The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-19-1982 Planning PacketAGENDA i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 PM MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1982 Council Representative - Jo Ellen Hurr Call to Order 1. Call to order/roll Public Hearings 2.7:30 PM 3.7: *5 PM 4.8:00 PM 5.8:15 PM 6.8:30 PM Action Items Subdivision Zoning Amendment - Suntanning Studios #677 William Gregory/David Duff, 1410 & 1420 Shoreline Subdivision #671 Schlee Builders, 3660 Shoreline Drive Subdivision Subdivision 7. #615 Judd Ringer, 2280 Wayzata Boulevard Final Resolution - Subdivision 8. #626 C.E. Van Eeckhout, 1025 North Brown Road Final Resolution - Subdivision 9. #648 First National Bank of Navar»re, 2445 Shadywood Road Variance 10. #674 Cortlen Cloutier, 2480 Casco Point Road Conditional Use Permit 11. #675 Donald Carter, 4460 North Shore Drive Variance 12. #679 Wi'liam Smiley, 2720 Pheasant Road Variance 13. #680 David Butler, 4685 North Shore Drive Conditional Use Permit & Variance Information Items 14. Planning Commission to select Planning Commission Representative to attend May 10, 1982, Council meeting. Approval of Minutes 1j. Approval of the Planning Commission minutes of March 15, 1982. ApV!l_i —/ f ^A. fes&»Of^- f ii(U.S •%»••• %m ••• r TO:Jeanne Mabusth & Planning Conunission FROM:Alan P. Olson, City Planner DATE:March 25, 1982 SUBJECT:#678 Lot Line Rearrangement Subdivision, City of Orono and Kendall (Mike) Ellis, 1000 and 1020 Old Crystal Bay Road South A public hearing is called for the April 19, 1982, Planning Commission meeting to receive public comments on a proposed lot line rearrangement subdivision involving the sale of a portion of the City's French Lake sewer plant property to the adjacent landowner, Mike Ellis.i Because this is a simple, rectangular legal description, the transfer will be made on a metes-and-bounds basis rather than a plat. This proposed sale was first discussed in 1976 and was reopened last fall. A development study was done to review the consequences of this sale. See my February 25, 1982, memo and attached sketches outlining Option #1 (this sale) and Option #2 (a 2 lot subdivision). On March 8, 1982, the City Council determined that this property was no longer needed for any public purpose, and that sale of this peace to Ellis was the best option. On March 22, 1982, the Council approved a purchase agreement with Mr. Ellis for $4,000 plus all legal/administrative costs. The existing Ellis property is about 2.6 acres in size. It is located in the RR-lB rural residential district which requires 2.0 acres per unit. The existing use is fully conforming although the barn does not meet current setback requirements. When Ellis acquires the 0.76 acre parcel, his total lot size would be about 3.4 acres +. This is not large enough to subdivide into 2 lots. Therefore the extra property will have to be legally combined for tax purposes with his existing land. The barn setbacks would become more than required for zoning compliance. The Ellis house is currently connected to City sewer (since 1969). Under current zoning and comprehensive plan policies, sewer availability would not be available to subdivide the property into additional units. Sale of thi.' parcel will still leave about 3.6 acres of dry buildable ground Tor a salable building site on the existing road or sewer easement serving the MVVCC pumping station. The lot line rearrangement subdivision should be approved subject to legal combination of this parcel with the existing Ellis property. Acres Pry Land Acres Wet Land 0^79 Acres Total, all Residential; no. Other (specify) K. wiO \ i.s W '*• mm 1 \ *\ O \ %\ ^ 'V 'm^ CfrhTmuU ur SUMVliX FOR XRUaiiJ. IKIiU; SLUS Ui tus tjOHInbiST 1/4 OF OECTltN ^ .17-23 ' >• • • • aa ■ n^oo ^ /*\ dyS *'<•' Of /.i* A/!f-\ / jat » ///•»'/ • « « HorfA a/ «/ Jat 9-//A/t k- *>^>/ ft*t€ #/ /V '• J<w »•///•/! r' »MR25B6 >J *iJ^ _ eiltOf ORC ; f JASiSSfllLJft J^LtfP€P \ 4 ftitjgu/Ay /.*^r £»/ /4r /r/^ N. > * ^ Ail* ^ ^ '■ • '••.'■■ ■■' , /-.■ i >4^ W / ,, ri^^ c/ry rv £44.15 • ■- I. .• :■•• ■•" w _ A!f to*mar mf 60* f i»A # • J«r •/•/// /I J '■ WH Aorfh /utt •/ Cft'f <.»/ 4 , Jr< »•///•/$3 5l ’ utrmtr «>/ /V *i /V /♦*«* •/ y-/// Y4 **. 4<6»»/ tuH of 6001 . 4*>/ 4 • iA. *-///•/< '••>'- 'M,fcsaJe IB'- % m jr rr % <n\. *5 COUNCIL MEETING TO; FROM; W. R. Benson, City Administrator MAR 5 ’.:s■> ^ C't. John R. Gorhardson, Public Works Coordinator „r—vo Alan P. Olson, City Planner Q! ! 0:‘ Cr-.v..0:O DATE; February 25, 1982 SUBJECT; Sale of City land to Mike Ellis 01*^ crystal Bay Rood This item ^^®^®^J®'"^he^^e5elSpmtrpossi^ sue anfhoS mHar.icht a?fect those possibxUtres. The total parcel can be divided stands'alone or'ean b“lotn?onp Srany amoSu of the pond. The southern area adjacent to tho Ellis property can be divided in two ways. __ . __ij piiis there is one building site remaining. ^L'mL^dLt5a^l^hoSL site (X)'is determined by elevation, trees and distance from the pump station. If this proposed sale to Ellis the*^south into two 2 acre lots. north lot (marked i?2 on option #2) is Tot Te7y dSTraMSefft ?s'opL, flat and very near the MWCC facilities. . iQale of the oarcel to Ellis and creation of oi!rl*neS"i?5d‘in, stU! is ?he best physical use of this orooerty. Mr. Patchin's Deo 1980 appraisal Jj"^„“the^othor°side of the French same values used for the Johnston PP Johnston sale, Srco«Kt'?iouJe To u22 “f mSSS for incremental value only. nnd Ellis will pay earnest money and subdivision review . - . pftgpeftTV #6 78 R£5(^e*n’(AL OPT10M *® X er»v weeps w»»i> £p«W6*»-av KfPPf AAtTA M^IPE. FB^CC gLU^ ^AiC ♦ 2. z*»ACftc yrres f rucAJcLi o 'LJf ^ 6e«ioe*mAc oo/eiofwewr o^xw^J ^%m Aitmvi cny letep* f»w& 4 ^luvoftf^ MM/'CC KC0^$ AIWA F€^CC Z^A^c f IMLPIAI6 ^rres etus S4C6 i>bI 1 |.t3rAC wy I I^AR MEKTINI*. 0|- TIU-: COUNCI I. MARCH 8, 198J PACi: -J- Van Nest moved, Butler seconded, to table the After-The-Fact and Conditional Use peimit for Mr. Specter and directed City Planner Alan Olson to meet with Mr. Specter and draft a resolution for council review at the March 22, 1982 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) RICHARD SPEETER CON’T. Ms. Vicki Wisegarver & Mr. Tom Brokl were present. Zoning Administrator Jean Mabusth reviewed with the council the Resolution, the floor plan, site plan, and the Hennepin County Highway Department letter dated March 1, 1982. #666 CONDITIONAL USE PEICMIT Ms. Vicki Wisegarver 3800 Wayzata Boulevard Council directed staff to include the following changes; The council wanted a tickler file set up and this permit be reviewed each year. 2) The council wanted City Attorney Malkerson to make changes in the language of the Resolution. ^ Oi This is to be brought back to the next regular council meeting on March 22, 1982 to be reviewed by council and acted on at this time. City Planner, Alan Olson reviewed with the council the sale of a parcel of city land to Mr. Mike Ellis. This had been before the council in 1976. SALE OF CITY LAND, .r' Mr. Mike Ellis Butler moved. Van Nest seconded that since this parcel of land r.o longer had any public use or purpose for the City of Orono, staff is directed and authorized to develop and enter into a purchase agreement for sale of this parcel to Mr. Ellis for the approved incremental value of $4,000, and bring back to the March 22, 1982 meeting for council to review. Hr. Mike Lynch of Bonestroo, Anderlik, & Assoc, was present to report to the council of the I/I Evaluation and the Navarre Sewer Problems. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT 1/1 ANALYSIS AND THE NAVARRE SEWER PROBLEMS Mayor VanNest shared with the council some points of information that had been discussed at the Mayors meeting regarding the MWCC cost. Ho stated that 80% of the MWCC cost was fixed cost and to remove the flow of I/I out of the lines would not really change the City's cost, because you would merely reduce the number of gallons, (this is like mill rates and assessed valuations) If you reduce the number of gallons you still have the cost, so you are dividing it by a smaller amount of gallons and therefore your cost per aallon is more. ( r F' (9^ MnK'i’iNtJ ““• ^Pl-mnoi- Olson, stated that m l‘)7u ^^EUis -‘PPioached the City to purchase '• rJ of our sewer plant property and council conceptually approved the sale. Ellis dropped the matter for personal reasons but lately has renewed his request. Staff requested Council to renew the 1976 conceptual aporoval. SAI.r. OF CITY I.ANO TO MIKE EILLIS 040 OLD ^ CRYSTAL DAY ROAD Van Nest stated that the MWCC is now returning most of the sewer oroperty back to the City. Our CMP states the public works deoartment should eventually be moved elsewhere, consequently, the City would probably sell the remaining orooerty not retained by the MWCC residential purposes. Council would 1^^® to review a conceptual plan of ^ possible residential subdivision’and ie-ermine how this sale might affect such a pian. CounciImembers aareed that from the information presented to date, it appears as if the sale of this parcel to Mr. Ellis was logical and reasonable, that the City Council would like to determine how the sale of this piece would affect useability of remaining City land oe-ore agrceiriQ to a selling price. Van Nest moved, Adams seconded to table the Mike Ellis request for further review. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) Butler moved, Frahm seconded, to approve oayment #2 to Ideal Enterprises-Highwood Sewer Project subject to retaining $500.00 for restoration in the spring. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) Mayor Van Nest announced the meeting of the MCWD will be Fcbrua.y 4, 1982. Mayor Van Nest stated the Sewer Service Area Advisory Doard meeting was cancelled duo to the weather, no new date has been set. The minutes of the Sower Service Area Advisory Board were in the packet for council reviewal. Van Nest announced the Mayor's Association Meeting will be held March 4, 1982 in Mound. The minutes of the last meeting were also in the packet for reviewal. PAYMENT #2 IDEAL ENTERPRISES HIGHV;OOD SEWER PROJECT MAYOR'S REPORT ORONO-^UNCIL IU:KTING held APRIL 12, 1976 Page IJ / Dick Benson, City Administrator, stated that in 1963, the Village of Orono purchased 44 acres from the Ellis estate to build a sower treatment plant. tUth this purchase, we acquired a piece of ground approximately 80* X 300', which cuts into a DQ^ui^al rectangular shaped lot that Ilr. Kendall Ellis owns and resides at today. KKNDALL. ELLIS rPvOPnRTV Mr. Ellis has requested of the City of Orono an opportunity to buy back this 80* X 300* piece to complete his natural rectangular lot. ll. W. ‘ /f!C’ t'] ^g He would» of course, have to also absorb the cost of an appraiser and surveyor and any other costs that might occur. This purchase would not hinder the City as far as its existing property is concerned and I do reconunend we proceed, with Council approval. The City Council requested staff to inform Mr. Ellis that the City will consider his request when he has submitted a complete survey of the property and its appraised value. • Dick Benson, City Administrator, informed the City Council that the Orono Park Commission has reviewed the property offered by Mr. Dill Sv^een located at Fagerness Point Road. The Park Commission does not find any beneficial use for this particular piece of land and does not recommend City ownership at this time. FAGEICIESS POiHT PROPERTY Mayor Searles requested staff to send a letter to Ilr. Bill Sv;een thanking his for his offer. Paurus moved, Butler seconded, to approve the Orono Police Reserve Agreement and Appointment Motion, Ayes (4) - Mays (0). POLICE RESERVE AGREEMEIIT The Tax Delinquent Property item was tabled until the meeting of April 26, 1976. TAX DELIHOUEHT PROPERTY Dick Denson, City Administrator, informed the City BO..D RLFULD Council that Ehlers & Associates, Inc. and Spring- field Incorporated, municipal consultants, have been reviewing Orono*s improvement bond debt status. The going .interest rate at the time of the sale and the current bond market condition to determine what savings would bo generated through an advance refunding bond sale, or in other \vords, to reduce the City's debt throughout the life of the bonds. this time, the two municipal firuincial consultants have coiipiled information for the Council's review, I v/ill huvu the subject on the Aon I 2G, 1976 i. lunda for Council's decision, ’.'urther reconjn.