClelland 2170 Minnetonka Ave N P.O. Box 45 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Trust Real Estate NW NATL BANK 7th & MARQ Minneapolis, MN 55480 Maybe11 Kohls 1224 Briar St Wayzata, MN 55391 I Td . ^ i w 11-• •:# ’ 4 iit, ^v W-"*T i NED INC TO: Members of the Orono City Council Members of the Orono Planning Commission Orono City Officials Neural Environmental Designs FROM: Ned Dayton, President of NED, INC 1212 E. Wayzata Boulevard Wayzala. Minnesota 55391 Phone 612 473-0341 RE:Conditional Use Permit for French Creek Subdivision DATE: January 15, 1986 In the original French Creek Subdivision Application I negVcted to detail specific grading plans for Pond A, which is the easternmost of two natural pond areas within the project, and which is located almost directly North of the Art Center of Minnesota. At the time I wanted to see what effect the PVC storm sewer connecting this pond to our flowing stream would have on the water level and algae situation. In actuality the storm sewer has little affect, and the water level remains less than a foot deep with an unappealing scum on the surface. I wish to correct that. The proposed plan calls for a regrading and excavation of the pond to a maximum seven foot depth. The existing bank elevations of the pond will remain the same, and it will not oe enlarged in any way. The bank ratios within the pond will be no greater than 5/1, well within the guidelines of safety. Two small islands will be located within the pond and will be planted with habitat suitable for duck nesting. The sides of the pond may be leveled for walking purposes up to a maximum of eight feet; however no significant trees or other vegetation will be removed to accomplish this. This pond is meant to be retained in its natural state as much as possible. It is estimated by Schoell and Madson that approximately 2300 cubic yards of material will be removed. We have a few low spots in other areas of French Creek which can absorb this fill. I am hoping to receive Planning Commission approval at its February 18th meeting and Council approval on March 10. These approval dates are necessary in order to do the excavation work while the ground is still solidly frozen. Any delay will set the project back a year. I urge your approval. o I 1 m'j.' S'- h"; '!8<pv /^oie^fe, Aftde/tlih & ^dAJiyciaieA., Qo4%4MliiM4f C0UfU%em\i ^333 ^u^iuktAtf 33 Si. P<^. M*mnmfiAiA 55f13 Pu^ 6f2-636-4i600 Olltt C$ Hnnrurmt, H.E. Hohfn M' Httsene, P.£. Jttsrph < AnderUk, P.E. tirudlnrU A l.cmbe^g, P L. Hli hard 1. 7 ufner, P E Junit \ (• Oiutn, P L February 7, 1986 l.\ -•- .' \ city of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Mike Gaffron 'V(; • .\\\\ _____\i\\ UL -r-T'*r'rr- '* \ V * ' Ctffin P Cook, P E keah A Gordon, P.E 1 hnmai t kioyri, P E, Puhard W. tuner, P E. Robert C. Schunichi, P.E. Murvtn L. Sorvata. P E. Donald C. Byrgordt, P E Jerry A. Bourdon, P E Mark A. //anion, P E. Tedk 7teid,P E. Michael T Rautmann. P E Ruben R. PJejferle, P E. Dav*d O. l.oikota, P.E. Charlei A. Erickson Leo M Pa*^elik¥ Harian .M. Olson Re:139-1005 French Creek Subdivision Pond Grading Dear Mike: We have reviewed the proposed grading of Pond A on the French Creek Subdivision. The grading will not have a significant effect on the system hydraulics or the water quality of the watershed. The grading of the pond area has been requested to eliminate the existing algae problem and to provide a duck nesting area. The design of the pond is such that there will be little effect on the algae problem. The ponds greatest asset at the present time '• . one of collecting silt and debris from the upstream watershed. This will "ot change with the proposed grading. We would recommend that a timber baffle outlet structure be constructed to eliminate floating debris from entering the downstream watershed. We would also recommend some type of silt fence be constructed at the outlet during construction. The pond is located high up in the drainage basin and away from Lake Minnetonka so in that respect does not have a direct impact on the lake. We would recommend that the proposed grading plan be approved. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC/kas 3370d r' 1 Date: Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator February 13, 1986 Subject: #1006 Dale & Chris Palm, 1710 Shadywood Road Variance Zoning District - LR-IC, 1/2 Acre Application ~ Request hardcover variance addition and attached garage. to construct home Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75' = 17.5% 0-75* = 19.5% 75-250* * 27.3% (conceptual only),75-250* •-= 33.3% List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Hardcover Calculations Survey With Conceptual Sketch of Proposal The applicant, Mr. Lindner, is acting as agent for Chris and Dale Palm, who are purchasing the property. The proposal is to construct a small addition and attached garage. The applicant has submitted a survey showing the existing harocover, and has submitted plans for the addition and garage, but has only given us a conceptual idea of driveway and sidewalk plans. Staff has sketched (on the survey) a rendition of a driveway with backup apron and front sidewalk, for discussion purposes. Applicant was requested to submit a more finalized plan but has not as of this writing. Note that the proposed addition will not encroach into the average lakeshore setback, but does constitute additional structure in the 0-75* setback area. Also note that removal of the existing detached garage will make the structures on the property more conforming from a setback standpoint. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission request more defined plans from the applicant as to the driveway and sidewalks proposed, or, as an alternative course of action, consider the proposal as sketched on the survey, and determine whether any hardships are present that justify granting the requested variances. r- •*.CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additionr1 variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original appl*cation) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address c/ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /7- //"7 Please check one — Is the property _ _ abstract or torrens? surveylegal description to application if not included on required applicant Name • • • Xz:. Phone xJ^sT Mailing Address /// S': OWNER ? flayer 7‘ Name d:Arrr * 'Pa/^ phone / ■ 0 V V Mailing Address ^ "? y 6 # c/ /f* c/ Date Property Acquired^^,,^.^ (month/vi.;.r 1 /// • / I (d^) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Do r- ' 1 UPRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property _Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cosr$ Describe request in detail; VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) (OVER) 4 Lred HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; ^I—?/tit__^ y'i V- -f iT,/^ r* ■ * /‘x-pj X y<c? '^/yA J^f / -» it OiAr * 1 Describe unusua]^roperty conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: / e 3-/<y<f^</ a/t'A a yVy g*’ <P^/f' r>rd yjt ^ S'/^ep ri ^ t/ c: r'V t^c 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. Stampedf legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-ac dressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. #• 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. APPLICAHT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator f agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred 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 *14^—Date X ^ 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 Counpi^ members for purposes of investigation and verification of this^eocfest. Owner's signature r 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. /CroC:>0•s.r^ . A>. ///s r^. *'“ u ■7<9 i’f: i ■-'IT' I • P^OJsrta ^ID %^ J'-i£^ /-l^vASv'' I 'Z-*^ - ,<0rbCi«ri-J . 7ZO S ^ . ^/it>K\T stus ^-** 2^70 ^ s^, A^PiT^ 0^rt//S/o^ i/c*vjA-V / 5"0 , firPT^m^ ^t>7n*<or? *qL {/u=^i/nAa^ Cfip^ lu.i^CX i^U>v»A-oN^Vt-. ■^7/2> - _ .✓ -?s-»^' 33.^ /V»f«se® Cjt ^TV A vN # 4^ 4* aC r I0f9i t|Ot«uuin ‘tf|Odff»uuin ICIC 6CC (Zi K)lCi anuMV •nonbitn 11 1 Jbupun ut«Q Aiu« flcr/h lU8(JUdO|8A9Q Loi^e ^inne/'c/ika k I ■ Add1i€C1 ManaScmenl Science. Inc. 3740 IDS TOWER Minneapolis. Minnesota 55402 (612)338-0501 Planning Caimission CITY CF ORONO P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 - - - V. >\\ty ‘ v\ \ _ _ _ ♦V \ \ \l _V February 12, 1986 In respmse to the enclosed notice concerning vciriances on the property located at 1710 Shac^o/ood Road vdiich abuts ny property to the north, I have the following oexments to make. I certainly have no qualms about property iirprovement, but I vould strongly urge you not to cdlcxf/ any additional structure or h£u?d- oover within 75 feet of the lakeshore, because I think tliat house, like mine at 1690 Shac^wood Road, is already infringing in that 75 foot protected area. Likewise, because the lots in that general airea, including theirs and mine, are relatively narrow lots, I would also urge you not to deviate from the 10 foot side y2u:d setbacks for either structure or hardcover. While I can't give exact measurements at this time, I suspect both structures 2ure pretty close to the 10 foot side yard limit on the property line already. Since these lots in this area are already pretty small in terms of square footage, I think you ought to look pretty hard at any request for additioncil hardcover other than reasonable additions to the house itself on the west side, in other words, any request for additional driveway, peurking space, additional garage space, etc. should be denied because it will infringe on what I suspect is hard cover that already exceeds the permissible amount. I certainly don't mean to pose a problem for ny neighbor in his attenpts to inprove his preperty, but on the other hand, if he wants to do it he should do it within the existing rules of the game for lakeshore property. I'd also appreciate it if he would keep his dogs in his own yeurd. That, more tlian anything else since they have moved in, would pose a real problem for tlie family vdio will eventually buy ny property at 1690 Shadywood Road. It might be a good idea to be sure he's aware of what the leash law is for that area also. Sincerely, oc: Jeanne A. Mabustli Enclosure: Itotice concerning variances TO:Planning Commission FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator DATE:January 15, 1986 SUBJECT: Review of Changes and Additions to Proposed Ordinance Amendment of August *85 At your December meeting you directed staff to prepare a new draft of the Ordinance Amendment to reflect the many changes and additions proposed by Planning Commission members. Staff has prepared other