Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-21-1982 Planning Packet_ _ _ _^ w I ■,;- 1 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 PM MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1982 •t 1 F:i:; 4-^ Council Representative - Mary Butler Call to Order m:W 1* Call to order/roll ■ ^v., 'f . : ■■ -V- MLh-:y/z • • Public Hearing : .V^: I ■' ■ ' 2. 7:30 PM #686 Merrill Gibb, 3125 6 3135 Fox Street Subdivision Action Items 3.#654 DiCon, 155 Willow Drive South Preliminary Subdivision 4. #677 William cregory/David Duff, 1410 6 1420 Shoreline Drive Prelimini.ry Subdivision 5. #681 Doug DeMalignon, 1380 Arbor Street Variance €. #688 Jer<Nne Carlson, 2701 Kelly Avenue Variance 7. #689 Larry Langhans, 1374 Rest Point Road Variance 8. #691 Todd Robideau, 2794 Casco Point Road Variance Commercial Site Plan Review 9. #690 Erwin Martin, 3340 Shoreline Drive Site Plan Review Work Session 10. #685 Charles KrognesS, 185 Brown Road South Subdivision 11. #692 Douglas Aabel, 1580 Long Lake Boulevard Subdivision Information It 12. Planning Commission to select Planning Commission Representative to attend July 12, 1982, Council meeting. Appr oval of Minutes Approval of the Planning Commission minutes of May 17, 1982. i I *•* I —fe. VILLAOe OF 010N( fV luMt •'F • •• .»•• mm f m4t ti 1 » ■ • i ’w J j ■■ ■'rf ■■f \ . i # Planning Conmiasion Jeanna A. Mabusth June 15» 1982 w: c: * r ' ■ • *■ ■*> ■’■'■■' i V ' SUBJECT: «686 Merrill Gibbs, 3125 & 3135 Po Prelininary Subdivision Zoning District - LR*1A Public Hearing - 7:30 PN Application - subdivision - plat - 2 lots The Gibbs family proposes a subdivision of their 15-i> acre hOBMStead lot on Maxwell Bay. Septic testing will not be required based on the site of the proposed lots (excess 5 acres). Bach lot satifies the lot standards of the LR*1A soning district. The existing structures meet the required setback from the newly created lot line. The cottage on Lot A is 75* from the lakeshore lot but an old shed is approximately 30* from the lakeshore. There is a designated wetland at the southeast corner. The City will ask for 33* of right of way for Fox Street and an additional right of way, not noted on the survey, of ISH* to designate an old public cartway along the east lot line. The total public cartway is 2 rods in width and extends one rod width into the Parview properties to the east. Staff Recomnendation To approve the 2 lot plat of Merrill H. Gibbs finding that all standards of the LR*1A soning district have been met subject to the following conditions: 1 - Applicant execute a conservation and flowage easement with the City over, under and above the designated wetlands. 2 • a) Designate 33* of right of way for Pox Street. b) Designate 16.5* of right of way for public access way. 3 - Shed within lakeshore protected area is a non conforming structure and will be subject to all pertinent ordinances PaysMnt of park dedication fee in the amount of $200.00 $100.00 for each lot. •M m i:* 1 'W ■■CITY or onoNO 8U10XVX8Z0II Arr #38e mzim lOM FORM aUYU'JMK y j date rec'd PLXCAMT MaiM ^reee IT7/ (^riA PROPERTY 0HM8R8 . Telephone 4^73- '7^V.<r Telepho^^ ^t AJ. (Attach list of more than one)^^1 ^ *"- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -T PROPBikTY tOCATXOM /'r^‘A'v«4-. Legal Oeacription Hu^r/3/^ (PIO) 7JD 3 C?00 /r'l EXZ8TXN6 LAND V8E NuMber of Tax Percale Develofent 8iie 8treet Address 3/^^ V 3/3.^ /v^ SJi? y y /^ ■ I / Present Use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Net Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ f ' T i9...■ -St, . .:i Present foning Dist. ;fVP- lot line reerrangement only (no new building sites) subdivision for new building sites nuiiber of building sites: { existing units • e*wv -!»• iA • ‘?sr t • ■■■ y . .-■--a f' . or';r:W'«^ ;K%*.. *■ . -« ...—I '. 1^<>4 -‘4anr I JOU V ^ v^' ''V ■ it* f-' «>•''*‘ i tK ___ V. ! .r.;tfvs«f| f*r. S.v<l.iWflC®Cl t*.’- yii^. ‘ ^ .■ * ' ^15 , - -i V .. . ^ tMt-^esr*-4-- ■ ~'-*t «.. iii»$ * ^>*>♦• 4 ? ' «. - lit «'■■.. ^ • - r * •• !' ! '*^' •'• A«as»sv f • • • * • date rec*d »ee <«!'«■ :JSD. * ia4iA JALl phone 7 S“ phon^ ^7^ - 9^S'di A .Jt^. •#»:..«' Dry Lend Met Lend Totel, ell percels intlel{ no. of units (specify) V .. • A-i milding sites) I units : '‘i ^ . .c. V rt uf , . A »ti : ■ 'tAv<T r« '; • . fv,4 Si tf«»- . Vi-1-« >■»'’ Uea^ -r 'f-: ■; ,.'^'f’W. #38 »•• • CITY or OROHO jUbPivisioN arr^a»|rTi»i A pplicant Name Nailing Mf27BK Ijdate rec*6 Mailing ^ ---------------------- ui'Mi’K Telephone ^73 ~ '7<^'7sr ./O' PROPERTY LOCATION street *ddr... y ^ ^ Logal Description ^ (PID) •;•*. ♦. toSfi-':?«3^ EXISTING LAND USB NiMber of Tex Percels Developswnt size ..A-:, _ /V* • '■ ’,4 •'•••■• .- .•. Kt‘ L ^lii Present Use (checlc) Present Soning Diet. >f/P- // ^ Acres Dry Lend Acres Met Lend Acres Totelf ell percels Residentiel; no. of units Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ PROPOSAL lot line reerrengement only (no new building sites) b w nuMber of building sites: ( 1 proposed gross density miniaum lot size: proposed use: (checlc) existing units new units total units units per _acres square feet dry buildable lend residentiel other (specify) _ _ __ H t. cohpibtb smiatioHe«>Mtt«l 10 day. prior to riannino Co«ia..lon Metloo) Application cosplatad >*«lielnary Plat Inforaatlon on 4rtlficata of aurvay •* :lflad Proparty 0«mar*s list of 3. ^plicatioo fas per current fee schedulet sketch plan only 130.00 _ 2 lot prelim, plat 130.00 _ 3t lot pralia. plat 200.00 (aketch plan incluied) * $10/iot _ Additional inprovemant review fees per fee schedule $_ _ r date 'S'//9 - - - - - - - -—, 1_ _ _ _ Appli«‘^d'by d";; SICHATURE ^ ~ G/M^ the Zoning Administratrti-^^/^^f®'^^**® information required or reouesfA.4 k and Council necessaJJ^?^' Engineer, city Attorney, Planning co^?o**4^^ aU additional fee. W 4 S .HC 1233 PROPERTY OWNERS LI8T-^R6N0 OEPT OF PROPERTY TMMET A-MS OOVKmHKMT CENTER MINNEAROI.1% MR S64R7 I CCRTIRT TMRT THf PACTt NfRMtiUTtP OP TMIf CtRTiPICATt API All AeCttPATf AND TPUf PfWIt- UNTAtlOII or mrOOMATlOO At IT AOOIANt TMIt OATI ON TNi oteoooi or TNt NlNNtWN OOINITY riNANei OlVIOION. TO TNf OfOT Or MY ANO otuor. klOT Ollt FEE omen '^HN M. UMBU \ * , ft //I 0__iL ^ 9f- •? 'JiUDZ/m Qk/L A^ujaBue:^' TAX PAYER/ MALW6 ADDRESS 1 ilS^k ---------------- ^ 1 h/ArA9S!&//^ /t_^ =?/^>civS7~ ^A9f PqpJI0fJUMAT 7/ // ' // // •p^Ac/? ^^iWRgyTgMW/*;^ ^/>5y M ^ G/SSS NBt) THAae-tfr /CBvra 13A // ‘=^/2.<pai( sr ----gg 1 K // Z ■fT' 3 ?s / STiei^h //59F S/ Q^ORGe H ^2M-L£AF ST li 2d r » I c-» r 4Mv/ iinfaf Srtfim ^‘/t7-fi '.7^. w • ijtf /#686tra L ClfV OF ORAKin Vi..i C«rtifleat« of Survey for Merrill H. Gibbe of Lot 36, Auditor's Subdivision Me, 230 Hennepin County, Minnesota \ « % r.. -.V Proposed descriptions: A. The West 328 feet of Lot 36, Auditor's Subdivision Nuaber 230, Hennepin County, Minnesota, accordinf to the sap or plat thereof on fi.' j and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles of Heme pin County, Minnesota . B. Lot 36 except the west 326 feet thereof. Auditor's Subdivision Nuaber 230, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the asp or plat thereof on iile and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin Coun^, Minnesota . • A C I herefay certify that this is a true and correct representation of s survey of the boundaries of Lot Thirty-six (36), Auditor's Subdivision Nuaber 230, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the nap or plat thereof on llle and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles of Henneoin Coiuity, Minnesota, and the loca ­ tion of three existing bulliings and a tenriia cert thereon. It d^s not purport to show other improvements or encroachments Seale: 1" = 200' Dite : 5-26-82 o : Iron Barker 18 cc'Tt tnereon. it does not pur ■ Cordon R. Coffin Re|5^No, J : Land Surveyor and Planner Long Lake, Minnesota 6064 •*W ■I y b Planning Commiasion Jeanne A. Mabuath June 17, 1982 SUBJECT!#654 DiCon, 155 Willow Drive South - Preliminary Subdivision Soning District RR-IB Area - 53 acres Application - Subdivision (7 lot first stage) Complete subdivision planned for 41 lo Revisw - Planning Commission to act on preliminary s approval List of Exhibits Exhibit A - MCWD letter Exhibit B * Septic Memo ^xhibit C - Septic Map Exhibit D - Planning Commission minutes of Nov Exhibit E “ Revised plans sr 16, 1982 At the public hearing on November 16, 1982, the Planning Coonlssion tabled action on the preliminary subdivision for DiCon pending resolution of the grading and drainage question (need for conmlete review of total 53 acres) and the access location. A meeting was developer in which he agreed to order a ccsnplete grading and drainage plan for the residential subdivision and the City agreed to accept the proposed location (see final plat) of we plat road.given the culvert location at the intersection of Xon^iw Circle. Note the 166* distance between the two accesses Mets the minimum required 150* separation between rural accesses. drainage plans have been approved by the MCWD (Exhibit A) with the condition that temporary erosion control measles be taken during construction period. I will have a copy or the complete plans for your review at the meeting. The engineered plans for the road are adequate but the City will require the following! ' A ^ ^ extended from 24* to 30* width to include3 ditches on both sides of road. 2 - Paving of the 24* width road - to include temporary cul de sac• The City will require a temporary road and utilities easement over that portion of the cul de sac not included within the 50* wide road outlot. Similar to the one requested for the Ringerswood \ ' •*v.- ■ *■ ' ytmPtm w T : Tr-'-y r’, ■■'■•.•S.. Sir' •"'■"■■■ ■■*.: ^ >71 >• / iJ y > - V ■:.T‘V'. V. *n #654 DlCon lPag« 2 Subdivision In review of the preliminary plat plans* I have the following comments: The side setback areas have been incorrectly designated for Lots 1* 2* 3 and 4* Block 2* and should be 30* not 25*. The pond area should be designated as a drainage easements. The City will take a flowage and conservation easement over the pond area. Recommendation for Preliminary Plat Approval To approve the seven lot plat of Rolling Acres finding all lots meet the requirements of the RR-IB soning district and have been found to meet all standards of the Orono On-Site Septic Code for rural development. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1 - All newly created lots shall access from the plat road. 2 - A flowage and conservation easeawnt will be required over the pond area. 3 - Drainage and utilities easement over Outlet A and portions of land not included in Outlet A that involve the Temporary cul de sac. 4 - Maintenance Agreement - to assure shared maintenance repair of private road by abutting benefitted lots. 5 - Developers Agreement acceptable form of financial security if road* grading and retention pond is not completed by final plat approval. 6 - Plat road (first stage) to be paved - ditch areas to be . graveled. 7 - Pinal plans to designate pond area as drainage easwnents. 8 - Preliminary plans to be revised* designating correct side yard setback area for Lots 1* 2* 3 and 4* Block 2* prior to Council meeting. 8 “ Dedication of additional right of way for Willow Drive South* Watertown Road and Old Crystal Bay Road. V 10 - Payment of Park Fees in the amount of $1*200.00 (6 lots 8 $200.00). 11 - Naming plat road - City will submit a list of acceptable road names. lA* »•» I L k il, * :. . ; , ^ j ; o' i ii j ^ *.0. I m M7, Wayuia, HimiMota 5S3f | »•« M CWIWM. rm.* mm11. irjMa. mat. itaM • mmt ■ Permit Application No. b2-21 Applicant. May 24, 1962 Location: Dictc Coiiry 21390 Sxueloior Boulevard Bxcelaior, Minnesota 99331 J f $ Purpose: 40 lot residential subdiviaion on 93.34 acres. ^962 meetings of the Board of !S SuiwJIS ?S}b?Jaf‘““ «vieaed alontf with 1. application received March 3, 1962. «• urading aitd Drainage Plan prepared by Carl BoriC P E received May 10, 1962. ^ oorg, p.jj,. "“8® calculations and runoff summary prepared by Carl Borg, P.E. received May 12, 1962. ^ 4. Erosion Control Plan by Carl Borg received May 19, 1982. Th. Board approv«d th« peraU application with th. foUo.ln« condition. 1 .The erosion Control Plan will be revised to include the teSnJJfJi erosion control barrier downstream of*^thetemporary cul-de-sac during Phase I development. ta‘i“IIad2a^^Si'' “iJ" »*;•*•«» and oondltiona In thia paralt »•«“*?# o?n???;ot!on‘L^S” cSlpK?2'«uil„ JililSir iai illi tn!52" i"? ‘0 oo«anc.“i Sinspjg^or pay iaew^tha^ork in progress. > ■1 { f • t . • a V 7* tflchael A. Fan:^r, P.E — KUGENE A. HICEOK AND AaaOC. cc: bate of Issue Board G^^acoffiber P-<lty of Orono Carl horg, P.E exhibit Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Septic System Insicector June 14, 1982 _ W- SUBJBCT: «654 Dlcon, 155 Willow Drive South - Additional On-Site Testing I have reviewed the submitted soil and site ev«l*.*ation for the two lots on the north side of the road in Phase 1. Testing indicates average perc rates varying from 1 to 48 mpi, with high water tables (saturated zones) in all but the most northeasterly site. Mound systmns are applicable for all these sites, although the northern site for Lot 1, Block 1, could support a shallow trench system. O : X note that Lots 2, 3 emd 4 in Block 2, have been realigned. By superimposing the previous testing over the new lot lines, it is apparent that 2 of the 6 perc tests originally done on Lot 4 are now on Lot 3. Technically, additional testing should be done within the boundaries of the revised Lot 4. However, since the soils appear to be fairly consistent throughout the division, and since mounds will be used on all the lots, this minor additional testing is not critical and may be waived until a house is proposed for the site. vm-. 