-r.dar ions t . « » •• \1 iiiyw upi.Pt" ' TO:Planning Conunission FROM:Alan P. Olson DATE:April 14, 1982 SUBJECT: Proposed Zoning Amendments - Suntanning Studios On April 12, 1982, Council conceptually reviewed my March 25, 1982, memo and draft copy of the ordinance. Their only comment to the Planning Commission is that Council does not favor allowing the tanning studio conditional use permit in the B-4 Office-Professional di&'trict. They felt that this use with its short-time 15 minute visits would be too high a traffic generator to fit into the iuLei.tion of this District. Thus Council will likely omit Section 4 of the proposed ordinance. The practical effect of this change would be felt by Mr. Theobald who was talking about a location in the new office building at 3701 Shoreline Drive (B-4 zone). Note however that he has not yet filed the application we had expected last week, so perhaps he has changed his mind. Planning Commission action and recommendations are required before Council can act on this proposal. With Planning Commission action on April 19, 1982, the Council will likely act on April 26, 1982. i A ilhiftiiiinliiirililiiltifliMiiiill V ^1 ^ f jf ‘ TO:City Council Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Bruce D. Malkerson, City Attorney Mel Kilbo, Police Chief FROM:Alan P. Olson, City Planner DATE: March 25, 1982 SUBJECT: Proposed Zoning Amendments ~ Suntanning Studios A public hearing has been called for the April 19, 1982, Planning Commission meeting to review and pass on proposed zoning amendments that would allow limited suntanning studio equipment in Orono. Council action should beat the April 26, 1982 meeting. Attached is a draft ordinance v;hich should be reviewed for language and intent prior to the hearing. This ordinance is intended to reflect the conceptual direction given by the Council on March 22, 1982, where it was determined that tanning equipment would be permitted as an accessory use within a barber or beauty shop, but would require a conditional use permit if operated as a separate business. Section 1 (35.029) establishes a tanning studio as a conditional use permit in the B-1 District, and provides standards for review of such a use. These standards should be carefully reviewed before ordinance adoption. Section 2 (35.038) establishes the accessory use in B-1 barber or beauty shops. Section 3 clarifies the intent that these new B-1 standards also apply to the B-3 District via the existing reference clauses. Tanning Studio conditional use permits are added to the B-4 District by Section 4 (35.331) and to the B-5 District by Section 5 (35.331). Accessory tanning equipment is added to the B-5 District by Section 6 (35.438). Note that the B-4 District does not permit barber or beauty shops so there is no provision for accessory tanning equipment in that District. .Jt:J m mj— t DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORONO ZONING CODE CHAPTER 35 RELATING TO TANNING STUDIOS AND TANNING EQUIPMENT IN B-1, B-3, B-4 and B-5 business DISTRICTS ► i THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS; Section 1. Chapter 35 of the Municipal Code of the City of Orono is hereby amended by adding Section 35.029 to the list of B- Conditional Uses as follows; 35.029 Tanning Studio. A separate business primarily engaged in offering to the public use of equipment designed for indoor sinta^ninS! subject to special provisions or conditrons including but not limited to the following; a) adequate, safe vehicular access b) sufficient off-street parking of at least l»s spaces per tanning booth. c) hours of operation as approved by the City Council. d) signs as regulated by Section 38.030 et. seq. e) all equipment shall be labeled as approved by „ Underwriter’s Laboratories or another acceptable testing agency, and shall be installed in accordance with all State Building and Electrical Code requirements. f) the operation shall be inspected, and where necessary ' licensed, by the County Environmental Health Department or State Board of Health. q) the business or premises shall not include exercise rooms, showers, sauna baths or massage services. Section 2. Chapter 35 of the Municipal Code Orono is hereby amended by adding Section 35.038 to the list of B-i Accessory Uses as follows; 35.0 38. Barber and Beauty shops may include indoor suntanning as a permitted accessory use provide amount of such accessory equipment shall not exceed a y®tio of one suntanning booth to four barber chairs or beautician stations. Section 35.029 e, f, and g standards shall apply. Section 3. A separate Tanning Studio as regulated by Section 35 029 shall also be a conr’itior.al use in the h* ■» rjho**rino Center Business District according to the existing .platedB-3 conditional Use Section 35.251; and tanning equipment as regulated bv Section 35.038 may also be a permitted accessory use in barber « ^auirshops in the B-3 District according the existing reference contained in B-3 Accessory Use Section 35.260. ORDINANCE NO. Page 2 of 2 Section 4. Chapter 35 of the Municipal Code of the City of Orono is hereby eunended by adding Section 35.331 to the list of B-4 Conditional Uses as follows: 35.331 Tanning Studio. A separate business primarily engaged in offering to the public use of equipment designed for indoor suntanning, subject to special provisions or conditions including but not limited to the standards listed in Section 35.029. Section 5. Chapter 35 of the Municipal Code of the City of Orono is hereby amended by adding Section 35.423 to the list of B-5 Conditional Uses as follows: 35.423 Tanning Studio. A separate business primarily engaged in offering to the public use of equipment designed for indoor suntanning, subject to special provisions or conditions including but not limited to the standards listed in Section 35.029. Section 6. Chapter 35 of the Municipal Code of the City of Orono is hereby amended by adding Section 35.438 to the list of B-5 Accessory Uses as follows: 35.438. Barber and Beauty shops may include equipment for indoor suntanning as a permitted accessory use provided the cunount of such accessory equipment shall not exceed a ratio of one suntanning booth to four barber chairs or beautician stations. Section 35.029 e, f, andgstandards shall apply. Section 7. This ordinance shall be published in the Lake Minnetonka Sun and shall be effective upon publication. day of Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , 1982, by a vote of _ _ ayes and _ _ nays William B. Van Nest, Mayor ATTEST: Alberta M. Strom, City Clerk Published in the Lake Minnetonka Sun on the 1982. day of if.■k' » . * » «' A - "v.- •oSMirid m \ ^t5 '?Tvv ^ V * ‘> % frmi f[-‘ TO BE TANNED 07/ HLATSir •• .■• ■ V : .* • »• tv'77 ::' ’ m -mm ••» •'•tr.r-' --^v' ' .*» • t'r ^ . ■ ' -T .i-' '. ■ ■ ■ , ..V..; ->:• ■ ■5fsi*^: ^7v.‘ -.vSfcK ^ - r . o ^ ^ ■’'W' -WHY A SUNTAN? A de«p« golden ten has become an accepted sign of beauty, vigor and also success. That healthy successful look that comes with a good tan just naturally makes you feel better and in turn will make you more successful at anythirtg you do. A deep golden tan also prevents sun burning to a certain degree. If you are an outdoor oriented person, a rich tan will allow you to stay in the sun longer than usual. Wear your tan like a beautiful coat aiMl feel more secure. How does the sun tan? It is our skin's natural way of protection against the burning effects of the sun. When the skin is exp(^ to sunlight, a brown pigment called Melanin which is preserit in deeper layers of our skin, rises and oxidizes, resulting in a tan. Various tanning devices that reproduce parts of the sun's ultraviolet (UV) radiation have been in existence for over 70 years. But only since 1976, have artificial suns been able to produce a good tan without any unpleasant side effects. HOWTO TAN SAFELY The KLAFSUN Tanning Systems being featured at this location are using the revolutionary patented UV-A "Wolff- System". Forget all you have heard or experienced about suntanning! The KLAFSUN cannot be compared with any of the old UV-B sunlamps, which caused skin damage and never really tanned. • Millions of people in Europe, where this new UV-A tanning trend started, have enjoyed the benefits of these fantastic devices. They use them at home, in clubs and in special »untanning operations. Even dermatologists recommend the UV-A tanning, because it is safer than the sun. uva-^'^*''------- '■"*-------^UV-A GET YOUR TAN NOW! Don't hesitate — try the exciting KL^SUN Tanning System today. You will experierKe a new and totally different sunbath and you will like it very much. In one way it Is similar to tanning in the natural sun — you lay down and relax. But you don't have to fear sunburning, peeling and dryirrg of the skin any more. KLAFSUNS guarantee you a beautiful tan after a maximum of ten treatments. The first tan you can already see after 2 sessions. So get ready and sign up for an inexpensive vacation and get your deep glowing tan right now at this location! i . ■I- TO;Walter R. Benson, City Administrator Alan P. Olson, City Planner March 15, 1982 1-ZZ'g‘t) SUBJECT: Suntanning Studio and Equipment FROM: DATE: On March 1 we received a letter from John Theobald who was interested in opening a suntanning studio consisting of 3 beds in Navarre. We told him we would investigate the zoning requirements and get him an answer as soon as possible. This is a new field and our zoning code is silent on this use. We circulated a memo among staff requesting imput. Jeanne polled several (all?) Council members. The concensus was that narrowly- defined suntanning might be appropriate in certain areas depending upon level of use, hour's, parking requirements, etc. However, other uses such as sauna baths, massage parlors, rap parlors, etc. were definitely not appropriate ^n Orono's neighborhood-type business area. Thus if tanning studios are to be allowed, the a{>propriate means is via a conditional use permit. City Attorney Malkerson agrees that if this use is to be allowed, a conditional use permit is the proper vehicle. However, since the ordinance does not list this use nor any similar use as a conditional use permit in any "B" district, then an ordinance amendment should be adopted prior to any approval. Failing to amend the ordinance would leave the City open to enforcement problems or it could open the door to unwanted uses in the future. At this point advertisements appeared and we became aware of a 1 bed "tanning studid’ was in use as part of the existing Jul Ann Hair Fashions beauty shop at 3384 Shoreline Drive Navarre. The beauty shop is a permitted-use in the B-1 district. This installation uses the same equipment and design proposed by Theobald, Mr. Jacobs visited the Jul Ann shop and advised the operators to remove the window advertising until we resolved the questions about use and/or required Council review. He did not tell them to cease the use or remove the equipment. On March 12, 1982, Joanne Mabusth wrote both Theobold and Julie Felt asking each to apply for a conditional use permit. accessoryMrs. Felt apparently feels that her 1 bed unit is an _ _ _ _ _^ part of the on-going, permitted beauty shop use and thus should not be subject to a condiiional use permit. She objects to the $100 application foe. / •• 4 OPTIONS 1. Require a conditional use permit Cor any suntanning or equipment whether part of another use or not. use o 4* •Require a conditional use permit for a separate suntanning business but allow such equipment as a permitted part of another business such as a medical clinic or beauty shop. 3. Make no ordinance changes thus not allowing this use at all. RECOWIENDATION I recommend that an ordinar.ee change be considered for either OPTION #1 or #2 where the City defines and regulates this typo of use. The schedule would be as follows: 1. April 5, 1982: Deiidline for conditional use permit applications. 