amendments suggested by Planning Commission for your consideration. If members propose major changes to any section, please submit them in writing. Planning Commission approved the following definitions; A. Definitions Commercial^Operations - Operations where business is conducted by the sale or exchange of goods and/or services on site for money or other valuable consideration except for those provided for in the home occupation section. I have underlined the last phrase because I question the need to address the commercial uses allowed under the home occupation ordinance in this specific definition. Riding Academy - A building, structure or other facility which is used for the instruction and training in animal care and handling for a fee or other valuable consideration. Lot—Line - The property line bounding that particular lot except where any portion of a lot extends into the public right of way or a proposed public right of way, the line of such public right of way shall be the lot line. Stables and Barns - private — A building or structure used or intended to be used for housing horses, mules, donkeys, or ponies belonging to the occupant of the property, and kept for noncommercial purposes. Note the 150 feet setback from nearest lot line has been removed so as not to conflict with required setback in proposed conditional use permit ammendment. ” Those requirements which relate exclusively to the size of yard areas when such are required within specific zoning districts. B. Section 10.03 Subdivision 9(D) As discussed at our last meeting the following section, already approved by Planning Commmission in October, has been amended in order to distinguish between lakeshore lots intersected by roads or corner lots requiring special consideration or review. No detached garage or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake and a rear yard adjacent to a street, accessory buildings located within the street or rear yards of such lots are subject to the setback requirements of Section 10.23, Subdivision 6B, Section 10.24, Subdivision 5B and Section 10.25,_Subdivision 6B except that detached garages may be located 10 feet from the street or rear lot 1ine when doors face away from the street and a turn-around provided on site.This section shall not apply to lakeshore lots divided by roadways or corner lots. C. Section 10.03 Subdivision 18 You asked staff to review Section 10.03 Subdivision Ifc (A) and (B) in order to determine the need for amending ot repealing this section. Crop farms and the keeping of animals for non-cornmercial purposes are addressed under the respective conditional u^e permit or accessary use section of the code. The commercial keeping of animals such as that suggested by stock farm use is only addressed in Section 10.03 Subdivision 18A. Other levels of comiViercial uses associated with animals are addressed in proposed amendments dealing with riding acadamies or stables and barns - public. This section is really not in conflict with the ^ural zoning sections that allows the non-commercial keeping of animals as an approved accessory use, as was first suggested by staff. Section 10.03 Subdivision 18 deals with the commercial keeping of animals and should remain in the code. Staff recommends the following amendment of Section 10.03 Subdivision 18(A). A. No new "stock farms" shall be created or existing stock farms enlarged more than twenty five percent (25%) with animals over one year old except under the provisions of a conditional use permit. In considering any such permit, the maximum number and type of animals to be kept shall be determined by the Council. The site design and method of operation shall be reviewed and the Council shall find that the proposed or existing "stock Farm" will not in its opinion be detrimental to the public safety and the general welfare. s ■■i' ■ i : t I B. The establishment of any new building for the housing of animals or fowl on such stock farms shall be located 150 feet from the nearest lot line. Does the Planning Commission feel that minimum area standards should be required for creation of such stock farmSf 10» 20, 30 acres. Crop farm, conditionai? use permit requires minimum of 10 acres. Is the 150 feet setback restrictive enough for a commercial operation. D. Section 10.03 Subdivision 21 Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the driveway serving such building, nor to any movement under 100 cubic yards which does not adversly impact the existing drainage. Such grading and earth moving shall be approved by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of the building permit, providing that a plan showing property drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Any unusual earth filling, removal or grading proposed by a builder shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Planning Comhiission and the Council for action in accordnance with this Chapter. Normally earth movements of 100 cubic yards or more should be considered unusual. The first underlined section was a staff amendment providing ordinance authority for the land alteration permits issued by staff for the past five years. Note under 100 cubic yards. The last underlined section is suggested by the Planning Commission as a standard for staff to use in determining unusual land movement when reviewing building plans. Staff