11^' I will reiterate that mounds should be placed on the most level sites within the tested areas; and that prior to road all drainfield sites should be staked off to eliminate or disturbance. construction I ■ • Hi’ ’-4 ' i*"'. mtir ^ • \ • MM r; at ■■ '»■' r. ♦■ V t: . •\ ■ ; .Hvl- ■V'’"'i^-V--'H ,'^H V T^ ' ♦ ^5', i-.- i ;-. ‘- i .IH^ -?C-/4-.vi-: k: A • • •' "S^v>*'" r’- * '•' •Ff:^ •• ■ >•' - ■%’g'; ‘i- ,:. % > •* ^ v> ^ ^ ^ • • •■• / Wl'J -fiSYO/iLLA, l.tA'AI. I>t*>( m|»TlnM H*m,«|.In County prop. «i ilw NW corner of t I n<-rlh line thrreof *i thence c«,t at right , **^^^'*'*^ th#nc* tfvsc “*« "''«•• I conttrlthereof thence w ‘St t »>*Klnning, Sect» >n 4 sx';:e'vr« .^;:.i«''!.":;iS:;.‘j *»cept roe,J,, Section • ' ‘-'ll ^------------ Pillifj; [^^f| ii' ”- -- '-^^^^IKL• ••/35S^. fWMO [EASEKIENTu-^ i cm AhKASz -^ipys^ I •'f l-.ikr Minn * • *'11C f < \i * ? V t, f Aa.. .Vv A*^w>giir.q’^g^y> .**•;"w r - ^ • MINUTES OP THE PLANHING COMMISSION MEETING OP NOVEMBER 16» 1981 Page 3 4 S&it iii >>V ■. y-,i •* yp ^ existing sewer line and , *m'rSS “teiS. ..«»ent. th.t • " ®" the plat of 10* on each side of the- *~*ting sewer and water inain locations. • " J end TOnservation easement over the paved area (Mow 93$ contour), culvert and ditch area. fci^Si that area must be creaSd• the filings of the easasMnt document. ' ~ n private driveway, ingress, egress and access A ^ favor of Lot 2. " ’ hardcover allowed within the 75* - a a*® ji*^??**®*^* setback area of Lot 1, thi"oJw <*®"® within 1 mnrn!!?nin I proposed futurexmprovMMnts of drivoway. (PLDHM CONT.l . V. ‘ Goetten seconded. Votet Ayes (7), Nays (0). ^plleant was present. MabwSth noted the certificate of **^^^ng y>d the affidavit of publication. No one was present from the audience for this application! Mbusth stated that the M.C.N.D. will require a drainaoe end grading plan for the entire developed 53 acres. ^ SffJTr** ,7® ^he planner to write a on the dasiJI acceptable standards for the ^®®aXoft of olaf iroAds Ami ^ __ _ __ DICON 2645 Watertown Rd Preliminary Subdivision •654 Public Hearing 8i04 - 8:05 PM .tl..- -7— t •v^«na«ras ror tne pSllS rMds!^ location for accesses on **• '‘ot ®«e why the lining upof the streets was so important. ^ ^ siJSifiSi!?.^^ J meeting with the developer has been aemsM^aS Pattern of roads and Pl2!IJ aI?*4.S•" drainage plan. The2U4.J5I ^9ineer will report on the outoosM SS£4m*!!k change the road two^Sdes!^ ^***^ would have lots abutted by roads on Adams seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0), Planning Commission Jeanne A. Nabusth June 16, 1982 K>‘, SUBJBCTt #677 William Gregory/David Duff, 1410 6 1420 Shoreline Subdivision 4- Variance Action on S^riance application and subdivision as proposed Variance — side setback for principal structure -- • *■>. i * a) Lot 2 - side yard setback required 30* proposed 20* variance 10* or 33% |jjj t? b) Lot 3 - side yard setback - attached garage to principal rr required 30* structure existing 50* - - -^ 15* variance 20* or 67% Ust of Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission minutes of April 19, 1982 Exhibit B - Notice to applicant Exhibit C ~ Gaffron septic review Exhibit D - Preliminary plans revised Nay 18, 1982 Eeview of Application The applicants request setback variwces for the Gregory's new home on Lot 2 and for an attached garage to the existing hosm on U>t 3. Applicants were advised that a detached garage could be located on the site without the need for a setback varlancei ^ Aktach the garage on the east side of the house was not considered because of the interior layout of the home. As for the new home on tet 2, it is staff's position that a house of the given sise could be placed on the lot meeting all zoning requirezwnts let alone an additional 10* for a side yard setback. 1 have stated the very same to Mr. Berg. Berg has been advised of the city's consistent position on such matters. The city has never approved a subdivision with setback variances for proposed structures on newly created lots. What the hardships 1 It would appear we are being asked to approve vvianoes as a convenience to the applicant and our ordinances will not permit this. The variance request must be denied on the basis of a lack of insufficient hardship — review Ordinance 32.340 to assist you in formulating your findings. If anyone wishes to approve, you may also use the same criteria listing. .•677 6r«9ory/Duff page 2 Subdivision ♦ Variance • ••^ mm ' ^ ►•A 1 . l ' V V ^ l'! .t art ?II?4 **** action on the variance ♦ subdivision ISh ■Mting. Please be aware that other issuesas right of way for Shoreline and vacation of Bracketts JJH not been resolved, staff has been advised that if M granted, there will be no subdivisionas proposed and so staff sees no further need to pursue this issue. CitJ®ilii*.2wiS ^ denied, theBvste^An fsi initiate repair of the existing failing JhTJ^eSSlS: council will be asked to determine Staff Becosswindation *b deny the revised plan dated Ma:* 18, 1982, of a 4 lot olat end nSI*s?.u»i^i2M°h ®**«®*y But* findins ““■fr^Si«is.“juroV:.v.Duff denial the City will require that DavidO^f make tte necessary septic repairs by __ _ _ _ _ _ _, 1982, such review to be reviewed the Septic Consultant of the City of 0r< *.c- • • , r , ' t v-r, : ■':• > V-.. Jr; : ■ .* . \>r'^ ; • r-:- ^ M • . v'*;* ■/ * * % V¥:^4 .V■;■ r . f'/ .4 T. : J J. . . '■ ■ ?:>■ :'r > V lit ^ A; ^'1 "ryj if :*••;. w* Vl... *% - -a.Vi, r .• . o.-io: ./Cw.^ ti.JtViiJ<;•;•. " - y>‘9 . .-■ ,vA<' • v' .- .O’ /■; .■■- V > i.'6 : ;•■■,■ ;.5f- ■ y =y-i^;y Pi'.- -, ur ^ J'ff .. . . ,? m • K>' EXHIBIT MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 19, 1982 A Page 2 Callahan moved to table the aoning amendment for suntanning studios subject to using more precise language and to eliadnating this use from the B*-4 district. ZONING AHENDMENT*’ (CONT.) Rovegno seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Larry Berg and Dick Hassel were present representing the applicants. No one was present from the audience for this application. Rovegno mentioned the fishing problem and that some how it should be controlled better. ILLIAM GREGORY/ DAVID DUFF 1410 Shoreline Subdivision #677 8:04 - 8:15 Public Hearing Berg wanted to address the right of way issue. He stated that the Duff property «rould have 58* of right of way but the Gregory property would have 66*. His intention is to close off and berm the area now used as parking by the fisherman. Opheim asked about the riparian rights for all four lots. Mabusth advised the Commission that the preliminary sub­ division application was incomplete because the required septic test information for the 4 lots has not been received. She advised that the applicamts had to resolve the right of way issue with the County. Hammerel os>ved to table the Gregory/Duff subdivision application pending receipt of con^lete septic testing for principal and alternate sites for all 4 lots in addition to septic design information for each proposed system and revised plans noting required setbacks for all existing structures. The applicants must resolve issue of Shoreline prior to preliminary approval of the subdivision by the City of Orono. ' V Kelley seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Olson noted the certification of mailing and the affidavit of publication. The following page is a list of people idio were present at the meeting for the Schlee Builders application. Russ Fierst, the developer, was also present. Olson sunnarized the Schlee proposal for the public concerning the type of housing, density, traffic, road improvements and sewer improvements. Most of the public comments concerned issues related to density and especially traffic problMis. SCHLEE BUILDERS 3660 Shoreline Dr Subdivision #671 8:15 - 9:00 Public Hearing Peter Niesen of 3533 Livingston Avenue wanted to know what physical alterations would be made resulting from this subdivision? Olson repeated the proposals for off-site improvements for sewer trunk and for widening of Blaine between Crystal Place and Shoreline. ITY ot imUiXM ConL 1 *•’ I No . __$.77----- . »£. Il> vwa.M.^p -1 Triip|*h*»nr 4#.i «-^*** Willian Gregory EXHiSl* 1410 Shoreline Drive * Naysata* MN 55391 _ _ Variauoo Conditional Use Permit X Subdivision, Preliminary 1 ^ • Onvld Duff1420 Shoreline Drive cc: Dick Haasel NOTICE OF PLMJNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Motlee 4-20-82 Date of Meeting _ Votes s •? - 4-19-82 Against Planning Oonimission recoimaenda the following: Approval: As submitted JS~v:i: befor. 0,«ncil - ________________ - additional infotnation from applicant - rlviaS by other., or further Plannin, Co«nl..lon study No action required aoTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS —Tho ffQiiowing infnruiAi. ——- W> nn«.t.t. the t. ... ....hdi'H.Inn reviem. II rnmnlefrt .p-p ..eh nrei- -- .v.tMi. ?l revlMd Hi ana nnflng.J lot widthf ffn4 yoeation o sites? 3) resolution of right of^ an^ ►*»• issue of Bracketts Avenue. septic for n Appllcanfs next .eheduled meeting i. confirmed a.: Planning Commission Council il Applicant-, next .eheduled meeting i. dependent “^" *•“**’* ~ June :i. mil — meeting. In all ea..., the application mu.t be continued with the .ubmittal of requested information within - - -- - - —reauestea intormacion wAviini- - -- - -— —- - -- .^i*.wJrjk*a#n« the City will consider the application as formally withdrawn. If the applicant has trouMc ontainin-j additional information, plea.e contact th« Zonii.g Av.-u-iisr rnt-.r. j;, 5 .1 j.:,: . .M! r*. * r •• • ♦ *•Hi. ' ■■vi: d: EXHlSiT TO: FRONt Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Septic System Inspector DATBt May 29, 1982 SUBJECTt #677 Gregory/Duff - Proposed Subdivision “ Septic Review I have reviewed the site evaluation report by Mark Gronberg dated May 18, 1982, and wish to make the following comments: Lot 1 “ Additional testing was done in the area east of the existing foundation «diere better soils were encountered in the previous testing* A satisfactory site for a standard (preferably shallow) trench system exists with average perc rate 45± a^i and slopes of 5 to 15%. Also, additional testing on flat (3% ^ slope) ground to the immediate south of the foundation encountered a high seasonal water table soil, that appears to have been scrai^ of topsoil. I concur with Gronbergs recomm that additional sandy loam topsoil be brought in and allowed to settle in order to make this site more acceptable for a future mound. ndation Note that testing northwest of the foundation indicated poor perc rates and slopes of about 15%, hence unsuited for septic systesui. The areas tested east and south of the foundation appear to be the only sites suited for drainfield on the lot; other locations appear too steep, too wet, or have poor perc rates. Care must be taken when locating a house that the acceptable drainfield sites are preserved. A pump will likely be required in the septic system since drainfield sites are at the high point of the lot. Lot 2 - Drainfield sites previously tested were acceptable, as long as house location does not encroach upon drainfields. Lot 3 ~ Has an existing house with an existing functional drainfield within 75* of the lake. Testing on this lot was for an alternate site. Testing in December encountered very poor perc rates on slopes of 15-20%, which was unacceptable. Testing further eastward in Nay found a site with better perc rates and not as steep, average perc rate ^5 mpi, slope about 3% in the tested area on a minor terrace. Gronberg indicates that some sandy loam fill %rould make this site more suitable for a mound system, and I would add that it should be placed on the most level ground within the tested area. Because of the steeper slopes uphill from the mound site, some diversionary drainage measures would need to be taken once the mound is constructed. ' V r'i', r ' #677 Gregory/Duff Page 2 Septic Systems Review *T* Lot 4 - Existing house has existing drainfield which extends into proposed Lot 3 and which is currently failing. Assuming that sewer is not made available to this lot, a new system is needed now. Based on the new primary and alternate sites tested, drainfield will be located only 50* from the well (Legal by state code, Orono code requires 75'). Location of existing septic tanks would necessitate a pump in the system, and condition of existing tanks is unknown. Although the soils appear capable of handling a septic system, I recommend that a detailed, scale site plan be submitted now, showing exact locations and design of proposed tanks and drainfield for this 4>S bedroom home. I am particularly concerned whether the necessary 1300-1600 sf or trench drainfield can be fit into the primary site. Also I'll note for the record that if a future well is drilled it should go west of the house, thereby increasing setback distances. Conclusion! Lot 1 - Satisfactory primary site, trench drainfield; satisfactory secondary site, mound, needs some sandy loam fill for futxire use. Lot 2 - Satisfactory primary and secondary sites, trench drainfield. Lot 3 - Existing primary system, secondary site is acceptable but may need some sandy loam fill for future use. *Note! for lots 1 and 3, the fill should be placed now; by the time these sites are needed, enough settling may have occurred to provide good sound sites.IT Lot 4 - Failing existing system; need very detailed design plans to show that replacement system can indeed be located on site. « * J <; ,. mmu »«- R-f Wwrf-HS. A A. A -W,. ''.