2. April 7, 1982; Publish hearing notice 3. April 12, 1932: Council reviews draft language. 4. April 19, 1982:Planning Commission holds public hearing and makes recommendations - Planning Commission reviews any applications. 5. April 26, 1932:Council adopts ordinance amendments Council passes on any applications. I TO; FROM; DATE: Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth April 14, 1982 SUBJECT: #677 William Gregory & David Duff, 1410 & 1420 Shoreline Subdivision Public Hearing - 8:00 PM List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Berg letter dated 4-2-82 Gaffron memo dated 4-6-82 Gaffron memo (update) + plan dated 4-14-82 Hennepin County Highway Department 3-17-82 Plat of Shoreline from H.C.H.D. M.C.W.D. correspondence Zoning Administrator's letter Preliminary Plan revised 4-2-82 The application now on file for the review of the enclosed plan is incomplete. The applicant has been advised of the need to file a separate variance application to allow for the appropriate review. Exhibit G. On April 13, 1982, the applicants' attorneys advised me that new plans will be drafted and submitted at our meeting. The revised plans will readjust the problem lot lines so that variance setbacks will not be required. I have limited our review to those issues independent of lot configurations and lot standards. A) Right of Way - Shoreline Drive I have enclosed a plat of Shoreline Drive sent by the Hennepin County Highway Department for this review. Exhibit E. The Highway Department asks for a 66' dedication in addition to the old platted Bracketts Avenue (for more detail see Berg letter. Exhibit A) and tne parking lot area known by some of us as "Molly's Corner". The 66' dedication appears consistent with the County's previous requests for example in the Greentree and Millston plats. As Berg reminds us not very consistent when one considers the right of way of 55' agreed upon for the Rivers property to the immediate south of the subdivision. Berg contends that Brackett Avenue is not under the jurisdiction of the County because of the old dedication language and actual useage of the road. Staff will seek an opinion of the City Attorney regarding Bracketts Avenue. At this point in the review staff would have to agree with the applicant's position concerning the additional dedication of the parking lot to the County. Staff is well aware of the long standing concerns of Council regarding the policing problems and neighbors' complaints over the trespassing of the fisherman over private property in the immediate area. #677 Gregory/Duff Page 2 Subdivision Gregory plans to place no trespassing signs along Smiths Bay and attempt the same type signage along the edge of railroad right of way. A defined parking lot whether it is controlled by the County or the City in an area where there is no public access for the fisherman is not feasible. I would like the Planning Commission to address the following: 1 - How effective will no trespassing signs be in this situation - Do you have any other ideas?? 2 -What about riparian outlots with docks on Smiths Bay given the existing situation? 3 -Do you agree that the fisherman should be encouraged to fish elsewhere? 4 - Do you feel there is a need of some kind for a public controlled area in the existing parking area? Riparian Outlots Berg has asked that Planning Commission not limit dock use to Tanager Lake for Lot 4. He contends that if a future owner has a large boat or sail boat that it could never clear the Tanager Bridge. Limit lot 4 to one dock but give owner a choice of which bay he wants to use. Septic Review I have enclosed Gaffron's memo reviewing the septic test data received as of this date. Exhibit B - clearly, it is not adequate. I suspect the limitations on this property created by the excessive wetlands, low areas, poor soils make up, slope problems - you name it - may result in a 3 lot instead of a 4 lot plat. The additional septic testing will decide that sometime later in the spring. I think it is very important that we impress upon the owners' attorneys and/or agents that a preliminary plan must satisfy all setback, area, width, etc. standards of the LR-IA zoning district and not to satisfy the demands or desires of their clients. I would advise members to get out on the site before you make any recommendations. Drive into the Gregory's driveway down to the new garage and then up the hill to the caretaker house. Remember that none of the area as you enter on the right side of the road is suitable for septic systems (Exhibit C). The low area to the immediate left is a designated wetlands. The remaining high area to the west and south consists of heavy clay and steep slopes - remember also that heavy clays mean mounds and mounds can't bo constructed in areas with greater than 6% slope. Now seek out 4 house sites. --- i #677 Gregory/Duff Page 3 Subdivision Staff Recommendation Table the Gregory - Duff subdivision application until the following issues and submittals are realized: 1 - Adequate septic testing as requested by Gaffron for staff review. 2 -Preliminary plans showing approved setback, lot area, lot widths and location of all existing and proposed septic sites within the appropriate lot lines. 3 -Resolution of right of way issue including area now used for public parking. 4 -City Attorney opinion concerning jurisdiction over Bracketts Avenue. EXHIBIT f\ WRIGHT. WEST & DIESSNER LAW OFFICES OOO MlOWeST PLA2A BUILDING eoi nicollct mall J.WAiOh T HAHL r. oiCSSNCn SMcr ritkO wwcaT PCTCR weiBS ALBcnr anoacws .jR. RICHARD A. MASSCi. T MOMAS R. AINO CHARLCS r. OICSSNCR THOMAS R. MAMLCR ROBERT H . ZALA DOBSON WEST LEO O. STERN LARRT J. BERO VIROINIA U. LIEBIO ANNE MORROW ANDREW I. coulter PATRICIA A. BEITMON MICHAEL A.TRlTTlRO SUSAN SHirrLER enlow MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 5SR02 Oi^» 330 * 3000 April 2, 1982 WAYZATA OFFICE 3ZO MANITOBA WAYZATA. MINNESOTA S9S0I BIZ* AT3-ZSIS . \ . ‘ «> \ '• \ V' •V / • I r-" • ' • ; i \ > V « City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 M>R Re:David Duff/William Gregory Subdivision Your File No. 677 Dear Tean: Thank you for the opportunity to chat over the telephone this past Wednesday morning about the Duff/Gregory subdivision. I would like to recap a portion of our discussion, and in the latter half of this letter, set forth the facts upon which William Gregory bases his family's ownership of the portion of Brackett's Avenue not being used for County Road 15. Parking Problem. In the northeast corner of proposed Lot 1 of the suMivision, there is a portion of the property currently being devoted to public parking. It is my understanding that this is causing problems for the City of Orono, adjacent land owners, and Hennepin County. All parties concerned would like to see the parking problem eliminated. I would like to propose that the affected portion of the property be subjected to a conserva tion easement running to the City of Orono, which would itself be subject to an easement for future highway purposes on behalf of Hennepin County should the county need that land to widen or modify County Road 15. This conservation easement, in addition to prohibiting parking, would require the Gregorys to plant some decorative shrubery which would beautify that area, in addition to making it far more difficult for transients to park cars there. That area of the proposed plat would cease to be a portion of proposed Lot 1, and would bo identified as an outlet of the subdivision. I1 L Jean Mabusth April 2, 1982 page 2 Riparian Rights. Outlet A as shown on the proposed plat is intended by the Gregorys to be utilized for boat docking purposes as to proposed Lot 1. Outlet B would be reserved for possible boat docking privileges for the benefit of Lot 4 if Lot 4 chose to locate its dock on the main lake instead of Tanagor Lake. We understand that# subject to these boat docking and riparian rights# Orono will require some sort of conservation easement. Dedication of Highway. It is the desire of the Gregorys and the Duffs to dedicate to the public a right-of-way for County Road 15 as follows: As to the northerly (Gregory) portion of the proposed plat# there would be dedicated a 66-foot wide right-of-way for County Road 15. As to the southerly (Duff) portion of the proposed plat# the parties propose to dedicate only that land actually being used by County Road 15, including hardcover# shoulders, and ditches. It is my understanding that this amounts to approximately 58 feet. Please note that the adjacent property to the south reached a settlement a month or so ago to dedicate only 55 feet to the county. Change in Lot Lines. Because of the unique geography of the property# there is some difficulty locating building sites that lay out in a way amenable to construction of homes. The Gregorys are planning to build a garage on Lot 3 and build their own home on Lot 2. After viewing the sketches of the Gregorys' architect# it occurred to me that there might# in fact# be a problem with boundary lines and set-back requirements. I would propose that the boundary line between Lots 2 and 3 be modified slightly so that the westerly boundary between those lots be moved westward lightly so that there would be a ten-foot set-back between the proposed garage to be built on Lot 3 and the boundary line. The set-back of the house on Lot 2 would be twenty-five feet from the property line between Lots 2 and 3. As to the swimming pool# the architect feels that it could be relocated so that no variance from the seventy-five (75) foot lake set-back would be needed. I have met with Mark Granberg of Gordon Coffin's office and he is preparing a revised preliminary plat showing the new lot line and new acreage figures. Moving the westerly boundary of Lot 3 should have the effect of increasing the dry, buildable acreage of Lot 3# making that lot closer to standard size. This was not done previously in as much as there was some doubt as to whether there would be adequate area on Lot 2 in which to build the house planned by the Gregorys. i Of/-''V— ■i Jean Mabusth April 2, 1982 page 3 Jean, I would appreciate it if you would discuss with Bruce Malkerson my opinion concerning the vacation of Brackett Avenue. When the plat of Orono is filed, the various public roads, alleys, public reserve, etc., were dedicated to the public. In the second vacation of the plat of Orono in 1914, various streets, alleys, avenues, and the public reserve within that plat were vacated, ”... save and except Brackett Avenue as the same is a county road ...”