must advise that every building permit issued this year or in years past involved the movement of 100+ cubic yards of earth. Driveway construction in rural lots can run 300 to 400 cubic yards movements alone. E. Amend Section 10.22 Subdivision 3 Tree Removal Regulations - no trees within 75 feet of the shoreline with the diameter of six (6) inches or more shall be removed without first obtaining a permit from The City. Such permits shall be issued by City staff provided that at least a like number of replacement trees of a nature and placement acceptable to the staff are planted, any question involving the number of trees to be replaced will require Council approval. Planning Commission has already approved this amendment, staff has cited it as amendment of Section 10.22 Section 3 instead of listing it as a separate performance standard under Section 10.03 as originally presented. Section 10,08 Subdivision 3(A) Add following performance standards: (8) The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoiiii.ng property; and (9) the conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located; and (10) the granting of the application is necessary for the. preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; and (11) 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. (12) 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. Remember these are the standards applicable in variance reviews tnat were omitted in recodification. Section 10.20 Subdivision 3 Recreation Areas. Private gun clubs, archery ranges, slci slides, provided the area is fenced and no part of the principal use is less than 100 feet from any lot line. Note riding stables has been omitted from this section and replaced with a separate section for riding academy. Section 10.20 K & M (Re-letter K to M and versa.) K. Antenna Structure, One independent antenna structure with antenna or combination of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or i.tructure on the same lot and customarily incidential thereto that is not attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna structure does not exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure is set baclc from any lot line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure, M. Animals. The keeping of domestic animals for non commercial purposes including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises. A minimum of one acre in aggregate, exclusive of one acre for the principal building, must be available for each animal unit, except as hereinafter set forth. A minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse and one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. When the horses are kept stabled and do not require pasture for feed purposes, the minimum pasture requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the Council. Such minimum pasture acreage shall not include low lying lands unusable for pasture or grazing. Any person keeping such animals m.ust comply with the provisions of the City Code. Somehow in the process of recodification their letter designations were exchanged. Note also the 150 setback .istance for structures housing animals has been removed and addressed later in proposed amendments for stables and barns private and public. G - Section 10.20 Add the following new conditional uses: Stables and Barns - Private.The use of an accessory building for Keeping animals for non-commercial purposes provided it is for the non-commercial use of the property owner or resident and meets the available area standards outlined in paragraph M of this subsection. Further, no such structure shall be closer than 150 feet to the nearest adjacent residence and no closer than 75 feet from the nearest lot line. O. Stables and Barns - Public. The use of accessory buildings or land for the storage or rearing of animals not owned by the property owner or resident. Such must meet the requirements of paragraph M of this subdivision. Further, no such structure shall be closer than 150 feet from the nearest lot line. P. Riding Academy - Any such instruction maintained as a accessory use and conducted by the owner shall meet the requirements of Section M, N, and O of this subdivision and no such instruction shall occur at least 100 feet from an adjacent residence or closer than 50 feet from a front or side lot line. Does Planning Commission feel comfortable with suggested setbacks for above uses. Are there other standards appropriate for such uses? H. Section 10.22 Subdivision 1 Section to be amended as follows; Subdivision Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The set back from the shoreline for lakeshore lots: A. Shall be 75 feet for all structures except that fences under 42" may be permitted within that setback area. On lakeshore lots divided by a major thoroughfare the following structures are permitted on the lakeshore portion of such lots within 75 feet of the lake and require a building permit from the City: 1. lock boxes not to exceed 20 48 inches in height; and square feet in area and 2. fences not exceeding 72 inches but shall not exceed an average height of 42 inches above the height of the crown of the intersecting road. I know Planning Commission has reviewed this one before but. in light of recent Council action, staff would guess the only part of this amendment to pass would be the