•ASMseMSMSSiMmmvmeM.M • • » # ••rrtr _________-Ai a^'9* * t ■•> I f £/ • • f • c;”' • I r*. « i i I V -< '• •- ^ * / # ^✓. • *'V /. «p •!• \' J - .y-'fe>,/ / / » 'W*' '! i • P' ^ % ' / exhibit «:'s 1?:: 3 ^ s r'^ . % :w:m-It. TO:Planning Commission LIT FROM: Jaanne A. Mabusth DATE:June 14, 1982 SUBJECT: #681 Doug DeMalignon, 1380 Arbor Street - Variance List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C DeMalignon letter Gaffron Memo Planning Commission minutes of May 17, 1992 As the applicant has noted in his most recent letter. Exhibit A, *tAff was unable to locate drainfield in the yard area on the south. The plumbers have confirmed the existing septic system A* being totally within the front yard. The previous owners have informed DeMalignon that the septic system and well have functioned satisfactorily since 1976. Except for the pumping last fall, the City has no record of excessive pump outs since 1976. The septic consultant. Exhibit C, stands by his original recommendation as follows: as long as the expansion does not involve additional bedrooms or bathrooms suggesting more Intensive use of a substandard septic system, he sees no problem with approving the addition. . Planning Commission must address the more general issue of approving any form of structural expansion for an existing principal structure on a severely substandard lot. Area Review of Similar Applications: #645 Dorothy Porcier required ■ 2 acres existing » .41 acres variance ■ 1.59 or 751 #533 Steve Curren required - 2 acres existing « .33 acre variance > 1.67 or 78% #683 DeMalignon required - 2 acres existing - .13 acres variance ■ 1.87 acres or 93% Planning Commission approved the Curren application by limiting the structural expansion to 1 additional bedroom based on the limited septic area. In the approval of the Forcier application, the principal structure was limited to 3 bedrooms based on alternate and current septic site areas. The comprehensive plan has the Crystal Bay neighborhood for sewer service sometime within the next 5 to 10 years. ■. #683 Doug DeMalignon Pago 2 Variance Is there a point at which all structural expansion nust be curtailed on substandard sites with severely limited septic areas? Nust all expansion for sosie properties be restricted until served by sewer. If you are to make a recommendation of denial» you must make findings that will prove the proposal to be potentially detrimental to the public health* safety and welfare. If the application is to be approved* you may consider the following: Td approve an 8* x 30* addition involving expansion of an existing bedroom and livingroom to the principal structure at 1380 Arbor Street based on the following findings and hardships: 1 / 4 i' -’'ir . ' 5.’ 1 • Mo additional land available. 2 - Established residence for over 50 years. 3 - Expansion will create no additional demands on existing substandard septic system. ■j 4 - The proposed improvements will have no negative effect on the public health* safety and %relfare. approval is subject to the following conditions: A X - Existing drainfield must be staked and protected during construction. ■ 2* - Owner is placed on notice that based on the substandard .. lot area and inability to expand septic system* the City will not approve any future expansion of the principal structure. . i* ' - 4 A ^ ' / vr / •iT Ik A’ N»>rinni|iNNf; = ■ ■i I'H ^ :: V > “To, C^QA/O To ' \//{PiAAfCB »Jtf<?- Ar^or %c EXHIBIT /I .i 0 f* V i • A C^ A AA/n^MLo^thnnef ^fvcr»t^ lyunj-^tiu/^ />nct2*V«^ y^^MAX. AXh^AJL Aa**^ C^’9VC£/|/9«0 x/H C(^ ^V'XkAjLa/yujt /to axtcl ^ ^?v /3JtD- * (/) ^^£c djUL^9%^i.tx^ qa>*^ C^) jC^ ofU Adtiby^€ cOveu/nX^ujS^. A (Ut/C^ RtZM&rs, P.£u/rZSxM O/Hi^ A>€kA^ aaMtni^ .aA^^ dAtk%*^^tx^t^ 4jO CoTwyt^^L^ tOxXuimXi^ 4/K A^e»AAl< o/ngt axhJU yyu^> a/i€G/lJxxji xatiZA. ^A^iys. aAm (0/7U. <J^ x Aa ynoxX/9>\ c^a^^rrut OU^ Ao ALx USA^ QAA^ x?»tt A.amAmJL yCAM. X4n»0 Ct&2o Ajur\x/ji/LoZ<i^>t^ x/iaXx/vtX/. a. 9«jj^ <w o4»o oAeAue jdU ^m»aA aatUK a. /y^o^ on\J C««<^ ^'rvefJU^ .^Aa I (/ o<xte CcJUUA >^4c ^DaM^txmo /Qo ^TZc. oy>*3^>rv.^ ^ /^Ax, dAxk^*^'H^ AAJUjO /o^y9^ixA^ .^ahA /Amx C k . /nTVXvxXA ^Amau XAj-txjt A^x/cx^^i^ Ow Co qaXchA .xa^xaa>x ^ ^2o .x^'Tva^Cix-CC ' ------ dt/uuAA^tCt€f, OL t [b ft' i I _____ A/rjoXajUi§^ * CdU^ JUji AAJ^ i^JtAAH/^ .JL i^^atrmio o fiXcfMJ %AA/f£i ^C. ^ eru >1^ xatm T*^ xAa^ «Xao ajlt 9x /u^ cu)l£A^uiZr£j AAfm^ .A^ir^^I%JDkjt£A^* /^76. ^ cuM^ t^^CaXc, 4jtt ^St> ^ Xi/VtA#^ Cj$'7t^U*^\. . ^ JlciA^ nf^kuioZi ^ CL Aot^ -^t-^rrv /fe Jt0^ q/ia X. MtM A^aa L. a X ^tl <L “^CA^ cttLyo , X^4, ^ xfi^tcr o<A4 jl^^au ^ jb^ cc /^€um>t^ oK ^i^tJUL 4^lAm\ ct^^ftr ^urncttf^ 4aa A c 4aj ^c K yCMiiXM ^ i^C dMtm^XAA^ ftA'/'TK^dUX^ ma 9%Jl oA^^/^f^Ao (f^ CL /fCUiur Ji^A>%A. a A aaa L. A/^JtfUMAPC€^ ytCo ,fHA’^€tAHA9 AATtftA. ^CtiA A m<M ckl ^J^OSWn - Qjgy^lkzX^^nvL JUaa >^^mXfj jU XA maa , «>te o*'»^ ^>uaT44 ^ ^ AA/i&i tAlUjtdt eALAAAL ^AimJt AlAtAyL rr\, AoAAUA^jp jtSi <Kc^ AJLfXo QAj^uJit ,^aa^ a^ <X /O-Ue ^^>U> /r>#w; hAWtA^ M. AMKmML Xf XUf^ >04^j^ ciW Xx^^dAMAA»A/9 Aisio xXa £aa ^a ^ .4'dt'uts^ C ^ x X aa CinMA^ XX mojl jCua ^ .vrto. Jj( JUa ^ cat ^ A ua ZA j^ jf^lCAAA, 0€Ut ^ ^7Sv O^F'V ^ ■’-fi ■ .-A "5^ NINUTOS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 17, 1982 Page 4 |TYi‘'n»T _P.- 2 ** An occupancy permit will not be issued until the CHURCH (CONT) building is connected to sewer. 3 -Location of parking area should be moved and also paved. 4 -Drainage information designated on site plan for staff review prior to Council action. 5 -Traffic flow and signage to be designated on site plan prior to Council action. 6 -Covmcil should consider formal request of applicant to connect to City sewer. 7 -Applicants to follow any further suggestions of City Engineer. 8 -Landscaping to conform with City ordinances and staff recommendation. Rammerel seconded. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (0). Doug DeNalignon was present. Philip Kaley of 1395 South Brown Road was also present for this application. Mabusth stated that she had t%ro phone calls from surrounding property ovmers and they were all in favor of the variance. DOUG DEI4ALIGNON 1380 Arbor Street Variance *681 Rovegno asked If there were no requirements for rural areas on hardcover? He also noted that there was a vacant lot next door. Mabusth stated that the ordinance does not require hardcover consideration for rural areas. Mr. Kaley asked the applicant how he was going to get a well truck down to the back of the property because it would be difficult to get any kind of trucks do%m there. He noted that the dralnfield covers the whole front of the lot and then turns the corner. Mabusth noted that Gaffron*s report reported it as being located only in the front yard and that the driveway was very close to the septic tank. Mabusth added that a well rig could never get back to the existing house. Jacobs noted that last fall he. remembers going out on an inspection where that septic tank was backing up and that the contractors Mere looking for the tanks. He noted that they did find them and pumped them but that they still might have problems with the septic especially if the house has not been lived in all winter since pumped last. Hasnerel asked Jacobs if the dralnfield %#ould possibly freeze? Jacobs stated that that was possible but the real issue was that no one has lived in the house since it was pumped. ■ • - . KM. *• al '' . t--m'exhibit — Jeanne A. Mabusth* Sonlng Administrator Michael P. Gaffron* Septic System Inspector June 7, 1982 r -* f. SUBJECT: #681 Ooug DeNalignon, 1380 Arbor Street Variance I In light of the recent confirmation by B.J. Peterson Company that no drainfield can be found on the south side of the house, wy previous msmo of May 13, 1982, still stands. ,< I » , - k ‘ =i i»e^' > Vw ■i ,B •t ' . V . .. $emi' ' •/. /- • ••A. A ' -'S'-'. :*■ *: ‘ . *■ ■ .... ‘ 1 f , • -•• • •• . ., 4 >5 • V' 9^^ . ♦V5k.»>:j ,,, - .V- -‘i iv,^.i’v.-K^ .>'/Ki-V »• <# - \ i'^v ? t i . ■ ,. MS' ■% •-, *4 TV %'4 • •, f. , k ‘ - 1 ' T- . ’> *VSr^ ■• TV A , rfi lA fe:;►U; • ‘ V S' V :.l ;- • v*-** ' 1 V 1^. :•■•::■■ •■v.vV V' Jr;, - ■' ■' V-; h ■■ • ■ ■■ ■ ■ > ■ — ■fVl*. ^ ' ; ... r I t . ■< r V'S* -i^sii^ssaac*.,*. > T- ..*'*«A Jir • 4^ tlBIT Lstrator M Znspactor r stTMt K3' ■•II - tr^,1«.- • l| V.' J. P« tar son n the south f 13, 1982, r- 4 v; ^*- 'M:..mi • 'V'„ IFi 5 ^ , - '*i'\-r.' ■■"■* V ■! v-i^ ■i^m t. . .'A 'Mm\ '-^Wrl ** . X'-^Jt.l^S a • •r*. UID Otl PUMIXII6 unm VAUAMCI AFP1,IG8TI0K r.s. Bn ftm Nts *1 Chs* mr HtM}, M S$Ut^^S-7S$f »lm turn 1 . IS . . IXHIBIT 1 #688 K''- it. 1. PSOFIKTy Al Ut»l iiwl»>to 2. AFPLXCANT . 27Q1 K^lv Avsnue, Excelalor • «■ atMiM SwMf, SSOkU S 55331 473-8662 r>. ISIttat MiTM* 170 Smi^h Svo nua. Wavgata I» U MC MW. «»Uto eontrant purehaMr • V- 3. (WMBR Sw. Arthur p. B114 Sitttat BSitm 2701 Ksllv Avnua Fropsrty Acqtslrsd -------------------- I (iv) (do not) also owi othor sdjaesnt paresis of land ■>_ .Julian Hook w. 920-3104AGBIT mv at Law MUm s. Mmcu 3601 Park Cantor Blvd.. st. Louis A. FUSEMT ZOMZMO Wl DlSTtlCT _ 7. FRESEMT U8I (m> Park, Minn. 55416 - -JL.4tM _ R-1 LIST OF EXHIBITS ^riwiM*****” 1 kL AfplicatlM ran 2 hropartf OMnori Lite ) Cartificaea of Survojr rn loaotpc 0bco_ iocaivo^ ^ ^ f .\d n\ Itoff fafotneioa rue itop _ Utvaotory tCRlBB UQUBST .WMBtttkM.M . 4-. tserlba roquost In datail: location and build new house on property. ESTIMATED COHSTRUCTIOM COST $ 175.000 wtottat «•• __ k«tM MV . M ^ nil >il PAmr>t/o hrmviji frfHlLClItI£IlJL--, t/ •'M rroiiK •Ifo pmi-' 10. Osscriba UmUAL FROPERTT OONDITIONS ^^f2^aw£S2LHdLJSS2i^^S£SSK3U2fillSdLA^L^UjL]i^JD&l[|^h&H8&JlJ^illfiU^^^BCAADfift 11. De*crlba UNDUE HARDSHIP or PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ■m«i Mil r.|»utt<m. Strict enforcement of zoning regulations would prohibit now O^Pcrlba EFFECT OF FBOFOSED WORK m—,^_ _^ _ .u .aiolnln, p^p.7; .. 2^*o_AFFUCAlfT%0M8mr omiisis m**. jOHM oust Sign and data this application. •M», HMW 3 M iBto VW] ^w arssi., S5s2.-?s.%s ItliMftM ‘•j,- ''t. i ri: HC 1233 PROPERTY OWNERS US" OEPT OF PROPERTY TAXAT A-EOl aOVCRmiCNT CCNTCR MIRRCAPOLI^ MR M4E7 tl§T till I CCNTIPY THAT TMC MCTt MMISIHTM OH THI» CCHTiriCATC AM AN ACCUNATC AHO TAM Nf AM-' tCNTATION Of MfOOMATlOH At «T AMtAOt TMIf OATt ON TM OtOOHOt Of TMt HtHMfM eO«m fMANOI OlVItlON. TO TNt OttT Of NT KNONUCOOt ANO OCUff. tfM 00. OtfT. _____ OATI FEE OWNER TAX PAYER/T MAN.IN6 ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS 7//::gygj.A I 4-^liMf/ •L2ai-Ak&!L:c 7,"7J4> ^ " KtdSbui^lL. JiiAi W'T yr-Tj • ry y ^2ih.£BdU.jSkL 2.7^/ • 2202 •L/fiJaff /£^i^_____ ------------it 2i^ jUfjJk y/A ifZdiMtu Z ^A/it____t7/r f^£Ui/}y^ Kmvtm i( iticirK ____iSsdtL )A^rw/ '7^k^0^x^ i/>. t/7- ■Z.9-(^ lirai«iTMii;w;iiii •^99 c^4^t vr.4^ ^47 0^49 ! V* • ■ : \f . t45Vv'^::-^, >* C>'r?i‘Ir.'.tr cl* Uvn-y /> !>-r .'.. J:rr:-.’ *.;’l c- of i,o: 1, ■ .r;r.< .', V .t‘r--..r • ri v^» f * .......• . «-**•’ :*i , -V yV . f.fry , ,.1^*^ V ■■ ■#>: -kP"-" 1^; •"^jA r- ' .. •, : y ^ ■c':vf • - I -.or^^’V rertlfy truit trir ;. ^ tr** ? .r.d r'^rr •'•t VC • »r ‘* '■ •ft* V-i t, 1 or. o f* .• ur' •.*;• on 4*4*0t th ^ io’ijri: ries c: 1, . UrK i’, W-llort-.'^orl, t .j -^il . <# -•*, exlfiti^r; :u;i^l'.i*: *v ro^r , *r*. t r.e ^ro- 3 • W' "o/f-c Icc'.*.i‘*!ri ■? i :.r'-C.. )'- Lu;lv^ln». I‘- ,■**■ dc's not T’lr ;'rt t- show ..T. :r S-.-mvor/jr’-R cr t >f. enr: 'icri::i?:.t: . Jrf.lj; 1" = 40* Ui*'-* : oCTw-or K. vCtlir. *v */Jr • - -^4 or 'ird ^x. tjt ;r: - * xx'f. v »»I* >.< it .*'! rv't^V * liaL^ > V* . T*^ r' I I i •iift-iBS G 8 8 ■i'J?- I •A ) w , ‘NC>?J •'•.■*/ /««; i2L. 7 ■ / / 74 ^ / i- V t j r.•u -.♦u rc-s=^i^- hui —jJ JC' ^A a >'./ \> •'/ w Port of R> LxMOI ^ (lO »i- V ■» - ■V' • V' I ^ 4ii:Va '^ywooD-:i. > • 4g«s.I MU I } Z!1 2 A / /! .V B /I llO t'4*/e ‘4t « I ► •> Port of Lotto (i») 1 [2T^ fcttNi-..-:'-•'i II CITV OF ORONO 1 WANCES required i»and use punning ZONING VARIANCE INVENTORY EXHIBIT 5 Zoning Use District - CCOC fICTIflM ! ! i: STBACKS r*«t |r»Mk| lUEiegBjBatua — VAHIItfCT AO ‘ coot iicno^ n Fu /fco* »>•VER tor Aim jaa. a.r. KMma HAADCOmi a.f. .. * >* rt.oo ► n rta •* ^ 5 MB i#l Sn/iy m - /a j iitffly >so rt. MO rt.J S oo 1000 rt.SM oiitTaaa Jt g»t ctgrjff 31. «n M.Ma M.301 M.3M (HER SECTIONS tUim9 ■•MUk iMikl M.Ml 2BS£gutL lUBfiL UND kWMlAaauWi aCiacMit iMa^feala |«| •aparat* »>«» fi *•1 alM/alMpai munift m Mf*l« ayatw iat Jr __•Mcwtalataat wttk nal •••»---------**<M«y/ikat« ^ ailMr yaraaU mmt to Uto afylicatto. ~ ***** ------aoUtof ktua UNO USE - '**** city Mata* •alattof cwifati^r • Prlvato •aalUMa •alatlap •■Bjaa* tot ta _____ vacaat i/ BMTIM LM» nt eDap»a« », ___ *«41tleaal i(eaatoy aaa TRUCTURES auTjM MrauM •flclaaa4aai ly vatu aaatoy ya,t, tottoalir am •4i! — ■Sis'iirijr*t n AXES & ASSESI :^:t M Jj *. .r ^''-v • •-"• •• • .i • ■ t. ■ ^ totally -:-"A6 t- A ♦ _ ■ • ■■ f' , • • "‘kt* ♦»■ • exhibit 6 P«S« 1 , ■" I ..• ■•■ • ■ ■• !rV 5 .■ i A/. Htx 'i ■•'iJ ::r.:;; mm ^ J jjB* ’ >4» . ... mm tey-'-C? ■ ■-.■ land use planning staff comments & recommendations Page 2 . V ■ ■, >.. N V, SUGGESTED FINOINGS . / ”** C«ll«l|iaiM DMlvi.. .. •■.irsttnrjx-rrs™^^^^^ Th« roniltloiia i 1 • r '■' *. •«b.t.„*|.i ,, thi wMcSSu district in “"“ ”"“*■»•■“ ^-....i-«. „. ■”*■* ~ •'“■ -»*•.»»-, ». ^ 2^.sr:js„" “• •-•«. -y i^u u. ^ M-v ejsrs* ““■—*• •«•"•» ».■» i..« « ^ —-'•— --------- u. .w .„».« ^ ^ t. .umSI ~ Jlmiyuin, V •• «- WWIe».. k.< ■• - r.:s2rr ------------------------- SI 'f'- H ' ‘1 V .••v:^ ?' • V, •>.JV SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ■y IK: 1. ^ A. „ [r:.., :■■'/ ■mmm: .: : >L :h \ M : .