. My understanding of that language is that all of Brackett Avenue was vacated except the portion that was a public road. If that interpretation is accepted, the county would not have any interest in the other portions of Brackett Avenue. To eliminate any confusion, I would ask Orono to vacate all of Brackett Avenue, except the portion shown on the proposed plat as being dedicated as the right~of~way of County Road 15. We would also attempt to secure from Hennepin County a deed, or whatever other documentation would be necessary to release their interest in the property. I believe, however, that Orono*s vacation, along those lines, would be sufficient to achieve the purpose which we are seeking. I am enclosing a photocopy of the judgment and decree of the district court dated October 29, 1914, vacating Brackett Avenue. Please note that since 1914 the predecessors of the Gregorys have paid taxes on the portion of Brackett Avenue which the Gregorys are claiming. Of course, the Gregorys have paid taxes on that land for as long as they have owned it. If I can provide you with any additional information, please let me know. Mark Granberg will be forwarding to you the revised pre liminary plat drawings not later than Monday or Tuesday of next week. Again, let me thank you for all your assistance and good advice on this project. sh enc. TO: FROM: DATE: EXHIBIT Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Septic System Inspector April 6, 1982 £ SUBJECT: #677 David Duff & Willicun Gregory, Shoreline Drive Subdivision I have reviewed the site evaluation report submitted and wish to make the following comments: In general the slopes and soils moderately limit the future location of houses and buildings. Soils are mostly clay loams and loams. Some lots require further testing at this point since acceptable drainfield sites have not been demonstrated. Lot 1 - Average perc rate for holes 1-4 was 115 mpi. The slope in this area is too steep to allow a mound system to be used, hence this area is unsuitable for use as drainfield. Average perc rate for holes 5 and 6 was 23 mpi with slopes in the range of 15-18%. This area was chosen by the site evaluator as the primary site, with an untested secondary site just uphill to the west. Because of the close proximity to an existing foundation, I would recommend that an additional 2 to 4 perc tests be conducted in the alternate and primary site to confirm that the entire area designated is suitable for drainfield. Lot 2 - Testing for Lot 2 indicated acceptable perc rates averaging 40 mpi. Slopes are acceptable for a standard system in the designated sites. As an added note of caution, however, the drainfield sites will limit the house location to the east and northeast portions of the lot. Lot 3 - This proposed lot has an existing house with well and septic system. The septic system was functioning acceptably during my most recent inspection. No suitable alternate drainfield site has yet been found on this lot. Additional site investigation is needed before tnis lot can be approved. In addition, should the existing house ever be replaced, the existing drainfield would have to be abandoned since it is less than 75 feet from /.he lake shore. Lot 4 - This lot has an existing house with well and septic system. The septic system was repaired by adding drainfield in 1965, but it has been in a state of failure since at least 1979. Also, this existing drainfield actually is located 60' into the proposed Lot 3, not as shown on the site evaluators report. Since the existing drainfield has to be replaced now, both a primary and secondary site should be located. The proposed "alternate" site, southeast of the house, needs further testing but may well prove adequate for a primary system. Because of space limitations, slopes, house Page 2 location and well proximity, this may not leave room for an alternate site adjacent, and a secondary site located elsewhere on the lot may be necessary.4 Conclusion: 3 of the 4 proposed lots need additional testing and evaluation before any decision can be made. EX!i!"iT TO:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Septic System Inspector DATE:April 14, 1982 10:30 PM SUBJECT: Duff On-Site Proposal 0-4"+ Loamy Topsoil 4"-10"+ Clay Loam Fill (frozen/melting). Mottled, Saturated 10"-12"+ Sandy Loam or Sand, Dark Gray, Saturated 12"-15"+ Clayey Sand, Mottled, Saturaged 15"-30"+ Terminated Medium Sand, Large Gray/Red Mottled Pattern, Saturated Site is at elevation 932'+, has standing water, very flat, obviously was filled and planted with evergreens some years ago. Mottling indicates seasonal saturation very near surface, drainage away from site is very poor. This is not an acceptable site for either a standard drainfield or a mound, due to: ' 1) Seasonal saturation essentially at the surface 2) Lack of appreciable topsoil 3) Clay layer (fill) which would effectively limit infiltration; and 4) Lack of drainage away from site J ‘21— ^ \ At. ^ 1 rtrjii •«/1 Cj ^•♦ *• - . ^ rrKiii*>4a OUTLOTB . vf,T« ' • . - ., > • ...V- . .i ■' ^ ^..Yr v': *' EKKlCil h HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South Hopkins, Minnesota 65343 **T»« 935-3381 March 17, 1982 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 •} < W«« MAR I 91982 \-i LJinvor c:;0N0 Dear Ms. Mabusth: RF Proposed Plat - "navid niiff/lVilliam Crpoory' CSAH 15 West of Orono Orchard Road Section 2-11, Tovmship 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 1004 Review and Recoimendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require Cbunty review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and found it acceptable with consideration of these conditions: -The right of way shown on plat for CSAH 15, No. 15 Plat 51 filed February 17, 1982 (Attachment 1) and the right of way shown on the IXiff/Gregory plat dated March 1, 1982 do not agree. -The City of Orono must resubmit this plat for review after the right of way question is resolved. -This Duff/Gregory plat, dated March 1, 1982, isjjo^pproved by Hennepin County. Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. Sincerely,9. /"/ ^ James M. Wold, P.E. Chief, Planning and Progranming JMV/LIW:pj Attachment cc: Gordon Coffin Co., Inc. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer 1 ll S'*f f t y, , 1 (v\MAR /V r ^’’i Mt:' r-; .V 1 ; EX^a2, ^ _ ^0 0>-Vli. liRf mimiroNffi P.O. Box 387. Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 •OMO Of HilMCEtt: Ot»tf H. Cockran. Prw. • Albtrl 1. ItliaaM • Jmim S Ruuall • John £ Iliomas • Barbaia CudmundMii March 16, 1982 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota \ ^nR I 8 V * * « 55323 Re; Plat *67’’ - David Duff/Wllllam Gregory Dear Ms. Mabusth: The MCUO would like to withhold any commeni;s concerning the proposed development until the MCWO has had the opportunity to review the codes or regulations which govern the design and setback of drainflelds In Orono. Please foreward these codes and regulations at your earliest convenience, so we may proceed with our review. Very truly yours. EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES Engineers for the District y , I) C11/f/^rd Reep 4 '*$ A > 'ft . f i I 3>7 V * 1 a EXHIBIT —F, ■awiO O'' % tut MIHMtOMM P.O. Boi 387. Wayzata. Minnesota 55391 ■0*110 or M*N*CtRS: Da«id H. Coctuan. Pres. • Albetl 1. Uhnian • lamts S Rutitll • lohn C Ihomji • Biibara Cudmundton March 22, 1982 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono PU Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota i ; ! i m 23 1982 ‘j- 5532J Re: Plat #677 - David uuff/WilHam bregory Dear Ms. Mabusth: AS per your request for comments concerning the above mentioned subdivision. AS you are aware, the MCMO would require a permit in all requests for subdivision, to insure that the quality of stormwater and the rate of discharge of stormwater would improve or remain unchanged as a result of any proposed development. However, Plat #677 requires the approval of on-site facilities for individual septic systems. The MCWD is primarily concerned that the setback of these systems corresponds to the regulations set forth in 6MCAR, W.P.C.40, and your City Ordinance Ho. 210, and Resolution No. 894. In your City Ordinance No. 210, under Section 22.30, Subdivision 2* Site Evalaution and Section 22.20 subdivision t>: Subdivision ADDlicatlons requires the City to approve a site evalatuion report showing compliance with your code prior to any subdivision approval. The MCWD requests the applicant of the subdivision to submit this site evalaution report as a required exhibit as part of our review process. Very truly yours. EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES Engineers for the District \JjU ord Reep ^^11. _ -in i EXHIBIT * ♦ CITY of OROXO ’• V V^l «• ., 1 i |*nsi lUi% i»4**C‘rv>tal li.iv Mimu>«*t.i MuhuiimI Offuvn On the \nrth Sfutre of I^nke .Mtnnetonka April 8, 1982 Larry Berg Wright, West & Diessner 744 East Lake Stre-st Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. Berg: I have just received the revised preliminary plans for the Gregory - Duff subdivision from the Coffin office showing substandard setbacks for proposed structures on Lots 2 and 3. In our most recent telephone conversation, I had hoped that I had made it clear to you that Council would never approve a setback variance for a property also being considered for subdivision where lot line adjustments can still be made. Council approves all subdivisions based on the finding that all lots have met the lot requirement standards of the zoning district and would never approve future setback variances for proposed structures. Ii If you still intend to proceed with the variance request for both Lots 2 and 3, I have enclosed a variance application that must be completed and returned to this office by Monday, April 12, 1982. The City will require $50.00 for each lot for a total fee payment of $100.00. Please contact my office if you have any questions. Sincerely, J^nne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator Enclosure tit II l>|\«.* \ W I V \ I > 1 I" I MiMIMsjk\lln\ A MS \M I ♦ iM ♦M iHkS I i “ I' * ■7 TO:Placing Commission Council City Staff Developer FROM:Alan P. Olson, City Planner DATE:April 15, 1982 SUBJECT: #671 Schlee Builders Inc - Preliminary Plat Recap Memo This is the largest single development proposal in Orono in a very long time. There are many issues to resolve and decisions that have to be made. I will try to lay them out as simply as possible. Where technical matters are involved, I will give the staff recommendations. Where policy matters are involved, I will suggest options for discussion. Detailed background data and technical staff reviews are in the attached report. That allows this memo to be essentially an outline of issues and suggested actions. PLANNING COMMISSION - PUBLIC HEARING 8:15 PM APRIL 19, 1982 The developer held an informal neighborhood meeting for area residents on April 14, 1982. Only three persons attended all representing the same property. The public hearing will likely draw more attendance, questions and concern. I should think the Planning Commission would like to receive public comments on: 1. Type of housing proposed (single vs attached) 2. Density (should PRD be approved for 3 units/acre) 3. Traffic and Circulation pattern (pros and cons) 4.Off-site road improvements (Blaine - Northern - other neighborhood streets) 5. 6. Off-site sewer improvements - (Service to Northern Avenue) Need for additional park facilities, and wha«- type 7. Use or maintenance of wetland area. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Unless something unexpected arises during the hearing. I would recommend that Planning Commission proceed to review and act on the plan as proposed. This might best be done by separate discussion and action on each of the following separate issues and then making one final recommendation to Council on the whole package. #671 Schlee Builders Page 2 Recap Memo 1. 2. 3. 