required 75 feet setback for all structures and the special allowance for lock boxes. Add Item B to the above Section B - no principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shore line of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots but not within 75 feet of the lake except that this does not apply to structures allowed in sub section A above. Note this amendment would now include accessory structures under the average lakeshore setback standard in addition to removing reference to nearby lots when determining the average lakeshore setback line. For the past five years staff has only related to residence structures on adjacent lots - the amendment more clearly reflects staff's practice. Section 10.22 Subdivision 2 Amend section as follows: Subdivision 2 Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under Subdivision 1 of this section. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Within 250 to 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. Section added to prevent any misunderstanding created by amendment above and for purposes of clarity. 10.27 Subdivision 4 A. Subparagraphs M and N 10.28 Subdivision 4 • • A. Subparagraphs M and N Add reference to N to include new use public. - stables and barns - K. Section 10.03 Subdivision 7 One Building Per Lot. Except in the case of Planned Residential Developments as provided for hereinafterr no more than one principal building shall be located on a lot except that staff may issue a permit to use a manufactured home or an existing dwelling while a new principal structure is being constructed.____Such permit shall expire upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new structure. and such structure removed. This amendment will provide the legal means to permit the temporary use of trailers or existing dwellings during construction of new residence. L. Section 10.31 Subdivision 14 Open Burning Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to start or allow to burn any open fire on any property within any "RS" District without a permit except as permitted under the Uniform Fire Code. Members please bring individual Zoning Code books for amendment considerations. m Date: Subject Planning Commission Members Jeanne A, Mabusthr Zoning Administrator February 12, 1986 #1009 William Wear, 2160 Wayzata Blvd. - Variance to Ordinance 13, Second Series, moratorium for properties located within Highway 12 Corridor. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Application List of Property Owners Ordinance 13 Planning Commission Minutes of 12/16/85 Council tabled all action on variance application #10000 at their meeting of January 13th because the original plans sub mitted by the applicant were not consistent with the sign im provements referenced by applicant at the Council meeting. Mr. Wear was asked to submit a revised plan for Council's consideration. Staff has also been advised that Mr. Wear's application for a variance to the sign ordinances also requires a variance to the moratorium. Please note Section 6 of that ordinance that also lists the necessary findings that must be made for a recommendation of approval. 1. The proposal is not in conflict with the intent of the Comprehensive Community Management Plan. 2. The proposal is compatible with the zoning and official control amendments being considered by the City. 3. The proposed does not adversely impact the health, safety and welfare of the community. Based on the Planning Commission’s findings of December 16, 1985 (Exhibit D) it would appear that you can make the necessary findings to approve the applicant's request for a variance to moratorium Ordinance No. 13, Second Series. It is hoped that by the time the implementation of the directives of the planning study are realized that the commercial sign ordinance will be amended such that the needs of a mixed use facility will be addressed. At this time we cannot determine if Mr. Wear's sign meets standards yet to be addressed. m '-rr i !CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initisl Application Fc© $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address c> Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) \ Please check one — Is the property abstract or V torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Mailing Address (fS'rryC Phone ^^3 — ^3 OWNER Name Phone -V 3-*7 ^7^ Mailing Address ^ ^ Date Property Acquired _ _ _ _ _ (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parc^b&. of .^Bmd. PRESENT USB OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property _ __Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail; Estimated Construction Cost $ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) (OVER) ce) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations:^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .i 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 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 X rc 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. X X Rebers Constr. Inc. 3525 Webster Minneapolis, MN 55416 The Lyman Corp. 405 S. Willow Dr. Long Lake, MN 55356 Long Lake Ford Tractor Inc Highway 12 West Long Lake, MN 55356 • # 0RDII4/.NCE no. 13, Second Series AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE GRANTING OF BUILDING PERMITS, LAND SUBDIVISIONS, REZONING APPLICATIONS, CONDITIONAL OR