>-«5f "■■’ ' \.'“rr < F-v». TO: m Walter R. Benson ,t-^--^r-- f ^ FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth DATE:June 15, 1982 / m ■* # SUBJECT: #689 Larry Langhans, 1366 Rest Point Road - Variance Zoning District - LR-IB Application - Lot Area and Lot Width Lot Area required > 43,560 of existing ■ 27,271 sf variance « 16,289 sf or 37% Lot Width required « 140* existing (street-access) variance - 11.1* or 81 128s9': r v« ,!>, 4i ■. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit B Application Property Owners List Plat Map Survey Survey of Surrounding Neighborhood Langhans request approval of a lot area and lot width variance application to allow the sale of two independent parcels as one buildable site. The subject property consists of a vacated alley (80* x 6.2') combined with all of Lot 14 and a portion of Lot 13. In review of the plat map (Exhibit E) in which I designated by number the surrounding homestead lots, you can see that the subject lot (#6) is consistent in sise and greater in area than many of those surrounding lots. The Langhans family o«ms lakeshore properties on the south side Rest Point Road (see exhibits 0 & E). There are no other vacant lands available that abutt the subject property. Access to the site will be via Rest Point Lane. There are no physical problems to the land that %rould prevent locating a house that %iould meet all setback requirements of the soning district. Staff recommends approval of the application as follows: To approve the lot area and lot width variance application of Larry Langhans based on the- following findings and hardships: 1 - No adjacent vacant lands available. 2 - Properties platted prior to existing coning. " ti.-. 1 >«nrWiek5MI t #689 Larry Langhans ^ page 2 « Variance m ^ •pp««*“» consistent with theresidential developaent of the surrounding neighborhood. 4 - The property has been asse is available.led for 1 sewer unit and sewer t- ft .4. ii] -.jsr'.y- V,' V * * S2i£'T;i:ssi"L?itrL,r:sj:j,r “‘ and subject to the following conditions: ' ■ “*tsrs-is •"“ ““ ““ 2 - Access to the site will be via Rest Point Lane - the access location Bust be approved by the Public Works Coordinator. 3 - OevelopMnt of the site will be United to the hardcover 3S thS^TS^^aSot^LiSl P>foP«^fty is located within^ w»”f’”2u^isr ’27 “n :“r"" ”• ««•* * " iJ •^'“cture remains it must be converted to storage diltriSt*? permitted in residential * ■ ®£,* Permit, the o<m.r nut ■subnit proof of combination of Lot 14 with Part of Lot 13. 6 - Payment of the following fees with building permit: SAC - 425.00 Plant Charge - 225.00 $#50.00 Sewer assessment already paid. 4 '".i ■ J-'' w-* <%*' -j I 4- : i ■ • r. or. V I i: : h' i ';V< . '1^vV. '3 • V'.> 4.- V ■ ; . ^ 1 ir : ,i[ I'liJin. iiiii*wfam: J Vi * .7 7 ^ ^ I-^ .5 distent with th« wing neighborhood. unit and aai#ar ot endanger the 0^- -V'^ ■ ■t meet the aetbacks i f Wort2*Coo^dinJtS!" .-t the hardcover i» located within hardcover or 6818 mt 7.i*»2ii3v'*4 .i., ..W*^ i. . ■' the owner must th Part of Lot 13.i Jj *•* .* • •.. ; in® permit:if .- ..i\ ^'C , r r t vj T T., *v;« # f i . v-^ iJJ5 w* PumniiG VAMAIICE APPLIGATZON tArtiwl iiBir cm or oMM> >«•»g* I5W ^V-.?* hrtotl. It #689 I. MtMk uttm i»wi i - u LIST OP EXHIBITS reOPERTY ADDRESS tMOTiptiMi tlMU b» applicant ^ ^1- *** in ^ “ *• «« -i-r. «,uf 3. ieua« 4.AGENT ^ AwllMCtM roni * JsL fnpmtf Ormt* Ltae ^ of Survvjf .i^:: r«« aw«i^ »/jlVW ®»t* >«e«ivo4 4-V toff U>V.^ylm * __ toe Hi^ Otack/TMv) P**^cel8 of landl • __ totf -*>!■ ff ' toii^ S. NOnCES toiot !• mm 4. PRESENT Z0NIN6 USE DISTKICT ^ PRESENT USE \ r describe request «. MlMIlik^aa* «• ^ MMtaM w Otierlb. r#qiM(t In dauil; --- toiiM«t toMliic(o)___ ml estimated OOHSTMICTIOinoS?m MtoetM M* II 9. VARUNCE(S) RBQUIMD ■^x ^ s cv»;^^^ ±*^/4 tiH' •u*tor) OdMr 10. Oeterlbe UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS f/r» :li c'Lr> 11. scribe (INDUE HARDSHIP or PRACnCAL DIFFICULTY ^<jy «r •Mm ■L ? «•ilii V Deaeribe EFFECT proposed ipplUNtUn. ^r*T!ITi ^ In r^i^ fwrtlMr ^iUntIene ••»••• to diU opoHc2i2rM^*S!! ctt, .uff.TSSLirrr!^?.-*^ r«» toM CM tot «f to to*Ito.s -tow ***“■ «««lM MMto. varlftoclM « /I •PpHMtiM I •* toMctai^to to ture -4:* CTDAIH . lat^ef HC‘1233 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST MPMITMtirr OP PINANCE A-OOS aOVERNMCNT CENTIR IUIIMEAPOLI% MR 69407 LIST tit I I CIRTirt TMKT TNC rACTt NCrMtlMTfO OM TNIS CMTiriCATI AM AN AOCUNATI AND TRUI MAM- •INTATIOM Of NtfONMATION At IT AfMAOt TNIt OATf ON TM MOONOt Of TNt MNMfIN OOUHTY fMANM OlVItlON, TO TNf MtT Of MT NNOVLtOOI ANO OtUff. NIHHifM 00. fWAHOf OlVItlON OATf. FEE OWNER TAX PAYER/ MALIN6 ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS 07- //7- - //7 - - /! Awtr^^AAy \ A S±Ji£, 4i/ai - //Ag^ /< «# 03M-(r^3^ 0037 ^i£j£a££l^JSl /379-tr o*.ff 43no/r fSaaoti \ .SfrusL C Muic^ SoOMxrisaiS^Jf0ff700 49>5CN ’ 03BUZ.(2C!eZ SEC. 12, r i! 7_ /II- %s -*»- oo*t % K IV 1% EXHIBIT #689 / 4 '“'C 2-£ W A'K-mm^ * > ; ‘ . 1 Ri>; ■:^Sg ■ ;..•••- a; i.. ;.v ,aoLi, :r>/ »ki tt*< .w ■■ r TO: FROM: Planning Cononlsslon Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator DATS:June 15, 1982 SUBJECT: *691 Todd Robideau, 2794 Casco Point Road - Variance £ Zoning District - LR-IC Application - Ordinance 38.201 - Side and rear setback for detached garage a) Side Yard Setback required ■ 10* existing ■ 3* proposed ■ 3 * variance ■ 7* or 70% 4^' 4. Rear Yard Setback required ■ 10* existing • 4' proposed ■ 6' variance ■ 4* or 40% List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Application Property Owners List Plat Nap Survey Proposed building Letter from neighbor T Review of Hardcover (property located within 250*-500* setback area) Total Lot area > 11,440 sf Hardcover allowed ■ 3432 sf or 30% Proposed hardcover • 324 sf house ■ garage ■ paved drive turnaround" 1040 sf 528 sf 1680 sf 3248 sf The applicant requests setback variances to rebuild a two car garage (24 x 22) in place of the existing single car -f car port structure. There is a negligable increase in hardcover produced by the proposed structure over the existing. The rear setback is Improved with new location. Staff will ask that both the side and rear walls of the new structure be fire walls. The location of the accessory structures on the abutting properties will necessitate this special construction. v'f e The applicant has received approval from neighbors on both sides - note not the property oimer to the rear but then the encroaohswnt is improved by 2*. 1 #691 Todd Robideau page 2 Variance Staff Recooimendation To approve the rear and side yard setback variances requested by Todd Robideau to permit construction of a 24' x 22' garage subject to the following conditionst W . . • >A • r-jt *4 <7,iS'>3 Q0 Applicant apply for a demolition permit to tear down original structure at time he applies for building permit. Fire walls must be constructed for rear and side (south) walls of garage. # . ^ 41^ ■£-4y>A '.'y-r »v. V fc: ■: m:m 5 7'^ 'i\TiBWHipKT 1 mi-:. .-tiwjtrr iti!i747v ’7' . u 4 T- iaVO-T^rr. y\' J: ' ■;.••■!' "• •:•' iS»: i.. 'iiii : v-:v 77;:-■■:<•■* .: • ■ •- -V .y w ,v7 -MW ___J RWm UND USE PXANNING ZONING VARUNCE APPLICATION EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF ORONO r.o. tm M. onrM«i i^r. mi • SM2I #691 TaiiCTioii ! riMM fir»t Ciyp# Mr frlaO. If tolMWElMi Cm^lM Itm 1 • II • NlMll l«Ct«V tr •IlMf tllfMMElMI t# ^EE«f iMltlH# ViU ME m%99pU4» LIST OFaEXHIBITS EXH BIT t £ 1—rt^tloM i. 2. PROPERTY ADDRESS Tascq P|. R c I U^l alMU k* alMMi •• mcmM ■wtvty, Mitblt > APPLICANT ta If AfplUMit !• ME MipUia 5*5 ^^1 OWNER HMt T^r4^t itoiiii^ nyrtts P4 j l/OAc|*^,i\iow, TVI imp) Dste Property Acquired __ Otatii/Yaaf) 1 (do) Cdo notl also own other adjacent parcela of land laiEial A— MME ifietit4a! ApplieatlMi Fora %/’ Frapttfy Oniiari LIPE CartiflcEEP pf Syfvpp fpp ipppipE IPEP Ppcpivp^ ^ 7 ** ^9 AGENT ftwm 5. NOTICES to 6. 7. i. PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT _ PRESENT USE to.i4»«to» JL <o»to») VMMt UM t tolMtMt(s)toMMto toU41«g(a) lU^ DESCRIBE REQUEST _ ppEP^liPli mm mm _ pppeU wip pc Describe request In detail: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ ^900. ^0 wuttoa «M _ kwiu Mt _ *44 M _ nw4*l V t?e.plArtf 1^4 f>«c^ r\\A Qjv.ft.flLQS Q. kj<^ s.-'^ »»f •■•♦15 t** •4 ^ ; ■% V ’" ♦»• • 1 s; 1 \ s •> ■■ • .*» ' Skr* ;n • ' «»*♦*»« • • j 4»ve' • > r*' <id .-i ASl #4<t|!«.S ■'♦•‘•v » •:;; ?r:.: £«;,:T?rrT?^ t>- . : I. ■. •: J ‘, J^kMl Of HI to V.......—.. ■»*«■■—■ ^ * ■■ . . ■4»'4A<5lS(N*» :.-lliPi^ EXHIBIT 1 1 LIST OFaEXHIBITS EXH fs ilf t iusttasim ^ Ap^lteaeton r«t« t Omgtg U«t I CartlflMC* mt Survey fgg rm «ih BiC* McelveB^ -7"^m. > of land Staff ■I II I • I CITY tllCTION COST $ ^^DO,Ot •*M .a«a. .raaatel V, itaTa ^«C<» Csl * * •.. .»*'* isii ■ ■ - v.a if f .'''- *•!■’• 'yesaaaBKam,.^. ■ ••,; Tr^-r ' rr^ TTf^ vAS fi If' ' i)- # •fi ,.v land use planning ZOmilG VARIANCE APPLICATION HIBIT 1 > - .• CITY OF ORONO ta 5sm 4y>-yi57 igrjigjr em. -----------.'#691 PROPERTY AIN>R£SS r a< u^± nnhiHrn'l «— Mti.c>/,uU list OFa EXHIBITS "’"•'“*~-Ayn cnv.. w.fci (>v..,,„4. /VI- M SwUaaM fa aac aaaar. aaplata ____ 3'»< 3.^'^ER h,^ -iT^flcl—Wiaaa HTI 0«te Property Acouired i • pn'l"- , X (do) (^ luo oo^TTiher adjacent ^TrteT0;;:^! *' I si: NOTICES »aaM ka ..M tai ti^Ugsmt PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT ____ X K Attttlfltw ^ Afplteattaa Fora ^ * X rnpggtr aaiata Llac ( ^ Cartfftcaca af Survey ^ r#a Bacetpc %J^¥6/\ Bita BaeatvaB ^- 7 “ J5?f •f^CintC " Aj ^gtO ff lWfiB|^H^ ♦ _ ruE Mi^ ^ ___ InwonEory Mts gEtir Iifot—ti^ f ___ • ____ ______________ f ___ tP PRESENT USE (OtlMr) rH'- It krtlBlaafa) BMaplaB ButlBfag(a) Af ilLreiUiMnir^' ^nsn CITY il! P^IP MV OM MDeacrlbe requeat In detail: ^ * “ —^ r*Blaaa ^gg.faaft.4 if. . 9.VARIANCE(S) REQUIRED .. s. «b. ,a^.,.B «,a , ftaat site Baar) Otkar Lve A im Ut PlAEli iotPooli 10. Describe UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS “• "WH* lURosRiP or mcTicAL oirricum ragulaclaaa atrtat aat« 12. DMcrlb. tFFBCT OF PROPOSED HOW •■ MfahbnkaaB '|? XTie applicant and the PROPERTY nuMPD ^ -aalU- I. en- .af «,re.et X» V>iOwU gQat»jH 'M* appUcrlon.0V#€( .HC 1233 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST DEPT OF PROPERTY TAXATION A-iOS OOVCAI*MeNT CENTCR MINNCAFOLISb MN 094E7 LIST Slit / - C^/^pm exhibit ---^ I CMTirv THAT TNC PACTS ACPRCSCHTCO ON TMS CCRTIPICATI AM AN ACCUNATC AND TIIttt NfPM- MHTATION Of INfOOMATION AS IT AMIAIIO THIO^ ■ OATS ON TNC NCCONOS Of TNC NCHNCfIN COUNTY flNANCC DIVISION. TO TNC DCST Of MV KNOMkCOOC ANO iCUCf. NCNNCfM 00. DCPT. Of fROfCNW TACAtl OATD f fROfCRTV .rm FEE OWNER TAX PAYER/ MAR.IN6 ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS wmww w ^ ^ ^ ___________________ ^i^A/ a. emf Toon ff Po/?/r>eai/ti u ft *' wd'T f^s^/ c:a/^ /6> // AjiMevfl Hui/refi um^eA/f> o/^A/g'z^ffnvm? « fr tt ^9, r» ff^rn0yimi*t» "39/ iA SA/U£ S’u/ffA/snji/ EUl/AfF. T Z?Z S/iAf 5 Ajr£ SAfOE SA/n£ .eJ-’T purwfffn IfiLB 0. (*Mg9iSTsgu<eA/4yytfiff IHCMRS E.ffiJiF/trJwiFe PEA*/ U &^MMlJ£71K. SAin£. '/> y. AP^fg90/t^M^M-. T- ymwAf- CMsp 4¥£-u§fgMifngaan SArUB SAAflE. SAm£ fAlA/AM 1 iTom/SOU fes^o ^bOEiiTrtMneujJ-iii/tKe 3tte » ^fbtC-FM£f/iigr»OfaL^ €oA£A itE/eonnsiru^ tf tt n r ffhHtis A yt/fgyrtrm. S/f/n£ S/}ai£ SAM. 'Mm 7L ^/MAiiakLM-f-TAlM SAM SAmE M. /¥ JE" Ik. >7 ill /? a. QL_ oE oi iL lE MT TNC MOTS mraitCNTEO ON THI» MC 4M ACCURATE AND TRUE RE ARE- f RIRORMATION AC IT ARREARC TNIR- . RCCOROC OP THE NEHRCRIN COUNTY IMON. TO TNE OECT OP MY RNOWkCOCE OERT. OP RRORCR! OATC; PROPERTY ADDRESS iPT ffss'/ CtA/^n Wei£/^iULa^cn/3B. s/>m£ S-6fl£ s/}/n£ SA/n£ SAa)£ SAriiE SAm£ SAme J7 #691 EXHIBIT w ------------ - tJ A /Jahws H. Parker, Minn. I * J (• 18'x2<X 4 I • ciadivood tiding. Two ••foot ovcrtwad doort. Ono roncli window. Ono, two'Uto miv - Icodoor. f-w 7-T-^7.T » -» ••. • • 1L/C'uii-ii WHY BUILD A GARAGE? The fact that you are reading this booklet indicates you already realize the value of owning a garage. The fact that a garage actually increases the value of your property . . . not only your home but your automobile by providing pro­ tection against extreme cold. heat. ram. snow and sun . . . a car well cared for is worth more when you sell or trade it. of course. We’re sure. too. that you haven ’t overlooked the extra storage, work and play space that becomes available with the addition of a garage. m » * • - * * ^ . • * . ' • 4 ' .. . • . • r r 1 - , *.» •>> .i ‘i. ■ iKJj % ! i I ne same consioeraxion you ^w,wfiww w, ^wwi lot, your home, your car, is the same that should be given to your garage ... its size ... its style ... its cost end most important, to the builder you choose. tiwck ttM advMlagts of cboosmi a WESTERN *tostoai-laiir Garagt. THOUSANDS Of SATISFIED CUSTOMiRSI •••*•** The word of your friend, ••••••«••*« neighbor or of a satisfied garage owner would certainly increase your conscience in selecting a Western garage. During the past 25 years. Western Construction Company now has a following of satisfied customers in the thousands. You are invited to solicit the opinions of Western garage owners as to quality, service, price and complete satisfaction. (Western will furnish names and addresses on request.) 24^x24' 12* rSIMED MASONITE tMiM. Stvtrw fabl* itwf. IStoot !>«• MctioMi nilMCO ^WFOSO door. Ono. two llto Mivico door. On* roncti window. SI X r\ i T w 24* X 24 ’ Ooublo ctdM thaliat. Hip roaf. 1t-faet MIMES CRAwrONO door. Sorvico door. Two ranch windows. Ctfitoffl front f- • • -i;: ^ -.f jL I i ^ . / ' « ...........** * f I■ ,v*4k'*. ,- ,v .. 'i -^ ^v^-vri v;,"’ Jr iS ‘:iiS ■ ■t'T' »*\ 1 'r/.