4. The main issue is density, the number of units to be permitted, and whether they will be detached or attached: A.48 units as proposed requires approval of a PRD Conditional Use Permit (whether attached or detached) B.44 units are the most permitted if density transfer is not permitted from the Outlet A area The only reason to deny this transfer is if some reasonable use or development of this area is not found. C.32 units are the most permitted if the PRD Conditional Use Permit is denied. The major reason for this would be disapproval of the variance necessary for detached units. (32 units is the basic LR-IC acre density) A. A second closely related issue is plat layout, principally acceptance or rejection of the Outlet A density transfer. At this point, I recommend requiring Outlet A to be actually used for housing in some manner: By extending a cul de sac and creating 3-4 lots. These new lots could be: a) allowed as extra lots to offset extra improvement costs b) offset by other open space or park dedication; or c) offset by spreading out the remaining units achieving larger lot sizes. B.By extending the lot lines of lots 6-9, block 2. This is simpler and requires less expense, but it makes these lots extremely large and still potentially redevelopable for other purposes Planning Commission should make recommendations to Council concerning the proposed single family lot sizes. Compare the proposed lots with LR-lC *} acre single family standards and with the developed lots in the adjacent neighborhood. Planning Commission should make recommendations to the Council concerning the general street layout, especially pros and cons of: Prohibiting direct access to County Road 15. Upgrading Blaine Avenue. Directing traffic toward Livingston Avenue. Providing a connection to Northern Avenue. A. B. C. D. E.Keeping or closing the existing Northern-Blaine railroad crossing. F.The possibility of a new link from Northern to Togo. #671 Schlee Builders Page 3 Recap Memo 5. 6. Planning Commission should make recommendations to the Council concerning conditions of approval for: A. Maximum individual lot hardcover (35% on each lot results in 28% overall hardcover for the project) B. Offstreet parking - whether 1 or 2 stalls should be enclosed. C. Accessory buildings - should any be allowed and if so, how many and of what size? (Recommended maximum 1/lot, maximum 600 sf; if any) Any preliminary approval should be conditioned upon compliance with: A. Sewers to flow north per City Engineer's recommendation. B. Water main extension per City Engineer's plan approval. C. Storm drainage system per City Engineer and M.C.W.D. plan approval. D. Street construction per City Engineer's plan approval. E. Tot lot park dedication subject to Park Commission recommendations, with total park dedication per Ordinance #220, Section 39.170 et. seq., and the current fee schedule. F. Payment of all required development review and improvement inspection fees, park dedication fees, and improvement costs, connection charges or assessment waivers, all to be negotiated with the Council once final density and development type is decided. 7. Separate Planning Commission motions should be made on: A. Single detached vs attached unit variance (approval or denial) B. PRD Conditional Use Permit (approval or denial) C. Preliminary Plat (conditional approval or denial). • •• • »fi Ret/isco Ljkyoi/T staff sv«ee5TMU pc»»iTy UCT AC. *ikW *1® 4. CIA »f <4c MCMf fJCT AlteA )( UHflT^/^CjCC 16.22 - s,4i Q ^T'otnUTTA'' uiXM Mtio COL AlOO UCTCS 19.01 5 (D BUKK-^L^I^ 06O9M&S Terr t0f PAI2K ALUAi/AAUC Al»^^ QO^S 9Ay 40 d) CCTTAIM 6TMCIL UTTS TeTTAL 4fi OaJITS .“t .:k m t V b’ ift TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Council City Staff Developer Alan P. Olson April 15, 1982 #671 Schlee Builders Inc.- Work Sheet This report contains the detailed ba=K,«^^^^ *e=t^^^_ and alternatives upon which were haseo r dations given in the attached memo. background The easterly and ?°"^^®5^^he^remainder I-i^light industrial zoned B-1 commercial J^^^^^JIed^^esidential in the 1974 in 1967. It '^as all reclassifiea_r^ Comprehensive lR-IC-1. The Kulberg property ra‘co«er™ns B-1. These land use plans were reaffirmed by the 1980 CMP. The east half of the fMr,P«?n'L?“-r?heS«“r“'tSl;r“ Cinema and operated as e_w^ee on 11-30-78 Schlee (Hussman 1978 when it was sold 1 447 for M-6 PRD rezoning. Development) filed units total 50 units on proposing 4 quads and double to LR-lC-l 3 unit/ 10 acres. Application # wa preliminarily approvedir/ir2iii^-rois>%rfitftotal! hc« “;e‘^re:i^^d^^“r^5rare gineerin, pl»^ but the preliminary plat approval expirea on on October 7, 1980, \T' 5‘rtMr«!M"lan"S«'’'rra;rriv4d on 7-13-81. Engineerrng review fees were paid on 11-23-81. The west half of this PJ°P®5^^ ”^3 distribution center and/or and was originally 1974 rezoning occurred,headquarters office site. «^en the 1974 rezoni g^^^ Tonka sued and later ^i^c-l^residential classificationpulation that agreed to the LR-IC 1 resi residential "which shall permit a total of thirty six iJt.; units." On 1-8-82, Schlee filed this new application t671 for the rk Sheet ound data* facts he sximmary recommen- Is property was L light industrial tial in the 1974 75 the whole berg property e plans were owned by Northwest In Theater thru 0-78 Schlee (Hussman [-6 PRD rezoning, »tal 50 units on :o LR-lC-1 3 unit/ linarily approved :ess was off Co. fheater structures IS approved later, J on 8-14-80. application #585. i\e original 24 an 7-13-81. Engineering by Tonka Corp. ibution center and/or rezoning occurred, ty in a 1976 stip- dential classification X (36) residential cation #671 for the #671 Schlee Builders Inc. April 15, 1982 page 2 combined Theater/Tonka properties. The oriainal description of ZONTNr: LR-lc-1 basic requirements: Section 34.630 W/PRD Cond. Use Permit: Section 34.621 single family residential roin. Jj ac (21,780 sf)/lot min. 100 ft lot width setbacks: front or rear 30' side 10' up to 3 units/acre provided all units are attached w/max. 4 unXts/bldg max 35% hard cover min 2 pkg spaces/unit- at least 1 enclosed and attached compliance w/37.015 (max 4 units/dry buildable acre after all density credits given) compliance w/38.600 PRD re quirements including 38.640 dedication of open space to a) homeowner's assoc. b) landlord maint. c) special service district, o d) City ownership and^i^nSvatioJ°ii^hoSsiL^J^®"^®^ flexibilityCity. In return for otherwise found in the the Citv u higher density and flexibility detailed plans additTnn^ipower to require Of their description of APPLICATION #671 Soductf ™erte?abfe #671 Schlee Builders Inc. April 15, 1982 page 3 The area labeled "Outlet A" is "leftover" land. The de veloper has clustered all lots in one area principally to save street and utility costs. The area of Outlet A has been utilized to obtain the 48 lot density. Thus Outlot A is not further buildable since its density has been "transferred" to the land that is physically developed The area labled as "Park" is mostly a wetland, all parts of which below elevation 936 are officially designated as flood plain. This area likewise is used as density credit to achieve the 48 lot total. It is also used as the the ponding area required for handling development runoff. The "Park" designation is probably wrong; it may or may not imply eventual City ownership. New streets in the development are conceived as being dedicated to the City, becoming integrated with our existing street system. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES I.DENSITY STUDY 1. Confomance with Sections 34.621 and 31,841c Section ^4.^21 allows up to 3 units/net acre with PRD approval. Section 31.841c allows density credit for the wetland provided a flowage and conservation easement is granted. Thus net density is calculated by taking the gross land area minus only the area required to be dedicated for public streets. Gross land area Less street ROW 19.08 acres - 2.71 acres (Blaine-New Roads) - 0.15 acres (7 ft along Co. Rd. 15) Net land area Zoning density Allowable units Actual density 16.22 acres (including wetland) X 3 units/acre 48.66 units maximum 48 units B 2.96 units/acre<3.0 allowed 2, Conformance with Section 37.015 Which provides that after all density credits, the net density must still not exceed 4,0 units per dry build- able acre. "Park" area is 4.12 acres total including about 1.06 acres of dry land above elev. 936; or about 3.06 acres of flood plain. Net land area Less wetlands Dry buildable 16.22 acres - 3.06 acres _j _ _ _ _ _ _ 13.16 acres Dry land density; 48 units in 13.16 acres =» 3.65 units/dry acre ^4.0 allowed 1671 Schlee Builders Inc. April 15, 1982 page 4 3. Alternate Density Calculations a.) The original 60 unit proposal was rejected because it did not comply with 34.621 or 37,015: 60 units in 16.22 ?cres =3.70 units/acre>3.0 allowed 60 units in 13.16 acres = 4.56 units/dry acre>4.0 allowed b.) Given the existing road layout and any other credits or variances. Section 37.015 would limit the absolute maximum number of units to 52 (4/acre x 13.16 dry acres = 52.64). This is not allowable. This is a check limit. c.) If density transfer is not allowed from Outlot A, the maximvun number of units permitted is 44, not 48: Net land area 16.22 acres (including wetland) Less O.L. A -1.71 acres dry New net area 14.51 acres x 3 units/acre = 43.53 units Less wetland - 3.06 acres New dry area__j_ _ 11.45 acres New dry density 44 units in 11.45 acres = 3.84 units/dry acre d.) If the PRO Conditional Use Permit is denied, the basic LR-lC-1 zoning would limit the density to 32 units (2/acre x 16.22 = 32.44) e.) In all situations, less road right-of-way would allow more units and more road right-of-way would reduce the allowable number of units. f.) The existing Navarre Heights LR-IC single fcimily neighborhood contains 75 residences and up to 4 vacant lots on 19,39 net acres for a density of 3.87 units/acre (existing) or 4.07 \inits/acre (potential). 4. Density Conclusion Given the existing road layout (amount of ROW), the 48 units proposed is the maximum allowable density for an LR-lC-1 PRO, and it is about 25% less dense than the existing neighborhood. II. HOUSING TYPE STUDY 1. LR-lC-1 PRD Section 34.621c requires that in order to receive the density credit up from two units per acre to 3 units per acre that all units be attached (as doubles, triples, or quads). The purpose of this is two-fold: to provide different housing types, and to maximize open space at the higher denisty. 2. General PRO Section 38.620 allows the Council some discretion as to detached, attached or multifeunily dwelling structures, but subject to special district standards. 3. The original Schlee (Hussman) applications all #671 Schlee Builders Inc. April 15, 1982 page 5 included some quads which met with general disfavor by City officials at that time. 4. The original applications containing attached twins fronting on Blaine met with general disfavor by the neighborhood. 5. I think it is clear that by strict interpretation tLt*'shoSld"te'limlted"w®LR^C^2 SSit/acre even though the PRO would allow clustering and individual lot sizes less than half acre or 100 ft wide. 6. The developer has not proceeded with the previous applications partially because he believes single family proposal is a better plan for the neighbor hood and for the market. 7.Mixed Singles and Doubles a.) This is an option that more closely meets the LR-lC-1 PRD intent. It would allow the lot sizes to vary so singles could be built on 70 ft + lots, and doubles on smaller 100 ft+ lots. b.) The developer says he will not proceed if this is required because of his preception of the market. G.Multi“Family _^a.) It has been suggested that one or two apartment buildings be considered on the high point or the property with all remaining land being common open space. b.) The total number of units would remain about the same, although more than 48 is likely by the formula because there would be far less street ROW required. c.) The developer says he can not proceed with this because of current financing climates. 