SPECIAL USE PERMITS, VARIANCES, OR OTHER AUTHORITY FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR AREA AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, THE CITY OF ORONO ORDAINS: The Municipal Code of the City of Ocono Is amended by adding Ordinance No, 13, Second Series: SECTION 1, Statement of Policy. The City Council finds that the City is presently faced with the potential of numerous applications for development in the Highway 12 Corridor Area of Orono, which potential has raised new concern for issues such as the most appropriate use of the land; the compatibility of low density residential development with commercial development; the interrelationship between development and highway accessibility; and, the provision of municipal services to the area. The City is in the process of reevaluating its Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other official controls, as they relate to the development of the Highway 12 Corridor. The Council finds that there is an overwhelming probability that land use controls and zoning provisions will need to be updated and revised as they apply to the Highway 12 Corridor Area. The Council also finds that such amending is a process that cannot be accomplished until a detailed study has been completed and hearing held. During this interim period, it is desirable that the Council establish guides for the benefit of those who wish to develop property in order to bring about savings in public and private expenditures and to provide to the public guides to future City action. The Council determines that there is an urgency involved because of the need to control development during the interim period so that the benefits of proper planning will not be lost, to prevent development which may add to the public burden, and to preserve the status quo pending adoption of these measures so that the City will not be impaired in its ability to effectuate the purposes and goals of these planning efforts. Since enactment of an amendment will undoubtedly modify existing regulations concerning permitted land use and zoning performance standards, the granting of various zoning and permit applications during this interim period would be detrimental to the effectuation of the Comprehensive Plan and contrary to the purpose of the zoning enabling act, Minnesota Statutes §5462.351 et seq. The Council further finds that it would be unwise, improper and unjust to allow ir.dividual development to occur during this studv period to avoid discrimination and unfair advantage to a few to " entire City. Therefore, ^he Council's__and staff*s authority to grant permits or approve *applications described herein shall not be exercised during the limited term of this ordinance, except as provided in Section 6. SECTION 2. Restrictions on the Granting of Permits and Applications. No building permits for new construction or total replacement, land subdivision applications, rezoning applications, conditional or special use permits, variances or other authority for additional development in the Highway 12 Corridor Area described in Section 4 shall be granted for any purpose which would be inconsistent with the intent of this ordinance, including but not limited to: A. Single Family Dwellings; B. Duplexes; and C. Commercial Development of any sort. SECTION 3. Exceptions. Because of the Highway 12 Corridor location and natire of existing development in the restricted area, the City Council hereby grants blanket exception and variance from the provisions of this Moratorium to allow issuance of building permits and/or conditional use permits for the following work, finding after extensive review and study that such limited exceptions would not adversely affect the status quo, and would therefore not be contrary to the intent and purpose of this Moratorium: A.Building Permits for interior remodeling and renovation of existing dwellings or existing residential accessory structures; B.Building Fermits for new residential accessory structures or additions to existing residential accessory structures except that no variances shall be permitted; C.Building Permits for interior remodeling and renovation of existing commercial buildings or accessory structures. SECTION 4. Restricted Area. That portion of the city of Orono that shall be subject to the restrictions of this Ordinance is all the land... (See Exhibit A) -2- r SECTION 5 Duration. This ordinance shall expire _ _ _ _ _ _t 1986, without Council action, or it inay be repealed earlier if the Council determines that the requisite studies have been completed and adopted and that appropriate evaluation and action, including any necessary revisions of the Zoning Code, have been finalized. The duration of this ordinance may be extended by adoption of a subsequent ordinance. SECTION 6. Variances. The Council may grant a variance to this ordinance if the Council finds after careful review of all the facts that a proposal is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Community Management Plan, that it is compatible with the zoning and official control amendments being considered by the City, and that it does not adversely impact the health, safety or welfare of the citizens. Building Permits granted under this section shall be reviewed by the staff prior to City Council consideration. Building Permits need not be