\EXHIBIT E y ^Uftr.: 'J. >t/f > f4 ^1 ’ ' :a, #691 ’.nc;ir. /,- '>, ‘ }./>■ ! * .KT EXHIBIT V.f » JUN-TBS I • June 3, 1982 Orono City Offices Att/ City Council 1335 Brown Road South Orono, Minnesota o 91 REFERENCE: TODD ROBIDEAU/NEU OARAGE Gentlenen: Sincerely, This letter is to inform you that, as neighbor to Todd Robideau, I have absolutely no objection to his building a new garage in the location he specified. Ue have discussed this in detail and everything appears to be satisfactory. Thomas B. King 2800 Casco Point Road Meyzata, Minnesota SS391 t-.. '■-T'A ■ .• T. ■iJ • i 1 j ^ ♦ t ■, l>' -V * 0 / ' 1". BBET- •' J \ n t ^ I X ’ ■" * TOt PROM: 3. ft OATS: #" SUBJECT: Planning Conuitission Jeanne A. Mabusth June 17, 1982 #690 Ep'in Martin, 3340 Shoreline Drive site Plan Review - Connercial Zoning District - B-1 Application - request |«_^buildin, permit to oon.truct fiv. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Application Survey Building elevation of single units Site Plan Should««»„d :srSd. jnSoJisi .m: ?rtS"B“'jss:r III «>• o* 1 - 2 - All structures roust be setback 35• from raar <iesianale5^??t^^^4.i^”*** Staff sees no problem with the ^ecupancy^«-l)and if that setback is not net a firewall There is‘;umcSrr;n"ln ttr’^lccUTiZ.V;^ storace sheds. The city will require t. T' TOt Planning Commission FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth DATE:June 17, 1982 SUBJECT:#690 Erwin Martin, Site Plan Review Zoning District - B-1 Application - request for building permit to construct five storage sheds List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application ' Exhibit B - Survey Exhibit C - Building elevation of single units Exhibit D - Site Plan \> Martin requests a building permit to construct five storage sheds to the rear of the station property. The largest of the five sheds measuring 22* x 45* will house police impounds of cars and motorcycles and the wreckers for the station. The remaining four sheds he plans to rent out as storage space. Storage on this scale is not specifically addressed under the B-1 section of the Code. Warehousing is listed as a permitted use in the Industrial Zone. Does the Planning Comnission feel this scale (mini storage) of use is acceptable in the commercial zone? Is this use compatible with the service station use? Is there discernible difference between mini storage use and warehouse use? Should we amend the code to Include such use in the B-l Zone? Martin claims there is a big demand by people for the storage of special cars and boats, seasonal sports gear, etc. There is no question that there is room on the site to meet the structural setbacks and access lane requirements. 1 have reviewed the applicable ordinances and have the following comments to make on the site plan: 1 -All structures must be setback 35* from rear and front (street) property lines. Staff sees no problem with the designated 15* setback to the side or rear lot line (code requires 15* setback from side property lines). The Building Code requires a 20* setback for this type of occupancy (B-l)and if that setback is not met a firewall will be required. 2 -tilth the introduction addition of this new use, staff would recommend upgrading the accesses to property by defined cxurb cuts - similar to the improvements proposed at Ken*s Union 76. There is sufficient area on the site for access lanes.to rear storaqe sheds. The City will require pavinq of those lanes. X -i- “1 •690 Erwin Martin Page 2 Conmercial Site Plan Review ?ir :t‘ 3 - Parking needs are well satisfied with the existing parking on the site. 4 - Drainage should be directed away from the wetlands to the east. s«MS' The Zoning Code requires a minimum setback of 10' bet%reen structures. The Building Code requires a minimum of 6' separation and if it is less a fire wall will be required. Staff would recomsiend to both applicant and the Planning Comsiission that the individual five sheds be constructed as one unit, ffe are aware of filling being done sometiM in the past in the proposed location for the sheds which will either require greater expense to owner in order to meet construction standards setforth by building code for floating slabs or because of the extent of fill may be not allowed at all. Soil borings can be done to confirm the extent of the filling. Staff would recommend a single structure requiring, frost footings based on the unstable conditions of the soils and for the maintenance of the "nnsthetic profile* of the Navarre Business District. Thi* property is the gatway to beautiful do%mtown Navarre. Ihese same concerns were raised when Tyra's Super Value was rebuilt. % JK:t I1» Review of Issues to be resolved by Planning Commission: 1 - Use 20sq>atible with station use? - B-1 Zoning District? 2 • Is there a need to amend the code? . ^ 3 - Aesthetic question - single unit vs five individual units? 4 - Additional improvements on site - need for curb cuts? 5 Detennine setbacks for structures: a) 15* or 20* from east property line. b) if individual structures - separation setback - 10* ■0 as required by zoning code or 6* by building code.S '*: V 5^ "58^. ■ i-'Tf ' «. - ■ e existing parking e wetlands to the ck of 10* between s mininum of 6* will be required, ind the Planning B be constructed Lng done sonetisM the sheds which wier in order to >uilding code tnt of fill nay be done to confirm recomnend a single I on the unstable >enance of tne •s District, downtown Navarre. *s Super Value onmission: ning District? Individual units? r curb cuts? letback - lo* .Iding code. :' mj m 111 j .V: cm OP OROMO, MmiESOTA Land Use Application EXhibli CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION 'locatzom op proposal (or property) Address dirt ye Legal Description _ _ _TfrMOJV Tel # VAPPLZCAMT Nl ,U/fV /flftii-bv___^ i Address U/AyzA-hlf /FJifitM_SSHAJ. Nailing 2it?/ ^CA4 ONIIBR Marne f it tuf A/ Mailing 1hm/n Tel ik'nML±L _____, . , STif/ Address ^saJ.Wa^aaU, Maa $30.00 a) Res. Acc. Use $50.00 b) Xnstitutioniil (Church. Sch. etc.) $75.00 c) Duplex Cr/Dlq d) Land Alteration (grading, fil­ ling) $100.00 e) Com/lnd. Use PRD/PID - See fee schedule Variance $50.00 Present Zoning ftiM / ** /____ Present Use Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request Specify Ordinance Requirements Biqplain your request and reasons for same 3' j^Atr ^%Tt 'ti it Aa.J7ZP iKttfX. ^ uj4ji--------- VARIANCE required • extent of nonconformity *ea _ _ Setback Front WidtlT Side Other, Specify hardships ^ Rear L/nniiisiuMiiia SUBDIVISION application Residential Other, explain No. of Lots CONDITIONAL USE AMD OTHER - explain proposed use of property in detail MIMIMUN MATERIAL MBCESSARV FOR COMPLETE APPLICATION (Must be submitted 10 days prior to Planning Oonmission meeting) Application completed Plat map section Certificate of survey of property Sketch location and setbacks of pr<voMi Construction plans, if applicable Certified Property Owner's list c o%mers within (300') (ISO')- fros Hennepin Oo. Dept, of Finance A-603 Governamnt Center Staaqped, legal sised envelopes (#1 pre-addressed to each of the nams on the above Ml*.Applicant's Sionatu^^^^lt*/^ /I? JdLtA mm t ;* f exhibit —^■'. -iM #5731 .•*1* * 4r it- ' • •. ..-. t *. • * ♦ r r ■ ■• ^ 1 '4•• • • . i It • ' - ■ m .mm IS - -------- 04. OT' A^47*0JSff^4- *••^¥I T n^***!^v ♦*•* ^ ^ ^ ? * I ** • * *‘*i ‘ '•^‘*1 f'* * '•** •» *’f* *1 T!r**’.***v •/-- t ..;.. • ^.. .1* i J .#*• * •;* V •;* ‘ • '*rS t!or. *j1 . ^ r. Ivt* • -. .r -«ri n ^*nnr*». It r,r^\ ;,«ir nri t'-. ehow 1 r.prov^*^r Vn I *--r?. :Jl I" : fj' • <Tm.? ; «pr Iron r.-»“>'T Oir-.rn '. ’olMn l,'»r..; .u~.' ." r st.^ rlinr"??* ,-r. . • , M.t* cil't ¥T~M£4i 1 A •' ■ 5^'€' ■;' -Hi I msiimmmmmmm ;-*i ^1:V • .•4^,r- . TO: FROM: DATS: Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth June 17, 1982 SUBJECT: #685 Charles V. Krogness, 185 South Brown Road Subdivision Zoning District - RR-IB Application - plat - 2 lots Area - 8 acres Review - Work Session List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit O Exhibit E Application Plat Map Septic Report Septic Map Preliminary Plan The applicant proposes a 2 lot plat of his 8 acre homestead. Mr. Krogness plans to construct a new home on Lot 1 and sell the existing nome on Lot 2. The newly created lots satisfy all standards of the RR-IB zoning district. All existing structures, except for a playhouse on Lot 2, meet the required setbacks from the proposed division line. Access via the location at the 40* corridor at Brown Road is not acceptable. This access will be subject to review by Hennepin County and that report should be received by the night of our public hearing. I «K>uld suggest a shared access at the existing driveway to Lot 2. Lot 2 can grant an exclusive access easement in favor of Lot 1. Access via the 40* corridor is limited by a steep slope, power pole, proximity to bridge over Luce Line and a heavy buffer of mature trees. The access question is similar to the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and Council during the subdivision review for Bob Vfhite*s 2 lot plat. In that application, the City required portions of one lot to abutt the public road but required access to that same lot via a safer existing driveway on the other lot. The septic review found Lot 1 able to support a standard septic system (shallow trench design recommended). Our site inspection found Lot 2 with more serious problems. Portions of the existing drainfield appear to extend 10* to 20* into Lot 1. The proposed new home for Lot 1 will be located or rather squeezed into the east high corner of the lot dangerously close to the existing septic line. Rearranging the lot line will not help the applicant as it will do away with his potential house location. The septic consultant is wary of merely closing off the encroaching septic lines 10* from the lot line because the soil disturbance may create a seepage point if lines fill up. He also is cautious of the nearness of those existing lines to potential run off from the new home and the usual disturbance of lands associated with construction. 1685 Charles Krogness Page 2 Subdivision a. , \ t ^ fi:? *•/% v; *f • '• ’* ■ • * I Staff aost recosmend that the entire system be abandoned and replaced further south and west in the area of the alternate drainfield test site. Applicant can be given a choice between relocating existing drainfield or future house site on Lot 1. A public hearing is scheduled for July 19» 1982. 1%; . .-M -SIIB V. 'W'' iliiH ?!! i fJ li .•■ * ' V..' ^ H ,>Vvv.'.::kJ St;-.",;■’'■■ '"‘r A ‘ ».i« I.-. •■ *' • * ‘<"r' i • ‘ y ' ■L.''. .;• •■• !■ ■■'■ '•■ *!Tv • * ;i* < ‘ .L* k VI I b« «b«ndoMd and i of tho altornato an a cholca batiiaan uaa sita on Lot 1. 1982.7 IT*'- --V. •m 'mm *. ••7 V7 ‘: -•■■H i • 'm i- ■.••. -i '^-.'! •• •>.. fc:'mra r4‘ 1 . • -• • •• k"I: 4'< Niitai CITY OP owmo SUBDIVISIOM APPUOWt N«m •tailing EXHiSIT date rec •by fee r€c*d Telephone ^*7^ pkopbrty OWNERS 00 J ------------V V. K Telephone ^ g g ^ k. I •••' -i’ i'7-5 '■ « PROPERTY LOCATION «tr..t Addr... jjSr ^ te««l D««cripticir5\A/ /ii .: -^ J? — / , 4 ^3 :.J r- .v^ EXISTING LAND USE ^•3 Nunbar of Tax Parcals Davalopaant Siaa • •-.' • **’ . • * * ; * • V ■ 7.^ 7^ :••• •i-.#‘X- .i ’Mtry-uL. \C\. ^ '■ : Jt Praaant Uaa (chack) Traaant Zoning Diet. Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential) no. of units Other (specify) V mi-. PROPOSAL -ite., ;’ • •■ t' . 'i ■;;->’ •• : .t jm r^; _^S. eubdivision for new building sites ntadtar Of building .it.,: _J_ / r> ^7 proposed gross density Riinxinuai lot size: proposed use: (check) new units total units units per acres ■My- ' i .L.tLy ,£^*^are feet dry buildable land -— Other (specify)V APPbicATici- —- y prior to Planning Commission meeting) 1. Application completed 2. Preliminary Plat information on a certificate of survey 3. Certified Property Owner's list of ownew within 350* - from Hennepin wo. oepc. of Pinence A«^03 Govem- aaat Center *®*"P*d» logo! elsed anvelopea (#10) •“*' the names onthe above llet. 5. Application fee per current fee schedule: — «ketch plan only $50.00 - - - 2 lot prelim, plat 150.00 DATE - ^ lot prelim, plat 200.00 (sketch plan included) + $10/Xot Additional Improveswnt review fees per fee t^A.oo schedule $ - - - - ^ M 3^y Applicant harabv aar owner's signature v<s no A • _ __ <• ta LONG LAKE Cu) A EXHIBIT » * •4* isK •j«5y 5LaSC35 >V9 k 9K 4'' f .4; i •/. 1 ■ St i. M ■’’ ■'T St ’’*• 43--«_________ ":ZCt4 2 ^ • 5,V • a '% ^ V’L ;»' .V •j a< $69^4 41 \s B .7; r.' % ^ ’• V i 11^. EXHIBIT /I TO: FROM: OATS: SUBJECT : Jeanne A* Mabusth^ Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Septic System Inspector June 1982 #685 Charles Kroghess - Subdivision - Septic System Review I have reviewed the proposed subdivision and wish to make the following coimnents: Lot 1 (new lot) - Primary and alternate sites were tested# with percolation rates averaging 7*4 and 5.7 mpi respectively. Water table depth ranged from 3.7 ft to 5.8 ft or deeper# hence shallow trenches would be recommended# as well as runoff and groundwater diversions uphill from the system# assuming house location does not change. Lot 2 • Existing house with existing system. Existing system was inspected in 1981 and appeared to be in operable condition. An alternate site has been tested and is suitable for a standard dralnfield. One problem does present itself# however. At least one dralnfield line protrudes approximately 15-20* into the proposed new lot at a point where the new house would presumably be located. Orono code requires a 20* setback for dralnfield from property lines# although only 10* is normally enforced where reasonable to do so. For this subdivision# since the existing dralnfield would be very close to the proposed new house# t%ro options present themselves: 1 - Rearrange lot lines to give the 10* setback. This «rould severely limit the area where the proposed house could be located. 