9.Variance .a.) Any of the above options including any single family or multifamily structures would require a variance from Section 34.621c* b.) It would be difficult to demonstrate hardships in this type of situation yet some justification is required for variance approval* c.) If e variance for detached units is considered^ the logical reason for approving it is because #671 Schlee Builders Inc. April 15, 1982 page 6 the result would more closely conform to existing neighborhood conditions and to the underlying single fcunily zoning. 10. Housing Type Conclusion a. ) Approving the proposal requires a variance for single family units at 3/acre density. b. ) Denying the variance would likely not result in 1/2 acre singles but rather in duplex or quad construction (perhaps more than 48 units total if road ROW is reduced) or in delayed development. III. SUBDIVISION LAYOUT 1. General Pattern The design chosen is a result of several criteria: a. ) Street access required to Blaine at Livingston b. ) Street access required to Northern Ave. at a grade level street intersection/RR crossing c. ) Future access required to west property line d. ) All the above required so that multiple access is available to serve the number of units proposed e. ) No access permitted to Co. Rd. 15 for safety reasons (differs from previous approval) f. ) Clustering of unit7 to reduce needed streets and utilities, thus reducing develo{Maent costs and increasing the number of units allowed. 2. Outlet A A result ofthe above design was outlet A, a piece of unplatted "leftover" land. a.) If this Outlet were centrally located it might make an excellent park. This use is not too de- sireable in the present location. b„) The outlet area has already been used in the formula for overall density (its density credits have been transferred to the platted lots) therefore it is not further developable. c. ) The development type does not seem to lend itself to a homeowner's association to maintain O.L. A d. ) If left in developer's ownership there will likely be future pressure to develop it - or it will go tax forfeit. Neither respects the actual develop ment credit transfer. #671 Schlee Builders Inc April 15, 1982 page 7 e.) If Outlet A was ever developed, the only access is directly off Co. Rd. 15 (in a very poor location). This direct access would beg commercial use which is contrary to the zoning and CMP intent. £.) Options include: 1. Replatting as residential now, spreading the Scune 48 unit density (allows increased lot sizes). 2. P.eplatting as residential now, allowing 1-4 additional units to offset increased development costs for additional road and utilities. 3. Extend adjoining lot lines thru O.L. A to make several very large lots 4. Leave as proposed with 1/48 ownership interest and open space easement to City. 5. Dedicate to City. 3. "Park" Wetland Area This area encloses the designated wetland and flood plain area. This is a critical drainage area identified in our surface water management plan and flood plain ordinance. a.) The regulatory flood plain elevation is 936. No filling can occur below this line without a variance and a CUP. The minimum first floor elevation of nearby structures is 937. b.) Proposed lots 15 and 16 do slightly encroach on the 936 flood plain elevation. c.) There is some dry land along the northwest and east sides of the "Park". d.) The "Park" designation comes from the developer's hope to dedicate this land to the City in lieu of or as partial park dedication. Actual park use is unlikely because of the wetlands. e.) The wetland will be used as the required retention pond for the development. f.) Options include: 1. Leave as an Outlot with 1/48 ownership interest and openspace/flowage easement to City. 2. Dedicate to City for drainage purposes #671 Schlee Builders Inc April 15, 1982 page 8 4. Lot Sizes a.) Compare: LR-IC LR-lC-1 PRD lot area SF lot width FT Smallest proposed 7,625 (.175; Largest proposed 16,750 (.385) Average lot_ _ _ _ _9,565 (.22) 21,780 U50) loo (single family) 14,520 (.33) Variable (reg's attached] 6(r 175 60-70 Average existing 10,690 (.245) 50-75 (Nav. Hts. Area) b.) Proposed setbaclcs are all equal to the LR-IC requirements of 30 ft front and rear; 10* side. 5. Layout Conclusion a.) Leaving the layout as proposed does not ma)ce good use of the dry buildable land on Outlet A, and it leaves this area open to future commercial development pressures no matter how the ownership is arranged. b.) The best solution is to use up or plat the Outlot A area now, either by extending lot lines, spreading units or even allowing a few additional units. c.) The "Park ” area should be redesignated as an Outlot. IV. DRAINAGE AND GRADING The grading and drainage plan shows extensive wor)c required to accommodate any development, especially on the Theater site. All site drainage will be directed, as now, to the existing wetland which will be utilized as a retention pond. 1.Drainage plans and calculations must be approved by the City Engineer and MCWD. MCWD staff have done a preliminary review per their 4-13-82 letter. Some outlet changes may be required. 2.There are some existing drainage problems along the railroad trac)c and Northern Avenue which may be able to be improved along with the wor)c in this plat. 3. Drainage Conclusions Other Than standard engineering reviews and standard construction practices and requirements, there should be no drainage problems or issues with this proposal. iBr/i [•HtrcJil L?il1*IO^iT*T*Til lOOV/iT# •I«li|tT«l LfMaC*W* tsri 5 #671 Schlee Builders Inc. April 15, 1982 page 10 9. If the Northern-Blaine RR crossing is closed, there are two options for Northern Ave: a. ) building a cul-de-sac b. ) building a new road north to Togo Road. This has the advantage of providing a thru route to Co. Rd. 19 which will further decrease traffic potential on Livingston. It would require new ROW. 10.AdditioAal road improvement projects might be considered in the entire Navarre Heights neighbor hood, especially if and when Livingston might need upgrading. 11.All new or rebuilt roads will be asphalt surface with concrete curb and gutter. The City Engineer recommends a 32 ft driving surface on new roads including Blaine (30 ft was approved last time - the developer is proposing 28 ft this time). 12. Street and Road Conclusions a.) The proposed layout is reasonable and acceptable. b.) The Northern Ave. connection and Blaine Ave. widening are required off-site improvements necessary to accomodate this development (and perhaps Livingston upgrading also). c.) There should be no direct access onto Co. Rd. 15. VI. SEWERS This development proposes 48 new sewer units. The recently completed I & I/Sewer Unit studies have confirmed that the existing sewer facilities lack capacity for this development or for any new develop ment without major changes. 1.This property was originally assessed for interceptor sewer on an area basis ($110 per acre). No sewer units were ever assessed against any of this property although 4 stubs were placed along Blaine Ave. 2.As proposed the new sewer would flow south to Co. Rd. 15 and then through LS 6. This would require plant changes a.) Upgrading LS 6 capacity 1 M.—m... ..Mmrw. I #671 Schlee Builders Inc. April 15. 1982 page 11 3. b.) Replacing existing line in Blaine & Crystal Place (LS-6 discharge) (est. cost $65,000) c.) Rerouting LS 7 from LS-6 direct to LS-5 by construction of new forcemain in Co. Rd, 19 (est. cost $90,000) Staff proposes redirection the sewers in this development directly north to Northern Ave. and Togo Rd. Advantages: a.) bypasses LS-6 and capacity problems b.) allows City to bypass Blaine-Crystal bottle necks c.) requires construction of new 1* .e to Togo Rd. which would also be used for sewering Northern Ave, (est. cost $90,000) d.) allows sewering of Northern Ave. as part of this project. e.) requires some deeper sewer construction on this plat, and some line oversizing to handle City bypass 4. Sewer Conclusions a.) The sewer must run north, not south. b.) Off site improvements are required to accomodate this development and are chargeable to it, whether the lines run north or south. c.) There are advantages to the City in constructing the new bypass system as part of this develop ment. d.) The costs of the north line could be divided between this development, other areas directly benefitted (ie: Northern Ave) and other de velopment south of LS 6 which is otherwise limited by the existing system. VII. WATER This development will include public watermain ex tensions within the plat. Sufficient capacity is available. The only criteria is line sizing and looping for proper distribution. 1. The Theater property was assessed for 19 commercial water units, equivalent by cost to 24 residential units. #671 Schlee Builders Inc. April 15, 1982 page 12 2. The Tonka property was assessed for a total of 20 commercial water units, equivalent by cost to 30 residential units. 3. The total assessment was thus 54 residential unit equivalents, slightly more than the 48 units proposed. 4. Water Conclusions a. ) The new laterals would be installed by the developer but there should likely be no additional water assessment. b. ) Design and construction will be according to the City Engineers requirements, including fire hydrant location as recommended by the fire department. VIII. CITY PARKS The parks commission reviewed the original 60 unit application at which time they recommended inclusion of a Tot lot. There was no size or equipment deter mination. There was no need for major park facilities because they felt the area on Lyric and Shadywood was being developed for this purpose. It would be nice to have that area and a new area on opposite sides of this neighborhood. m 1. The area labeled "Park" is probably not acceptable park land. 2. The area labeled Outlot A is probably not acceptable park land. 3. The Park Commission should recommend which lot or land area is acceptable. This will not affect the Planning Commission's review of the existing layout. 4. Based on the existing fee schedule and the overall project density, the park dedication fee is $480 per unit, total $23,040, less any land accepted for donation. 5. The City does not have to accept the "Park" (drainage area) or Outlot A (density credits used) in lieu of other park dedication, although depending upon final layout, some of this land and/or one or more of the platted lots might be acceptable. 6. An option would be required platting of Outlot A as discussed in item III, with one or more of the more centralized platted lots accepted as the parkland. #671 Schlee Builders Inc. April 15, 1982 page 13 7. Park Conclusion Park Coimnission reconunendations are required, but that should await final decisions on layout and density. The actual park location will not affect that decision. IX. LOT DEVELOPMENT After the basic subdivision decisions are reached certain other issues should be reviewed. 1. Hardcover Section 34.202 and 34.621(d) limit total hardcover in this development to 35%. That includes streets and individual lot hardcover. a.) Allowable hardcover in project: 19.08 gross acres x 35% » 6.68 acres b.) Street hardcover: 2200 LF including the west and north connections, excluding Blaine Ave. 1.) at 32 ft wide = 70,400 SP = 1.62 ac hardcover 2.) at 28 ft wide = 61,600 SF = 1.41 ac hardcover c.) Lot hardcover: Total lot area 10.54 ac x 35% max = 3.69 ac hardcover I d.) Total hardcover in project 1.62 ac streets + 3.69 ac lot — 5.31 acres^6.68 acres 5.31 acres is equivalent to 27.8% hardcover e.) Hardcover Conclusion The proposed project conforms to all hardcover requirements. Individual lot development for house, driveway, etc. should be limited to 35%. (On the smallest 7,625 sq. ft. lot this amounts to a reasonable 2669 sq. ft.) 2. Off-Street Parking Section 34.621 (g) requires 2 off street parking spaces for each dwelling unit, at least one of_ which must be enclosed. Section 38.201 prohibits residential off-street parking in the front or side yards. Therefore careful planning is required on these proposed lots to ensure access to the rear yard, or at least room for parking outside of the 10 ft side yard setback. The best solution would be having two-car garages on each house. 