refeTred~ to the Planning commission for review. SECTION 7. Separability. Every section, provision, or part of this ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision, or part; and if any section, provision or part thereof or action taken hereunder shall be held invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision or part. SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall be published in the Lake Minnetonka Sun and shall be effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the 7th day of October_ _ _ _ _ _, 1985, by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays r Publish week of October 1.4, 1985 -3- EXHIBIT A • # METES & BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED T.Il. 12 DEVELOPMENT AREA AREA I Connnencing at the southeast corner of Section 32, T118N, R23W, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence north along the east line of Section 32 to the north right-of-way line of the Burlington Northern Railroad; thence northeast along the north right-of-way line of the rail oad to the south line of Section 29; thence westerly 255^ feet along said south line to the intersection of Co. Rd. 6; thence N 26° 33' 54" E 175.58 feet; thence N 15° 49' 10" E - 74.84 feet * to the PC of a curve deflecting to the east R 98.46 feet and central angle 74° 35' 44": thence along said curve 128.19 feet thence N 89° 35' 06" W 510.70 feet to the PC of a curve deflecting to the north R 538.30 central angle 26° 59' 03"; thence along said curve 253.52 feet; thence N 63° 25' 51": E 489.41 feet to a curve deflecting to the south R 5729.61 feet central angle 8° 11' 06"; thence along said curve 188.91 feet to the east line of the southwest 1/4; thence south along said east line to the southeast corner of the southwest 1/4 of Section 29; thence east along the north line of the northeast 1/4 of Section 32 to the shore of Lake Classen; thence southerly along the shore of Lake Classen to the most southerly point of Lake Classen in Section 32; thence easterly to the east lino of the northeast 1/4 of Section 32, thence southeast along the shore of Lake Classen to the most eastern part of Lake Classen in Section 33; thence northwesterly along the shore of Lake Classen to the north line of Section 33; thence easterly along the south line of Section 28 to the southwest corner of the southeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 28; thence north along the west line of the southeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 to the northwest corner; thence east along the north line of the southeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 28 to a point 430' west of Page 1. 0515d *. !■ • ; f i:.AMXDX‘r A the east line; thence north parallel with the east line to the centerline of Co. Rd. 6; thence easterly along the centerline of Co. Rd. 6 to the east line of Section 28; thence south along the east line to the southeast corner of Section 28; thence continuing south along the west line of Section 34 673.53'; thence easterly 33 feet to the northwest corner of Outlot A Ringerswood Addi tion; thence easterly 56.96 feet to a curve deflecting to the south R 350 central angle 15° 30'; thence along the curve 94.68 feet; thence south 74° 33' 08" E. 274.17 feet to a curve deflecting to the north R 258.81 central angle 56° 40' 01"; thence 255.97 along the curve; thence N 48° 46' 51" 38.33 feet; thence S 0° 23' 53" E 314.63 feet; thence south 88° 51' 13" east 590 feet; thence north 0° 23' 53" W 960 feet along the west line of the northeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 to the northwest corner; thence along the north line of the northe st 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 to the northeast corner of the northwest 1/4 of . ection 34; thence south along the east line of the northwest 1/4 to the centerline of T.H. 12; thence northwesterly along the centerline of T.H. 12 to the west line of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 34; thence north 165+ feet along the west line of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 to the northwest corner; thence west along the south line of the northwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 to the southwest corner; thence south 11 feet along the east line of the southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 33; thence west 66 rods parallel and 11 feet south of the north line of the southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4; thence south 66 rods west of and parallel to the east line of the southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 to the south line of the north 1/2 of Section 33; thence west along the south line to the southwest corner of the northwest 1/4 of Section 33, T118, R23 west and there terminating. Page 2. 