2 -Cut off the existing dralnfield to a point at least 10* back from the proposed lot line- then add an equivalent amount of dralnfield downhill on Lot 2. While it may seem unreasonable to remove an existing functional dralnfield becuase it is over the lot line# it is equally unreasonable to expect a future o%mer of Lot 1 to allow treatment of his neighbors sewage on his lot. Futhermore# the expected runoff from a house on Lot 1# as well as construction fill £md disturbance# might possibly disrupt the proper fxinctioning of that portion of dralnfield anyway. One problem that may crop up is that by cutting off the end of the dralnfield# the soil disturbance may create a seepage point if the line fills up. My recommendation is that the entire line (or lines) be abandoned and the equivalent or more of new dralnfield be constructed further south# where the effect of added runoff will be lessened. (While allowing the lines to be merely shortened would be acceptable if %fe knew Mr. Krogness would continue to own the existing house# we should not take the chance that dralnfield changes made necessary by the subdivision cause a future problem for a new owner of the existing house). I;J .if • 'M- Mmm FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth June 17, 1982 4 Vi ..■ SUBJECT: «692 Douglas G, Aabel, 1580 Long Lake Blvd Subdivision Zoning District - LR-IA Application - Subdivision - metes and bounds - lot line rearrangement Review - Work Session List of Exhibits Exhibit A “ Application Exhibit B • Plat Map Exhibit C Survey Exhibit D - Septic Memo Exhibit E - Septic Map Mr. Aabel is in the process of purchasing Lot 11, Albee's Long Lake Addition. He has been advised by staff of the severe limitations on the site concerning future expansion and inqprovement. Aabel plans to construct a second story on the existing house and relocate the two bedrooms on the ground floor to the new second story. The existing ground floor will contain a living room, kitchen and dining area. The bathroom addition (7* x 8') on the west side of the house will be removed and a bathroom relocated within the remaining structure. The existing home could legally be expanded without the need for variance review - both the Orono Zoning Code and the State Building Codes contain no condition that would require review by the City if an expansion exceeds 50% of the assessed market value of a structure. Through the subdivision application, the City may attempt to limit all future expansion on this substandard, rural property. The final resolution approving the subdivision may contain language that will limit all future bedroom and bathroom expansion until the area is sewered at some future date. The septic consultant confirms that the subdivision will have no effect on the septic inadequacies of Lot 11. I would argue that not only does the exchange of parcels make for logical use and ownership but the additional land will keep the only remaining septic area for Lot 11 protected from a potential parking or driveway area. A pitblic hearing has been scheduled for July 19, 1982 V: V;t % kL ake Blvd - ~ lot line rearrangement ^ 11» Albee's Long of the severe tension and >nd story on the on the ground ground floor will IS. The bathroom »use will be ’emaining structure. Lthout the need de and the State d require review • assessed market n application» nsion on this ution ai^roving the nit all future is sewered at vision will have 1* I would argue Ice for logical I keep the only >m a potential L9, 1982. CITY or OROIIO ll EXHIB i fSRo Nailing ~ -- - - -Telephone 44 __13146 Old Brick Y-rH - Name Hm * -- - -Shakopee, mn 5-Mirriam Andera^n -- - - - Telephone fJOJ^eiWY Name0NN8R8 ___ _ Nailing . ’ -——Telephone PNOFBRTY LOCATION «t>^t Add,... isao Lon, r.., „ „ (MO) ~ - -- *”*" '•*''* —'lltill_26-118-23 31 EXISTING LAND USB Number of Tax Parcels Oavelopment size "-"i Present Use (check) Present Zoning Oist. Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all Residential; no. Other (specify) wmm «««b.r Of buildln, y* c... .proposed gross density nlnimum lot size: proposed use: (check) existing units new units e total units ""it. p.,_ square feet dry build residential - other (specify) mm WNIMUM HATERIAL MB<»peej.py ' .‘"“t b. «utiaitt«) XO d.y, "‘•blCATION :------- .. *PPitc«x„ ~.tx„,.. 4. Appllcaclon coepl«te«l certificate of curvey St«v.d, l.gai ..volop.. („„j pre-addret>sed to each of rhl the above list. ” *■“ 5. Application U. p„ current 1.. ^Iictch plan only 2^ 2 lot prelim, plat 3+ lot prelim, pint Uketch plan included) Additional improvement review fees per fee schedllJe $ applicants signature •11 addition"? process this . Planning con IK ... |SffY;.. *»' agrees to p^y additional feer^..^process _JL-o_this appiic-M —Commissi;;^ tion r>-: a.’. • bv:i-ir.,n t r-i oxlstir-c, farce ^r.:: f'.er‘jor.. Tt -iocB r.ot purport . to 3-0'. ov.-r ir-n-ov -.-rto or cncro-cn.vjnt», tut .j vit>3E inuic:.*-'^ a nrorcscJ dlvidirt, Ur© acrCEs rti i?Hio jiyt 11#m r,rale: 1 ” - -ii«nu uurvc^'or and rlarr.er Date ’: 6-5-t ’2 ^nr jUrr.cgot* o : Irtr. rar^er K -rt Southern of of said Let a Jiatarr.' of 73.3 feet to the Sft*'" ninr tr.^ iir.-> tolr.fi cBscricod; lV' - - ... a1S5®24* to th« noutheri.# lir-u of raid lot, afto .eiiair4,f Af-gft that tvirt of '-ot 11 Li'ing Westerly oi tn© .oUowlnc- deacrit^d f-orthsrlv axtenaion; Coitrenelw; ut the :.outhvoEtf'riy rorr.er of fc. lc lot; thence the Vect lire of f«id lf>t a JiEtar.ro of 73.3 Jeet to t.;e ooint of f Sbirirint cf the lln^ fceini' deflactinr right .?4®3'j’ » diaUnco of lfc,73 foot; thonco deflecting left 13° to the Kortherly line of eald lot, e».d tr.ere enulng, all ln"Alt^e*r >>©nt Loto Aaditior. . Let 11 exce-t that part thereof ijlr.t >e.«^terly of the aeirribed line ar.ct Its fcrthorly ext *r.Elon: Corrijneing at the ^^th- woBterly corner of said let; tr.nce h lot a distance of 73.3 f^et to t»e point of loginning of the llw being do;;;fboSrthence right 24®3M ■* th.onea'defIerti:u: loft 13° to the Nortnerly lino of raid lot, and t|we aU in **4lbM«o L»ng UlM Addition**.V; '. A I- City of Crono, HinneMta * H»yo^ — Clork I .. I '^1 ’ 'n EXHIBIT «Teanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Septic System Inspector TO; FROM: DATE: June 15, 1982 SUBJECT: #692 Douglas Aabel, 1580 Long Lake Blvd - Subdivision Review of Septic System I have reviewed the above proposal and wish to make the following comments: I previously did a site review for Mr. Aabel (copy attache^ stating what I see as limitations for septic systems on the lot. Two existing wells, lot lines, lot area, house location, and ground contours are all limiting factors. Assuming a 50 between wells and drainfield (state requires 50', Orono ) only about 500 square feet of drainfield trenches could . be installed on the site, leaving no room for an * Since Orono Code requires a minimum of 600 square feet f for any new dwelling regardless of perc rate, this lot could not be expected ever to meet the minimum standard, regardless of the number of bedrooms* Due to the current driveway location, the lot line ^®**^f®”f®?®"J will not substantially affect the possibilities for drainfield on the lot. The lot line change seems reasonable, and does not appear to affect existing drainfield areas on either Lot 12 or ii. The existing system is not currently failing, but tank locations are unknown as is extent of drainfield. While adding the applicant contemplated second story will not increase the design sewage load, it has a real potential for making the house large enough for a family with 1 or 2 children. This likely will cause an increased sewage load and possible problems with the system, both and other, unless water use is judiciously controlled. (These comments are valid for both the existing system and its replacement, if installed. in conclusion, I would teconmend approval of f since it will not substantially change the existing - »liSSation: Since it may be P®®®^^!® to add onto the house withou^ a variance, realize that any upgrading of the structure will incr the potential for more sewage and future problems on the site. EXHfRIT Cl T V MF ORONO ClTYof ORONO IN h I U0I m B m •■•Ctirtlal B ait . HiMMMto sans* Muidpy Oflicw On the Nofth Shore of Lake Muuutonka ■k 1 V'C • 7-^. D»« TT. E. -»»»- »=>* /i»o«T S/O sa.f--r. Of T>»l»fiet.b 0>AJ LcT. ^_^tv fMAT" AJ o yfinrC 70 ^ T:»om£j S/<«CC THr DCaiAJA/eXb B. S,..rt. I^r ,^.r^ Lc^^. t ^..ec^ T>*o sr^rr.^, Ot.ci^ p SIO -M.ft. ^.<u/-^-cub,T<. -r»r wPsTt «»» /k 2 *«. -i-TM /jM*.6*y r«'-«-<’^ts M«ut.T >aS« j»©<eiouS<.'^ c£>i->-r*fUL^. mCMAELCAFFRON nmc fYsrcM mspecTOR 479-TM7 SSS2S MlliMNCAZON^-eiymt '7)AOMWimATlON A FWANCC > 47>7]M PVMJCWOUS - 47l-7Mf k. • * >.’".Ai * / y'' r- If" ■ • • rr •*..r .> u* 1 'S ., ajIcI 11, ^‘^1* ,»»!Jition ‘........ Tount; , Wr.r.';‘.ot* ya.I horaty coriliy Ual thij 1« a tr-’f Hr.d correct rawesar.tAtion .? n survey cf U;a lourd;*rie9 of V* U,'’a1! 'u'3 ^nc i-*^c lion*', •u.vi I'vj loriitioti of all •xlsllrr b’iilulr.r;* ar4 an exists i: g ur.cl tirivevay theroor.. It :co;< not rurocrt to alx>w ether lnprLV->;«r.ta or aRero-^c:.- / “ .^2 O * e " ** 2 “ i >Vd' «/2o c-r. 3 • 2 xsp' /ffo s/, i *^o* r ;?3o '-.C. a rC <P Gcrccn H. Coffin ndt^f!!c. 6064 lard Siiry*syor and t'larAc^ l^ni; Mlnrosota ♦ &c«ioi I* = 3C* 3uta : ^ll-a2 o } Iren carkor f>bs:teu r^/ 9Pi ^«.-A or I.T 4, f.C , I 2e«^ /j*» 7a<.» -..f. OF ^ . _ ^ -A f‘* : A'>«" •*• # % .?r-______ _ /^r •'«««=»' -Vr-MT/.i /jo n<nir*^z I • if»minify TO: PROH: RE: DATE: PoPHAH. Haik . Schnobrich . Kaufman & D oty. Ltd . MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council City of Orono Bruce D. Malkerson Changes in Minnesota Law Affecting Zoning in the 1982 Legislature June 3, 1982 Set forth hereinafter is a brief summary of amendments to Minnesota Statutes adopted in 1982 by the State Legislature which affect municipal land use planning and zoning. 1, Manufactured Homos ~ chapter 490 amends Minnesota Statutes S 462.357 by providing that no regulation may prohibit the construction of manufactured homes built in conformance with certain performance standards of the statutes and which comply with other zoning ordinances adopted by the City. Additional information on this subject has been sent to staff with a request that staff present to the City Council in June the possible impact of this statute on the City and what regulations the City may wish to adopt prior to the effective date of this statute which is August 1, 1982. 2, Pees - Chapter 415 amends Minnesota Statute S 462.353 by providing that a city may prescribe fees sufficient to defray the costs incurred by it in reviewing» investigating and administering an application for an amendment to an official control or an application for a permit or other approval required under an official control. Fees as prescribed shall be by ordinance. The City has always charged fees for those applications under the general welfare clause of the statute even though there was not specific authority under the zoning statute for such charges. I do not see that there is any need to change our procedures because of this amendment. \ PopMam. H aik, Schnobrich . Kaufman & D otv. Ltd . Orono Mayor and city council June 3, S982 Page 2 3, Variances - chapter 507 amended Minnesota Statutes S 462.357# Subd. 6 by adding new language concerning what constitutes a hardship for a variance. The statute now provides as follows: *Undue hardship as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner# and the variance# if granted# will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.* We should amend our ordinances to include this new definition. Chapter 507 amended Minnesota Statutes S 462.36# Subd. 1 by adding the word 'variance* so that now a certified copy of every variance granted must be filed with the County Recorder of the county or counties in which the municipality adopting it is located. The order issued by the governing body or Board of Appeals and Adjustment, as the case may be# shall include the legal description of the property involved. The effective date of this amendment is January 1# 1983. In the past the City has included the legal description in any order approving a variance and has quite often filed it in the chain of title even though not required by statute. Now the City must follow this procedure in every case. It will be easier for the City to file variances and conditional use permits in the chain of title on registered property because the statute now requires that they be filed. In the past the county Recorder quite often would not want to file these documents on registered property. 4, Conditional Use Permits - Chapter 507 amended Minnesota Statute S 462 by adding a new provision S 462.3595 Conditional Use Permits. The amendment is as follows: *Subd. 1. Authority. The governing body may by ordinance designate certain types of developments# including planned unit developments# and certain land development activities as conditional uses ”1' POPMAM, Haik . Schnobrich . Kaufman & Doty. Ltd . Orono Ma^r and City Council June 3, nS2 Page 3 under zoning regulations. Conditional uses may be approved by the governing body or other designated authority by a showing by the applicant that the standards and criteria stated in the ordinance will be satisfied. The standards and criteria shall include both general requirements for all conditional uses, and in so far as practicable, requirements specific to each designated conditional use. Subd. 2. Public Hearings. Public hearings on the granting of conditional use permits shall be held in the manner provided in S 462.357, Subd. 3. subd. 3. Duration. A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed, but nothing in the section shall prevent the municipality from enacting or amending the official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Subd. 4. Piling of Permit. A certified copy of any conditional use permit shall be filed with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles of the county or counties in which the municipality is located for record. The conditional use permit shall include the legal description of the property included.* ■I Previously the statute did not specifically provided for conditional use permits even though every municipality used them. Now the city has specific statutory authority for conditional use permits; it must now hold public hearings on a conditional use permit; and a copy of the conditional use permit must be filed in the chain of title. He should amend our ordinances to provide for these new provisions. This section of the statute is effective on January 1, 1983. 5. Summary. I request direction from the city Council to meet with staff to make sure that these changes are incorporated into the redraft of the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordiance. If you have any questions, please call. cc: 0892j Walter R. Benson Alan P. Olson Jean Mabusth ) 1 I I \ ^ POPHAM. HAIK. SCHNO0RICH. KAUFMAN & DOTY. LTO, MEMORANDUM TO:Alan P. Olson Tom Link PROM: RE: DATE: Bruce D. Malkerson Mobile/Manufactured Houses May 25, 1982 orovisions will not be effective until August 1» 1982. Until then, any manufactured homes are subject to the zoning ordinance presently in effect in a city. district*in^the'*city**w?th or without foundations, garages, etc. It is unclear the extent to which a municipality may impose conditions upon mobile/manufactured homes. I have not undertaken that research as of this time. 1 suggest that the two confer concerning this and that you contact the planners in the cities of Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Plymouth and others to find out what they are doing in this regard and that /hen review this matter with the Planning Commission and Council with the goal of adopting an ordinance prior to August 1, 1982. Please call me if you have any questions. cc:Charlotte Paterson Walter R. Benson 0848j % \ TO:Walter R. Benson & Bruce D. Malkerson PROM:Alan P. Olson, City Planner DATE:June 7, 1982 SUBJECT: Effect of 1982 Minnesota Law Changes This memo is written in response to Mr. Malkerson's June 3, 1982, legal notes regarding zoning changes enacted in the 1982 legislature. 1. 2. 3. Mobile Homes. We have no special zoning restrictions or requirements concerning mobile or manufactured homes. We have always treated th'*se the same as site-built homes as far as zoning standards are concerned (ie: they are allowed 1 per lot with the same minimum lot area, setbacks etc). Thus we already comply with this new statute - and have had no problems with it in the past. The only zoning change we might consider is a requirement for a permanent foundation and tie - down system for otherwise - mobile homes. These are not automatically required by the State Building Code, but can be required by local option. I would recommend that this be included in our zoning ordinance redraft. Fees. As Bruce notes we already provide for fees to cover all administrative costs. Variances. I concur that we should include the amended hardship language in our ordinance redraft. The new requirement for filing a formal resolution in the chain of title for each variance means more administrative time required for what have been referred to as simple or non-controversial variances. Boiler­ plate forms will be used, but they will each have to be customized and that takes time and copy-cost, plus the actual cost of recording. At the minimum, I recommend raising variance application fees to cover this new cost. Beyond this it will mean fewer applications can be processed for any given agenda (or less staff research time available per application). With limited staff available, we may need to seriously look at limiting the number of applications on each agenda, first-come first-served. This would delay some reviews. Page 2 Effect of Law Changes 4. The net result of this will be to discourage variance applications - which is good. But it also means that we should review and revise our ordinances where possible to either: a) relax restrictions to allow those types of developments which have typically been approved; or b) tighten restrictions to further discourage development where it really isn't desired. Conditional Uses. I concur that we need to change our ordinances according to these new requirements. The language that requires special criteria or standards for each conc’itional use is very good. We have some but need more clarification in most cases. The requirement for a public hearing is new. This will slightly increase cost and cause a short delay for publication. The duracion clause is good since it does limit vested rights to the changing needs of future Councils. As with variances, the need for resolutions in all cases is a new demand for staff time and expense, although we do mere of this with conditional use permits now than we do with variances. Again, a fee increase is recommended. n TO:Planning Conunission FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth DATE:June 14, 1982 SUBJECT: #681 Doug DeMalignon, 1380 Arbor Street - Variance List of Exhibits Exhibit A - DeMalignon letter Exhibit B - Gaffron Memo Exhibit C - Planning Commission minutes of May 17, 1982 As the applicant has noted in his most recent letter. Exhibit A, staff was unable to locate drainfield in the yard area on the south. The plumbers have confirmed the existing septic system as being totally within the front yard. The previous owners have informed DeMalignon that the septic system and well have functioned satisfactorily since 1976. Except for the pumping last fall, the City has no record of excessive pump outs since 1976. The septic consultant, Exhibit C, stands by his original recommendation as follows: as long as the expansion does not involve additional bedrooms or bathrooms suggesting more intensive use of a substandard septic system, he sees no problem with approving the addition. Planning Commission must address the more general issue of approving any form of structural expansion for an existing principal structure on a severely substandard lot. Area Review of Similar Applications: #645 Dorothy Forcier required = 2 acres existing = .41 acres variance = 1.59 or 75% #533 Steve Curren required = 2 acres existing = .33 acre variance = 1.67 or 78% #683 DeMalignon required = 2 acres existing = .13 acres variance = 1.87 acres or 93% Planning Commission approved the Curren application by limiting the structural expansion to 1 additional bedroom based on the limited septic area. In the approval of the Forcier application, the principal structure was limited to 3 bedrooms based on alternate and current septic site areas. The comprehensive plan has designated the Crystal Bay neighborhood for sewer service sometime within the next 5 to 10 years. #683 Doug DeMalignon Page 2 Variance Is there a point at which all structural expansion must be curtailed on substandard sites with severely limited septic areas? Must all expansion for some properties be restricted until served by sewer. If you are to make a recommendation of denial, you must make findings that will prove the proposal to be potentially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. If the application is to be approved, you may consider the following; To approve an 8' x 30' addition involving expansion of an existing bedroom and livingroom to the principal structure at 1380 Arbor ,>treet based on the following findings and hardships: 1 ' No additional land available. 2 - Listablished residence for over 50 years, 3 - Expansion will create no additional demands on existing substandard septic system. 4 “ The proposed improvements will have no negative effect on the public health, safety and welfare. approval is subject to the following conditions; 1 - Existing drainfield must be staked and protected during construction. 2 - Owner is placed on notice that based on the substandard lot area and inability to expand septic system, the City will not approve any future expansion of the principal structure. j -V >• f . ~^0, C M M/> S/c >l/ fc • i= /\r-b»cr i,t tf*^» ^ ^5 ^ ^ ^ / •'»<y J EXHIBIT zl CA^ AAyYl^ix/l^t/^A/Z^'Otcf '^>'Z4r>r\. ^ ^tyi4/l^<^C'<'C>0 /lOljiJLZcnt^ y^^^JlAX. y^U>0 /'>">'K^.aoa . C-^'>vc€/t^tO /T/tl/U,Cl^«<< OjcLc^ 5^ (Xnjt^ ' (/} y(jo<AStcsi^ o^ X/to< crflJUiaXK^cir^ cu>ui a^lc^ a. /3?cD- -cc^^T- -^jCrU J^-^Ji y^-^c C/gtZ£c4^ AyifWtaU/M^f P.>£<4yrrLSiyt^ CuTHlft JlayLt^ <xa^>OAa€( ^^'yrVL ytAa^ .^AL l cOtA4/Vs^<jtJ^ A^ tQAjtuAXe^ </K jAU, j^voydX /ytAA^cf^ (xovd AjLMut^ ■ AjniuCi^X^Ajz AAAt^^ a CA^ /Q,4yC^ <T^ '^^Aa (^y?vt cj^ ^zAA q. yy7'%jeyo^\ C^cuy'rrjL <yu^ jto ^^A.y^vuaA-~ Q/yx^ /^A.cvu-c^ y'^yruL A,.4A-'Aji/\ji '<^rtoD A/rCtX (X p/v&6<^. nk ccCac 9??^^ OW 7^ aJLoo qJU zAu ^ jdU A^rCtK (X. ^yi<r6<^ O/*^ (L6<a /^ y^<yyvcf ^'yz.&cAon^ OAete zA ^qj2^Al2Z6 ioy^Zi^^ ^ CoXttA JA jS. C>UjnnjL^i^ ^ yCJU. ^O^^TTl^o V d CLrrudl Q>CrAXXAJl''ciAl JLAA^tA xA m. f^lXeCLiyrxtc^ytA Ct^ y^JU. yj:injiAA’A!iru<? A7^uZi^^ yAr^ ylA^ ^ . X^y\AtA,yjCt.>^ C{_ y'^^A^ ^^^^^LC^A’Xy^’XUyO /aj UjO (l.&rr^fl^OJl^ .ArAy!A.^^Je^p<yusuCl^. ^Ac<^ JIxam A jA sa J. Cc ^rf'VcrxXA X/xy^ .dj-CtjC ^ ^^ xryyux) o /o Ajn^ y^iJAMnr^ crx^ /uruX*^y^ JjLcCt /(/U^ /Ojuf^^^CLo .A^cuo y^^ijuti^ oudLt^,c4jay^it£^ AAJtoo Ayr\jO^^^U^* yyy^ ^ /976. CutLc Jia^ AAAfXi. ^9A^C€tA^CeuC£y XA\4yt ji^f >^St) A^ yyr< Qtrog? AAroxJhMyn^ O-tc ^^cZ b -^-j^ . ^ JH»A^ auuAi^ a &xti^ Muy^ A> TdUy A0<:t Q/yA, XA a _ci«-yO O^Ia ^, XAt JioTnmL ^ yZu>t4j- 0«AJLfLLe^ /6-^ c^ /^Cutru^ ^jO^tcn^ J^^x^ormr^ QA4j/a/c^44^^Zt-i 4jl>4lc /yu<jU /(>^ rui AAt\^AynmjOA^Zi^ ^ ^ JZu^^t/n^ ZAou^ AA/^>\J^ Ct/H^ ^^Coo^Lo/jj-fuZc X/o ____ _ _________ (X^ /tHaat jLem^. ^A6 laj <, Ji^f(^lMi€M^n>C€^ /^nc AATiZ^ ^a Jkjl <y^ - (l0YlZ€LcZ /OrvL y^AA/iZ^^ CLMAaZ*^myx ^ jtAt /njuX Cly>t%zA^ ^//t^idoAvp Xo Xa /x^ ouX c H J2jUVA€ryt^€uC£y XZ XA ja JL O^rv^ CUaX AJL tC^ XJU^yr>^ ^6<ffcXA^ (LAX uZ^ C^L^4/2JL. ^2jUC/ Xa ^c 4^ Aj(yA>o J^urynJL. cjuo 6io CUj^u,^ o. fUn^^iA^M rO/ouU XArvtru^ Oo XX /vc^/i /r>^ yCAx^ huntuAX! M. tf Xc Xi<Ao Jyuto «xW '^C/'UdAMO A^o ;cAa xAi/i o^e^^^iiZiA Ccru<4^ Xj^MOA. ^XCoc^o CVf\*MAAAA>. MJi^ Ci^ JrU^xXAj^ UJt. A-)^ oA Ok9-</ ^^iMeu'iJt. c<*Xt A-^n. M L-.h MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COI-LMISSION MEETING OF MAY 17, 1982 Paqo 4 /•'Ap-y; It-. 2 - An occupancy permit will not be issued until the CHURCH (CONT) building is connected to sewer. 3 -Location of parking area should be moved and also paved. 4 -nrainage information designated on site plan for staff review prior to Council action. 5 -Traffic flow and signage to be designated on site plan prior to Council action. 6 -Council should consider formal request of applicant to connect to City sewer. 7 -Applicants to follow any further suggestions of City Engineer. 8 -Landscaping to conform with City ordinances and staff recommendation. Hammerel seconded. Vote; Ayes (4), Nays (0). Doug DeMalignon was present. Philip Kaley of 1395 South Brown Road was also present for this application. Mabusth stated that she had two phone calls from surrounding property owners and they were all in favor of the variance. Rovegno asked if there were no requirements for rural areas on hardcover? He also noted that there was a vacant lot next door. Mabusth stated that the ordinance does not require hardcover consideration for rural areas. Mr. Kaley asked the applicant hew he was going to get a well truck down to the back of the property because it would be difficult to get any kind of trucks down there. He noted that the drainfield covers the whole front of the lot and then turns the corner. Mabusth noted that Gaffron's report reported it as being located only in the front yard and that the driveway was very close to the septic tank. Mabusth added that a well rig could never get back to the existing house . Jacobs noted that last fall he remembers going out on an inspection where that septic tank was backing up and that the contractors were looking for the tanks. He noted that they did find them and pumped them but that they still might have problems with the septic especially if the house has not been lived in all winter since pumped last. Hammerel asked Jacobs if the drainfield would possibly freeze? DOUG DEMALIGNON 1380 Arbor Street Variance »681 Jacobs stated that that was possible but the real issue was that no one has lived in the house since it was pumped. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 17, 1982 Pa<ie 5 Phil Caloy noted that they have had problem in the past with that system. He noted that the building had been vacant since this last winter. He felt the drainfield was ok but that he didn't know if there was any real septic tanks. DEMALIGNON(COMT) Mabusth stated that there couldn't be any other expansion of the building if there was already existing septic problems. Applicant stated that he would prefer that the Planning Commission approve the addition and then they could take care of the septic problems. Mabusth noted that if the Planning Commission approved a holding tank that they would need a variance to the code. Rovegno asked the applicant what the extra space would do for the applicant? Applicant stated that right now it is too small and that it would help the resale value. Goetten moved to table the application of Doug DeMalignon pending additional information from staff regarding the septic problems. Callahan seconded. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (0). Applicant asked the Planning Commission to reconsider their motion because of his pressing time schedule. He felt that the proposed addition wouldn't have any affect on the existing septic system and that the septic problems could always be worked out. Planning Commission noted for the applicant that they can not approve any addition for the building until they have all the correct information about the "failing" system. Roger Wolthe represented the applicant. Roger noted that Lyle Johnson still lives in Wisconsin and that this house had been in his family since 1901. The applicant wanted to move out here and move back into the home that he was raised in. LYLE K. JOHNSON 1398 Rest Point Road Variance #682 Pat Walsh of 1396 Rest Point Road was present from the audience for this application. He stated that they were delighted that they were proposing to improve the house but that he opposed to the side setback variance. Roger Wolthe stated that they would add to the upstairs a guest room and a sewing room and that the house would be resided too. Pat Walsh stated that if this variance was approved that it would block his view and his plans for future expansion plans. He stated that he felt that the house i' w.^ 'AJI r.t^' 1 EXHIBIT (L TO:Jeanne A.Mabusth, Z FROM:Michael P . Gaffron, DATE:June 7, 1982 SUBJECT:#681 Doug Variance DeMalignon In light of the recent confirmation by E.J. Peterson Company that no drainfield can be found on the south side of the house, my previous memo of May 13, 1982, still stands. W- li; ,v\ I LAND USE PLANNING ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO r.O. Bo« tt, Cryif l toy. Mlnne«ot«^353^ EXHIBIT 1 473.7357 #688 NSTRUCTIOHS- ttti th« •CMchad InfotMtlon Sh*«t. Co«pUt« 1c«m 1 - 13 IlSVCtJSSS. H „„4,d. .«.ch l.tfr or oth.r lnfor«tlon to bott.r doIHibo Tour roquoat. Inooioploto oppllcotlona will not bo occoptod. PROPERTY ADDRESS 2701 Kellv Avenue, Excel sio.r 5^31 Vatltl doocrlptlon aholl bo shown on attochod Survoy. Enhlblt 3 APPLICANT MOM E. Jerome Carlson, phon. —473-86^------------- Koiiint Addroo. Smith Avenvgi WaY7.a_y\---- It Appuent 1. not ownor. «.pi-in ..contrag.t. pyuTg^ag.^----- OWNER n.,0 Arthur S, Ellia Phone 77ni Kelly Avenue LIST OF EXHIBITS # Des'rrlptlcn Intrlnl Appltciittcn Bust Include: 1 L Application Form 2 Property CVnert Llit 3 Certificate of Sun.*ey Fee Receipt ^ Late Received ^ By > 11 i Striff laforTMtlcn 4"^Plat Mop Hilllnf iMioraa* - • —*-■p*r.< 7,1 Hook ___________920-3104_____________AGENT Julian hook ■ — Inventory ^ Staff Coamenti AhtorneY O^hcr Infonnatlcn 7 ff!*b 3601 Park Center Blvd., St. Louis - ■ Park, Minn. 55416 NOTICES IhouM bo aonc tos - Appllcont -------Cbmor _2S — *•«»* R-1 -PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT _ PRESENT USE —2L - Vacant Land — Vacant •ulldlng(a) PJiUTiicJ^TTC7 Occupiad Bulldln^(a) JUN-4M 175.000DESCRIBE REQUEST ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $, _ .*t,bllib now uoo _ oontlnuo or onpond onlstlng us* _ build nsw __ odd on __ re«od*l >L r*pUc« Describe request detail: __favi-qllna house from curr^ll^ location and build new house on property. Lot Width Hardcover VARIANCE(S) REQUIRED t. d. th. -X- ____,..b.c (_ r,.M------- Describe UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS —' ,.nt ..rea U not large -nnuah to hniiri peW WlthO'^t Vafiaj£^ Describe UNDUE HARDSHIP or PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY •••»>•••• o' “■ .erict enforcement of zoning regulations would prohibit new motion to replace old existing 3tructur_e 12. Describe EFFECT OF PROPOSED WORK on n.lghborm. proportl*. *nd on th. n.lghborhood in upgrade the value of all adjoining property as well as enti^re nolcjhb 'r- HC 1233 PROPERTY OWNERS LIS^ DEPT OF PROPERTY TAXATION A-603 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MN SS487 l.i$T SIZE I CCSTIft THAT THE FACTS REPRCSEMTCO OM THIS CERTIFICATE ARE AH ACCURATE AMO TRUE REPRE­ SENTATION OF INFORMATION At IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE DIVISION. TO TNE REST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND RELIEF. HENNEPIN CO. DEPT. OF PROPERTY TAX^IOR DATE ERTY TAX^IOR FEE OWNER C fry ^ ___ K i J TAX PAYER/ ODRESS >3^ 2.7tfl>.£i£A C t-M~ ^7/^____i___: PROPERTY ADDRESS ID 7^/-//7- Z^- /y r. -A f/jP' , 7 f)^LL.y 2.-7^/ - -UftL T/0(6 f^/crfA A :/ „ e%7 2-*^ 27^>2 - jj/AUtKf fJ/crlA ^/fT£L —4c.--------- Z ff4£Lrv AiL fvre:sAAc:j4j6zjLLAA— JJ7 - . { § Q CITY OF ORONO f/Corp CHP^- Z9 ov 4.0 t.^A f an? ^3 4^47 <r2n>2^ .1^ * t ♦ • * * f* 5rf L'* S^crtfi.rte Oof^loi 3 >.•’■ -K-. -.i -r t • .r f- sh » r / rcrtlJy -* r . » .t..‘‘ ^rr - * i . ' *' .■‘vr • »'«k%.- ^ fC # f 'f *.'j' *-!'r r.: X >;; , if . ♦ ^o K‘*»«• Lv^ 2**1 •f • 4 ' 1 - r* •' .'#•• •« • '; f r V i C Ti f' 1 I '•- 4 I I f •• . ^ V t ir'' •> > \ \ \ ♦ • Vv-\ ( r V V. t 9>yj>y-.# U-4l9ffi , Ilk-1 ORQNOj vC'C/X; ('/) ■ » 1 ^ • s ' ^ ^ J ..*• N ,v: '•■ 2^0/? « '•*4 .-.*5^ \X^o^*v'itcf T \2 4<! MCA5T •APPLf^« •5^>4 33 100 oa "A >- V<».v> Vr,^ f «-» • <14 *.; - *.-* .. V J:- 4 ’ ,\... 4 »4' ^ .VV .n' .•>v;<-*A ' I ‘* ** ' ' L C r.e' ^OT A <P V /, ./ * / 5^‘'v> *» 'A ^>-'V / >/X> / / / / / 50 ^/\ 9/A> V '5) “■''S cift /L ^ ►7' '>9 6 HILU / / e ^7) 4. ^ '^^'^'^''■'000 -, _0-i -Vm ^ • •* ■» J tf:: tf 1st H 3^.4 ib*) 0 " f^? 1:O It (yV f i> ^ 'I -vX > - ♦(-r. •• i /<i • >♦-/C '•i • f \ t * •(o\ \ vT > /r /v 4 4 5 •>/ .%/ JL ^ Ci! H //fl'a'w^fc' b > X / X >. X W \ >— «r7s:Sir/ la 55 - V N saas iV r (\A)1^i0 .\\y COVE ♦ 0 N' s.’j 0*c I» /'/ / / •3« * " « ° • 0 I - I 8 4 •a. t V K r4^ 5>5* ■(illi^J 8 ' / a? o I ^ '4 y /•-r r (l3) ^P’l ^ ^(L V /•/ .wV*y*' '•** ‘''Av#• ** • S ‘ ■•. *• ■;►A'* V A i \ ■ t 0 y * s r !. • # Port of V Lot 10 y< (V I 4 A • T .4 4 c 4S •*' •^ / //-7 . -K iT I • CITY OF ORONO LAND USE PLANNING ZONING VARIANCE INVENTORY EXHIBIT 5 \RIANCES REQUIRED •!,NS1TY HjN)KUW XCTVAl. Zoning Use District / S VXHJKHCt CUDt StCTlW a/., .1 If)_3iL_js ~LS-l___ _______ ____-* £TBACKS riKIKUK wrouiRt® existinc •!i.c' y.r' ruoroscD fs' vxa j xver AO ' a Zt/rTa-#- 3 ^ *______* *• jOiA iiA--------^ ;----- .. Jo •a nt'7C ** 30'30 '7C ar —— ------ 5C dga to Bldg. ■—— . ^ ^ 75 rt..o«1i% keahora - — —— 74 rtvo % ilanda -------------------— ------- PIBKITTED OJSTIKC paoros CD rorrxL LOT XK£A KAJU>CO\OJl KARDCOVOl HAbRDCOVUi VXB1A>«CZ vpnr.nvFR _________%• ._____ _____*a.f a %a. f a __ 14 o * TB. wm ----------------——— O o Be 0 • 75 rta IT* ^,.11^, .rr:-------^ Ea 75 - 250 rt. 25« . .1 f.g tj-sns 3 loc\A^ » o ______ A. . U£5 0a /1^00 o am rva f—» ■ ^ -e — ^ rHER SECTIONS Mroiam PCISTING frofqscd VABiaWCE CCX)t StCTJOl 3t COJt StCTIO 31.C31 34.302 34.302 34.202 34.302 coot SCCTICIL ilOin* Mifht (m4. ) tkiJ>« (Hln.) LAND OlVUlCWt plat /■tc _ _ unplBtt*a • aoi»/p«rc«l* p4i •ppHcatlon *va IIA.IUT». .dj.r.nrnt./p4»c.i. *• I v.c.nt own.r.hlp _J^..p...t. o^.r.hlp J*nu*ry 1, 1975 <Vn*r«Mp ------- roroc*3.mY Includ**! • ta«p alopaa____opmn mtmmm Qorthin9d with other parcels not In this application _____ level 9round __ rollln9 hi lie wooded eieaa unuaual buildin9 loceticmaeOCIUPinf effectin9 epplicetiofii unv^el lot ehape------- ^ lot alaa/ahapei __ conaialent IT Inconaiatent with nci9hhorhood developnent ACCESS! _____ city _____ county/at«t« ><** privat* available corvnacfd; City wat«( ___ available connactad , cxiatirb9 non»conforning (H'lLlTlCSt City aew«r eaiattng conforming _existing aubatandardaaptic ayat«____new propoaed J^ND USE Subject lot la ____ vacant occupied OIISTIHS LVIO USE rxsrpym^ to tonln9 uaa diatrlcti_____confor»ln9 uaa mOPOKAL alfarta __principal . acrcaaory building or uaa conditional uaa rton-confcim ing uae tructures XiariK mVlU>U9CS____do ^ do not comply with toning |*«r foinuince aiandarda mficlenriaai antifalyeorcSAi. Ttni sntifaly building or uaa raviaw aa NTW building or uaa Croat eacaeda fHV) raviev aa CXPAXSION of exiating (coat l#aa than t0% tHV) CITY OT ORONU LAND USE PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS cjvnioii o Page 1 REPARED FOR: BY: Plannin9 Conwi■•ion Keeling (Date) Ckiyncll Kiicting (Date) ------ (Stein _______ (Stein _______ ^±ijk APPLICATION RE'\^IEWED BY: z: City Adminietretoi City Attorney City &r>gineer iliege Planner Zoning Adeiinletretor Planning Comiaeion Park Gocmf laion Public Viorka Ooordinator Public Safety Director Finance* Director Building Inspector Septic Inspector Hennepin Cty. DOT Minn. State DOT Minn. DHR KCVD LKCD (dates) (dates) '.PECIAL COMMENTS ifuirr l±CJk 1^ it flArt'* — TAFF RECOMMENDATION 7 SPpaovr •pplication as euboiitted Appao'/Z application subject to following conditions STAFF COmENTS & KKCOMMENOATIONS SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1.^ Tiie cx»ndltiufii 6rp^/ir*9 to the otructurt* or l«rid in c;uc*at ion are ^^ ruliar to *uch pruf^ rty ui jrp., diatoly aurrounding pfo|*erty af.d do not apply y* '»rrany tu other land ox atiuciuiea in the diatiirt in which aaid l«i»d ia located; OH T)ie condlllont applying to the airurture or land In L^jtstion aic not p«ruliar to aurh f>fO}-.ity or inaediaiely aur founding piopcrty but do apply gcnf-rally to oD.er land or atturiurea In the diatrirt in which said land ie located. 2. ^ _ T)»e granting of the appliratlofl i* _____ ia not notefif.ary for the pi e<ic r vat ion and rn)cyTT.rnt of a auhstantlal proj-irty light of the applicant. T>.c qrantlr.g ol the prc'j«>f*ed v.ri.-it. will not in nny w.y impair t)i« public bralth. (imftrt. rt«>rala of general welfare; OR The granting of the profward variance i .^y impair the |niMic health, nafety. comfort. i-oraU or general w<»lfare. 4. 1/^ The gr.ntlnq ol the projoned vaiiance will not be lontrary to the invent ol the Ci>i*}uel,en»ive Land t•>^e Plan or the Toning Code; OR S, •n»e granting of the proposed variance would be contrary to tlie intent of the Comprel.enaive l.snrf Use Plan or the Zoning Code. ^ The granting of such variance will not merely serve am a convenience to t>.e applicant, but it neivssar> to alleviate demonatrated hardahipi or difficulties; OR Tlie applicant baa demonstrated no tecognired l.ardahip or difficulty and therefore the granting of auch variance tiould merely aerve as a convenience to auch applicant. 25r. . 1 ^ tLq inw xtj> M SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. ------------------- - --------------------------- ^ . Cilt 9^ I 3 _ __jtAyuSfctt-~tXH XP A/.:. .■'i' V 'V _ fo ' \ A \\ \ \ \ ►,Ar ' \ 2- ..U-x '* / / >• O ' -\ / Mo 0 N \ t: zo ft w« A 1 \ > \. \ \ , \A i \ \ \ ^ A^m 1' 5 *5 \ ^ t^'-' HO^OWI hHB.x-B' _______________’.- ________ ‘ ■ ;; EXHIBIT _ g ^■ ,*f ^ 4 ., ’*’^,-tf'-^‘ vjT.-* •► .- .. • »-■ •, 'j '* :■*,: J. i" rOPOOKAPHIC SUftVCY FOR CHARLES V KR06NESS IN THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5-U7-23 exhibit *?** ■‘' !•. - X. i #685 I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report uas prepared by i»e or under m direct suparvielon and that I am a duly refi stored land surveyor under the laws of the state of Nienesota. X>.c- , J $CAl£> r»IOO* OATi> mRY 4J99i 9Afum>m4NseA level Gordon X. Coffin Ite*Tifc. 6M4 Land Surveyor and Planner Long Lake^ Minnesota 909Q0H E. COEEHt CO., UtC, ENGINEERING 3 SURVEYING LONG LAKE, MINNESOTA . es«. > «'s.<«iiAr' ! na<- •*•, em» ^e»« * y V ■ t \ . \ \ \ \ \\\ ................................ ... ^ I \ '• \ V \ ...................... • ' y .» 1 \ . \ *. ^ \ \ \ . . - • 'i . . - ' ' , • X 's ................. • \ \ ...............*' ' !l X” / .................................. ( ■'•. ■•.■■.'' ; : '■••■'.•'/ -------------------------' ...\ : J );i ! fa i \\\ 'v-s-'T / M - V ■ ■ ■■ ■ - t! ! _eEVOH_LA i i ouhtiaiai * 3- (jun'v pri>(>«rlT 1.0. n^mbtr k/^1 I U~<ma i: .tiMnctni Qr »l l»*# H" r:-nwr at' ^^• 1/* 91 1/*, lS»rs:« «A*t * .or* tn» Ii fV€lti iim f*#l iK#nc* »vn*ih *t ri4M an^U* f««t ^ ih#tHr tstt St right snglss JU. th«iK« north st r^ght .in«ie» iC f««i inofvto o»«l St fifht sn^iss W fool th#nc« rv^'f.h s: ri»ht nAi«» IP ihs n^rlh iin* j I th* JW T % of the M 1/4 thsncs ssst o iho iHrthoott c*rmr thers^l those* oocth to fto^h**«t L.-morlo ino m.r»r>*«*i ..vrwt -.1.^... »*• cHoroof ihofK* 00*1 10 •<H*thso*t ;.ornof tft«r*of thont* nertr to !>«(ltii>in«. S«ll.m », TMOznlp II?, ».n*. J3. ..cept r.«l.. Honnopir v,o«nt* propotl* l*i>. nusbor tA-U 7-i 3-2 ; Tb* W I/* «od ihoi - . j a lto_____ . ___________________________ _. *nti*» I ^ otc«p( rood*, *, Tiofithip IP, Kongo .’!• port .>t port of Lot 1. Aoditetr* »uMiki»ion if * Itno droim porallrl vith and ft*~ right *ngi*» fruo rterth lino ihorri^f. t't tho M 1/4 «1W p»«* -»• -• •• T,T'■ • 2Jf m-rlhorl» of * lino droim poraUrl with *«d ..oO loot •oatterlv ss •o**urod *l I -- 7’J^‘'l: 11 I ''t Jpond ^'easewent I -'1} 'kili 'i-QNfiviEw cm. .^‘1 . M..V4 ---------- Orz^Zz^ mz’Am.' .'.z -*------------------■- «A'.//i'r <s.j#.-»z. TI SA.WZZ /zi.V *»'Z.5 ai^ «y » / fryts .*• >»,V» 'net Ut I tlMk 1 LM I Slock I lot I Slock ? Lot * Slock i Outlet A Cstotlng to.dk FYopOkwi Sood Tot.l: DCVStom; Ukkt Miototeidia Itoock JUV) tac.laioi Sl»d. ftscolaior, Nlnnvooto <*ro»% hroo MO* mrgm •»oWO>^9 CO»0*ncot «OiOO»4»<t Vi 52iiH , / •'••A /. OzeWd ^zm/ dMClMd/z/ ROLLING ACHES II ^ A PRELIMINARY PLAT# O O 4 EJR.EPAREQ Z.F.QR LAKE MINNETONKA HOMES