0515d . • »• tJAHibiT A AREA II Commencing at a point on the northeasterly right-of-way line of the Burl ington Northern Railroad and the west line of the southeast 1/4 of the south east 1/4 of Section 35 TUSN. R N23W Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence north westerly along the northeasterly right-of^ay line to the southerly right-of- wey line of the Electric Short Line Railroad, thence easterly along the south erly right-of^ay line of said railroad to the southwesterly line of T.H. 12; thence southeesterly along said highway right-of-way line to a point distant ' 385 feet north from the south line of the southeast 1/4; thence west parallel with and 385 feet north of said south line to the west line of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4; thence south 29.7 feet along said west line to the point of beginning and there terminating. AREA III k • Commencing at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of the Electric Short Line Railroad and the west line of Section 36, 1118, Range 23w Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence easterly along said southerly right-of-way line of the railroad to the northwest corner of R.L.S. No. 446; thence southerly 986.45 feet along the westerly line of R.L.S. No. 446 to the northerly right- of-way line of T.H. 12; thence northwesterly along the northeasterly right-of- way line of T.H. 12 to the southerly right-of-way line of the Electric Short Line Railroad; thence easterly along said southerly line to the point of be- ginning and there terminating. Page 3. 0515d \r t-AillblT M /• • % AREA IV Commencing at the northeast corner of Section 2, T117N, R23W; thence west 850+ feet along the north line of Section 2 to the northeasterly right-of-way line of the burlington Northern Railroad; thence southeasterly along the northeasterly right-of-way line of the Burlington Northern Railroad to the east line of Section 2; thence north 600+ feet along the east line to the northeast corner of Section 2 and there terminating. ■' 'mi • Is? Page 4. 0515d MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD DECEMBER 16, 1985. PAGE 11 #999 EVAN R. MELINE 3598 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 10:03-10:34 PM Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the affidavit of publication and certificate of mailing. Even Meline and his associate Bennett G. Belden were present for this application. Lou and Marilyn Pegers of 3590 North Shore Drive were present for the public hearing. Mr. Meline commented that the foundation is still remaining because they felt by capping the foundation through the winter it may not shift as much. Also, this should eliminate water running into the foundation in the spring. Mr. Pegers congratulated the applicants on their achievement of tearing down the old house. He had no opposition at this point to the proposed house. Mr. Meline continued to explain that property to the west is currently owned by the Hennepin County Department of Tran sportion. He has tried for months to acquire this property or a portion of it. This is still pending. At this point there is no plan for a garage, which may be considered if additional land is acquired. Currently, owner would have to back out onto County Road 51, but there is a shoulder which extends out so as not to back directly out into a lane of traffic. Kelley suggested that should additional land be acquired, perhaps the garage could be located on the Pegers side, thus both properties would have a backup ana construct a 1/2 moon shaped drive at the end to eliminate backing onto County Road 5 X • It was moved by Chairman Callahan, seconded by Sime, to recommend to table application for a variance for Evan Meline until the Pebruary Planning Commission meeting until the applicant has the information he is waiting for. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. ilLLlAM WEAR YZATA BOULEVARD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:34-10:40 PM Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted publication and certificate of mailing. the affidavit of William Wear was present for this application. There was no one present from the public for the hearing. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD DECEMBER 16, 1985. PAGE 12 #1000 WILLIAM WEAR It was moved by Sime, seconded by Goetten, to recommend approval of a variance for William Wear for a 78 s.f. of additional signage for the Orono Shopping Center based on the following findings: 1. The location, height and size of sign will not impair the safety and welfare of the public. 2. The current zoning standards are not compatible with demands of shopping center use. Approval is based on the following conditions; 1. All exterior signage is to be restricted to areas approved by City - building signage and 2 directory signs. 2. All other independent signs in front island or landscape zone are to be removed. Temporary sign permits are required for the use of protable signs on property. Such signs must be stored inside when not in legal use. 3. Applicant to provide update landscape plan for 1986 spring season. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. #1001 CHARLES GARRITY 2701 KELLY AVENUE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 10:40-11:03 PM Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted publication and certificate of mailing. the affidavit of Charles Garrity was present. William Dunkley of 2709 Walters Port was present for the public hearing. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained the applicant needs an area variance, setback variance and hardcover variance. She noted that there is a gravel drive that enters off Kelly Avenue which is not shown on either survey, thus creating an existing excess of hardcover on the property. This gravel drive is already included in the calculations (38% proposed - 8% over). The blacktop coming in from Walters Port will be removed.