671 Schlee Builders Inc. April 15, 1982 page 14 3. On~Street Parking The required street width could be reduced if one or both sides were posted no parking. I do not recommend this action. 4, Accessory Buildings There is nothing in the LR-lC-1 PRD section to pj^0clude accessory buildings. (note that the enclosed parking space must be attached). a. ) Considering the small size of these individual lots, it may be reasonable to have a PRD-CUP condition prohibiting accessory buildings. This could be filed as a covenant in the chain of title of each lot. b. ) If accessory buildings are allowed I suggest a limit as to number (maximum 1 per lot) and as to size (maximum 600 sq ft - 2 car garage) which of course must also be within the overall 35% hardcover allowance. Setbacks might also be regulated (existing ordinances would allow 10 ft side or rear setback). X. IMPROVEMENT FINANCING This project involves both on-site and required off site improvements. It involves extension of public streets, sewers, storm sewers and water mains. Private lot grading is also necessary. Additionally, the City may have indirectly related off-site improvements such as sewer bypass lines. Northern Ave sewerage, and/or street improvements other than Blaine. The Council should consider the construction/financing alternatives available and may wish to negotiate these items with the developer. Financing Options Include; 1. All on-site work installed by developer at developers expense, according to City approved plans and subject to City inspection and approval. In addition, directly required off-site improvements also installed by developer at developers expense including RR crossing, Blaine Ave. widening and sewer line to Togo Road. This has been standard practice in Orono. 2. All on-site work installed/financed by developer as above, with off-site work installed by developer but partially paid for by the City through bonding. 3. All on-site work installed/financed by developer with all off-site work installed/financed by City wmm [• J (♦ PH O iciiKnrautiW [•lfW:l«I*l i\ TO;Schleo Builders Developer should rior to final plat ssment based upon ewer trunk line improvement hearings. such as Northern one project with roject would result ay result in better . For this reason. Id consider all ts being installed project to be assessed les according to lie developer should 5 above. The assessments paid-off when the a 3-5 years. FROM;Jeanne A. Mabusth Planning Commission aing approval of LR-lC-l PRD. / increase to omission should find ant of the CMP provisions. PRD aval of the detached 1 requiring redesign ssion must find r safety problems Rd. 15, or lack of ans would likely /ious Schlee proposals. i the individual Lanning Commission application, or editions decided DATE: February 10, 1982 SUBJECT: #671 - Sketch Plan Review ty 1 - Method to determine an acceptable level of density Exclude all road right of way (eliminate access corridor to the west property line) and multiply the net area x 3. Using this formula your 60 unit proposal presented with Sketch Plan review would hav'> allowed 48 units (16.1 net area x 3) 2 - Access Council would prefer no direct access onto City Road 15 and would encourage the use of an access onto Blaine Avenue and another guide level access to Northern Avenue. Council will require that you plat an access road to the west property line. 3 - Spreading of total units Council agrees with the Planning Commission that it makes good planning sense to spread the units over the total property consisting of 6 separate tax parcels. 4 - Attached or detached units Council advises that Ordinance 34.621 - density credit - requires that the units be attached (maximum of 4 units to each structure) but that they would consider granting a variance if the developer decides to go with either a complete or partial single family unit plan. Developer may consider maxrng singles, duplex, triplex or quad units. 5 - Sewer capacity vs proposed level of service The developer is advised that the existing sewer system serving the Navarre area will probably not be able to serve the sewer demands of the total project. The subdivider will be responsible for the cost of any improvements to the existing system deemed necessary by the City to serve either all or a portion of the units. An infiltration and inflow study conducted over the last year has been completed and submitted for staff review. This study will enable the Council to give more specific direction to the developer. 6 - Park area required within plat The Park Commission will be asked to review the Schlee PRD proposal sometime within the next month to determine the need for a park area within the interior plat. The Park Commission will be asked to review all existing and unimproved park lands within the surrounding neighborhood. ftfK' ■ MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 1982 Page 6 of density access corridor net area x 3. presented with units (16.1 net to City Road 15 onto Blaine Avenue rn Avenue. Council d- to the west ion that it makes over the total reels. density credit - iroum of 4 units to ider granting a with either a Ian. Developer plex or quad units. ice ng sewer system ot be able to ject. The subdivider improvements to the City to serve either tration and inflow een completed and will enable the to the developer. iew the Schlee PRD to determine the need . The Park Commission unimproved park d. . • 'r. 4 McDonald agreed with 2 units. Opheim stated no more than 1. Rovegno stated that he would go along with 2 building sites but suggested that the developers use a little creativity like earth sheltering to help on the building density. Mabusth stated that now that the Planning Commision had decided on two buildable the existing road serving the two lots would be a private drive and the existing driveway would remain. Goetten asked if the City would require a cul de sac? Kelley stated that since there would only be two homes that no cul de sac should be required. Butler stated a cul de sac would aid and abet snow plows and would improve present situation. Rovegno stated chat anything would be better than a cul de sac maybe a T design. Hammerel stated that the Planning Commission would like to see a letter of credit assuring sewer hookup to the old Olson residence. Opheim noted for the record Ordinance 31.841. No action was required. Russ Feirst anc'. Jim DeBenedict were present. Callahan stated that the Planning Commission should first look at the court order approving 36 buildable units on the Tonka land and the 24 units approved for the Theater land. Rovegno stated that they should consider the site as one piece of land rather than two and should also consider the sewer capacity. Callahan stated that they should fall back on the court order. Goetten stated that the two main points that should bo addressed was access and sewer. Mabusth stated that the access on Shoreline was approved by Hennepin County Highway Department for 2*1 unit use level. (TONKA. CONT. ) 'SCHLEE BUILDERS 3660 Shoreline Dr. Subdivision #671 ■WMilll.l ■ ■* :' UARVr 1» 1982 Page 6 (TONKA CONT.) .ng .e .Iding had the driveway 11 mes plows cul like the as one sider court Id be ipproved . use //SCHLEE BUILDERS 3660 Shoreline Dr. Subdivision #671 4". 1^ ^ MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 1982 Page 7 Rovegno stated that the Planning Conunission should consider the building envelopes# setback# title held# open space and walkway easements. Mabusth stated that the 36 units density for the Tonka land resulted from agreements made as a comparison over a potential commercial use. Opheiro stated that the City would have to review the covenants of this subdivision. Rovegno asked why did they decide on building envelopes rather than platted lots. Applicant stated that the Homeowners Association was something that they didn't want to get involved in» Kelley stated that actually allowed by code was 48 residential units but that the court approved 36.. McDonald stated that if combined it would be 48 total allowable. Kelley stated that as long as the applicants stay within the zoning that they were allowed 48 units. Applicant stated that they were doing the community a favor and asked the Planning Commission if they preferred spreading out through acreage or the multi dwellings. Rovegno asked if there was a problem with sewer serving this property? Mabusth stated that the City has had problems with the lift station in the past and that the applicant would be responsible for all costs if any assistance would be needed for the lift station. Kelley stated he preferred multi dwellings rather than single family dwellings. Rovegno noted that the LR-lC-1 was a special zoning district so they get a credit. He noted that the design was the function of the subdivider but that it has to comply with the code. Applicant asked the Planning Commission to take an informal poll as to whether they liked the single family units or the multi dwellings better. Kelley stated that 48 units and that they should be attached maybe doubles. Callahan abstained. Goetten preferred the single family 48 units but wouldn't be against attache!. (SCHLEE CONT.) r- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 1982 Pa<je 8 Haininerel agreed with the rest of the members on 48 units* McDonald abstained. (SCHLEE CONT.) Opheim stated that 48 multiple duplexes attached or his second choice was the 48 single family residential units. Rovegno was flexible as long as it complies v;ith the ordinances, either multiple or single or a combination of both, but density is to stay consistent with the code. Rovegno stated that the Planner should comment on the road plan and the 36 unit court order. Planning Commission asked when would the sewer be able to accommodate the 60 units? Applicant stated that young couples along with older retired couples would like this type of development because of certain things like there v;ould be no yard maintenance for them. Opheim stated that the single access off 15 should be reviewed again with the new proposal. No action was required. Hammerel moved to approve the January 18, 1982, minutes of the Planning Commission meeting subject to the amendments and additions. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Callahan seconded. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:00 PM.ADJOURNMENT 11:00 PM 4^. 41 (.'ll ^0 O'" lvili\ir, f fVT rr iiu MiNHioait • "■• P.O. Box 387. Wayzala, Minnesota 55391 ■OMO Of HMUaHS; 0«v4 H. Cocluan. Pirt. • Alb^tt I lehm«n • l*mn S RjimII • C • B8tb«rt Cu4niiifidM« April 13, 1982 *.t i . ........................... • \\ 11 i I r^N • •• I Ms- Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 i - 1 1 ■ ■ ?APR I 4 1982 ___________ .■ i,; '0 -Oi-i')., ♦nt Re: Subdivision Plat rJo. 671, Schlee Builders, Inc. Dear Ms. Mabusth: As per your siibdi vision, prelimi nary problems in consultant . greater deta request for comments concerning the above mentioned the MCWD has had the opportunity to perform a review of the application and has found some potential the runoff calculations prepared by the applicant's Ihese drainage calculations will be reviewed in il prior to any action by the IICWJ. The plat plan indicates the developer will utilize an existing wetland contained within the 4.12 acre park for the purpose of stormwater detention. The wetland is outletted by an existing 15 RCP. The MCWD may require a revision to this outlet to insure that the peak rate of runoff will remain unchanged, and to provide greater water quality necessitated by the development of 48 home sites. Please advise should you need further comments for your April 19 Planning Commission public hearing. Very truly yours. EUGENE A. hICKOK AND ASSOCIATES Engineers for ^e District Cl^l^rd Reep bt H mNNCIOIIKA k f ^ I l\\ «l I• \ \ M I err I N • I n 4 i9ffi , i, ’•cmvau»^*s€ u_O^QriO_ ers, Inc. I the above mentioned ty to perform a las found some potential d by the applicant's II be reviewed In ICWJ. utilize an existing for the purpose of tted by an existing 15" Is outlet to Insure changed, and to provide evelopment of 48 home nts for your April 19 James P. DeBenedet, P.E. Engineering Consultant pSiiA/4oe March 31, 1982 j : (Cl > -::i I \v/j/: iijir------------------- APR ' 5 1982 ' ! Minnehaha Creek Watershed District c/o E. A. Hickok and Associates 545 Indian Mound Wayzata, MN 55391 • f'll V <'.r. n .1•._ _! I V. • I \ ; >. V.’ ♦ Gentlemen: This letter is to accompany the permit application for a preliminary plat, grading and drainage, and storm sewer plan for Navarro in Navarre. The permit application form storm water calculations and plans have been sent to the City of Orono at their request. They will forward these items separately. The erosion control plan features hay bale^i or equivalent type of erosion control fence located along proposed overland drainage swails. In addition, all areas which are graded will have turf re-established immediately after grading operations in accordance with the notes on the plans. We are proposing control of the rate of runoff leaving the site by routing all storm water runoff which originates on the site through the marsh which is located on the southwest portion of the site. The outlet for this marsh is an existing 15" RCP culvert under Hennepin County Road No. 15. The calculations which I have submitted indicate that the existing marsh and culvert effectively function to control the rate of runoff leaving the site. The peak rate of runoff leaving the site in its undeveloped state is 4.85 CFS. The peak rate of runoff leaving the site after development will be 5.22 CFS. We believe that this is sufficient rate of runoff control to meet the watershed district's requirements. It is our intention to install class A rip rap at the end of storm sewer outlets in accordance with ffri/DOT standard plate no. 3133A. We believe that the existing marsh will function effectively to retain trash and floatable materials. If you have any questions in this regard please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, James P. DeBenedet,P.E. cc; Mr. Ai Olson, City of Orono Mr. Russ Fierst, Schle Builders 01/1R ciiwor I :,irp RnaH N#*vv Rficjhton. MN 55112 (612)631 1780 I ki.'j mi : -jj r ■mm ■* W-W--. V>' • ' ^'0 O- >... fswjw- ■ "i . < .'• ' i ■ i . • ■'■.■■ ^ ^ ' • - * « « • :-tn. NOTE • i v ■ ■ ,•■. \ aOOOJfAY-flood FIUNGE DESIGNATION IS rSL fOH THE CAIMAN BAY ABEA(SEE TEXT SECTION 42) ■’V». ■ */■; ;-■(/. U-' ; ' • ' !-<i #*• * ■- •fv ' - ■ i ■ r FUX>DING SOURCE Unnamed Tributary to Stubb's Bay Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5 Pond E Reach 1 Pond F Reach 1 Pond G Roach 1 Pond H Reach 1 Ponds A and B Reach 1 Fond C Reach 1 Pond D Reach 1 Uike Minnetonka Reach 1 PANEL 0005 0005 0005 0005 0005 0005 0005 0010 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE BEIVEEN 1%(100-YEAR)FLOOD AND 10% (10-YEAR) 2% (50-YEAR) 0.2% (500-YEAR) 2 ^Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel Weighted Average FLOOD liAZARD FACTOR ZONE Rounded to Nearest Foot BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (FEET UGVD) Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map 964 r--: M department of housing and URBAN DEVELOPMENT Ftdml InHMWCi AdmiuMrsMos CITY OF ORONO, MR IKEMlirM CO.I FLOOD INSURANCE ZONE DATA UNNAMED TRBUTARY TO STUBB S BAY. POND E POND F PONO 6 PONOH. PONDS A ANOB, POND C. PONO 0. LAKE MINNETONKA -^1 TO:Alan P. Olson, City Planner FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Septic System Inspector DATE:April 6, 1982 SUBJECT: Northern Avenue, Septic Systems Review Northern Avenue is an unsewered street in the sewered area of Orono, and is one of two such remaining areas of the City surrounded by adjacent sewered properties. Six residences are served by five septic systems on Northern Avenue, with an additional residence near Togo Road having sewer stub available but needing an easement over another property to make the connection. Although all the existing systems are substandard, no failures have been recorded and the residents have done a fairly good job of keeping their systems operable. A review of each existing system follows: 3590 Northern Avenue - Small residence on .27 acre lotc System has two tanks and a drainfield. No surfacing observed during inspection of lot in 1979. House is connected to City water. Not much room to expand system should it fail, however. 3640 Northern Avenue - System consists of one (maybe 2) tanks with drainfield. House sits on 0.60 ac: e lot with •** acre vacant lot with storage building adjacent. No record of prcolems with the system. Some room for expansion of drainfield exists. Connected to City water. 3670 Northern Avenue - House on 0.44 acre lot. Added second tank and new drainfield in 1978. No record of problems since then. Connected to City water. Not much room for future expansion of system if needed. 3680 Northern Avenue - House sits on 0.69 lot. System has one (maybe two) tanks and a bed drainfield. No record of failure. Still using well water. Some room exists for future expansion if necessary. ^690-3700 Northern Avenue - These two houses are connected to a single septic system consisting of a 20'+ deep cistern-type septic tank and an unknown length of drainfield. This system was not failing during my last inspection, but because of its design it is extermely substandard. The two houses are located in the southwest portion of a 5 acre + tract. Ample room for system expansion is available. The houses are connected to City water. mar riffc^‘rr»ft ^ • Pd^e 2 Northern Avenue, Septic Systems Review 3775 Togo Road - This is a 2.2 acre lot fronting on Northern Avenue, but the house is located near Togo Road and has access from Togo on an easement. The septic system will be inspected this spring, and has no record of problems. A sewer stub exists in Togo Road and could conceivably be used if suitable easement arrangements could be made. The house is connected to City water on an easement through the adjacent properties. No overwhelming tecinical reasons compel installation of sewer on Northern Avenue at this time. However, it has been the policy of the City to serve those "sewer-surrounded" areas on a timely basis. Many potential developers of certain Northern Avenue parcels have been stifled in their attempts to put a^ package together because of the sewer and lot-size zoning issues. With the Schlee Builders Development adjacent to Northern Avenue, it may be an opportunistic time to sewer Northern Avenue, with enough capacity for expected future development based on the zoning. I - ! 1 . ^ t ' X 1 '•• \ ^k. TO; Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator FROM; Alan P. Olson, City Planner DATE:April 13, 1982 SUBJECT: #669 Tonka Lake Properties - Proposed Subdivision (PRD) The basic zoning on this property is LR-lC *s acre/unit. Because of the peninsula location and resultant 3-sided 75' setback requirements, this site is a natural one to consider for PRD cluster-type development allowing for defined housing pads and common open space close to the lake. The limiting site factor is the lake and resultant floodplain area below elevation 931.5. This defines both setback and hardcover limitations. All building sites including the existing house are above the 931.5 floodplain elevation. Provided an open space/flowage easement over Outlot B is granted to the City, Section 31.841 c allows this flood fringe area (between 929.4 and 931.5) to be credited for density purposes. All new building sites meet the 75' shoreline setback. The existing house (and proposed lot) encroaches to about 40' from the shore. It has been demonstrated to staff that 4 lots totally conforming to the 75' setback are possible if the existing house were demolished (lot 2 becomes smaller). The request is to allow the existing structure to remain where it is. The City could require removal of the existing house and full compliance with the 75' setback as a PRD condition. However since 4 conforming lots are feasible, the existing substandard house location really has no bearing on determination of the appropriate density. Therefore, based on setback and net lot area factors, the allowable density would be 4 or 5 units (2.75 acres - road O.L.A. .22 acre = 2.53 acre r .5 = 5 units by area or 4 units practically possible per plan). On the other hand, hardcover is extremely limiting. Per 31.831 and 34.202, there can be no hardcover below elevation 931.5, or within 75' of the shoreline. And in the remaining area the maximum hardcover can be no more than 25%. The maximum hardcover allowed is therefore only 5526 sf. Any amount over this amount requires a variance. Based upon the house sizes proposed (excluding driveway hardcover) the maximum density allowed by hardcover limitation would be 2 units, not 4. #669 Tonka Lake Properties Page 2 Proposed Subdivision - PRD Any development, including the existing house, requires a hardcover variance for the driveway (and City street) t access the building site. The developer claims various hardships and proposes various mitigating factors in his request for hardcover variances necessary to approve any construction on this property. Hardships 1. Lake on 3 sides - peninsula location Qj^^Yeway and street must be located within 75 of2.shoreline and partially below 931.5 elevation in order to reach buildable triangle. 3.Only 18.5% of the site is above elevation 931.5 and 75' or more from the lake. 4.The existing substandard house location predates the current setback and hardcover regulations. Mitigating Factors 1.Site topography is such that most all drainage flows south so that even though the driveway is within 75' of the north shore, the drainage actually flows 85 to 190 ft to the lake. 2. 3. Holding ponds are proposed to retain direct runoff. The driveway will be relocated farther from the north shore, and resloped to assure drainage away from the near shore to the holding ponds. 4. 5. The total hardcover proposed is 16.8% of the gross land area. Excluding driveway area, the structural hardcover is 6600 sf, 29.8% of the buildable area(above elevation 931.5 and outside of the 75' setback area^. The bottom line is that any development within the buildable area, even one house, will require hardcover variances for the driveway. And the amount of driveway hardcover required is not significantly different for one house than for 4 or 5. Thus the practical approach is to minimize this driveway hardcover consistent with access safety requirements, to redirect driveway runoff to the holding ponds and thense south to the lake the long way, and to determine reasonable density allowances by review of structural hardcover w’ithin the buildable area, exclusive of the necessary driveway hardcover. *■ >• . #669 Tonka Lake Properties Page 3 Subdivision - PRD Therefore:Buildable area; 75 ft setback & above 931.5 = 22,105 sf max allowable hardcover 25% = 5,526 sf existing hse, patio etc approx. 3.)00 sf = 13.5% (novar. req’d) with second lot add approx. 2400 sf Total with third lot add approx Total 5400 sf“^ 24.4% (no var. req'd 2200 sf with fourth lot add approx. Total 7600 sf = 34.3% (9.3% var.) 2000 sf 9600 sf » 43.4% (18.4% var.) FINAL DENSITY REVIEW 1. 2. 3. Clearly some hardcover variance is requ..red to allow any driveway on the property. With the driveway hardcover variance, 2 units 0xisting + 1 new) could be built meeting all other requirements and without further variances. Allowing three units as in the previously approved plat would require a nominal 10% hardcover variance within the buildable area. 4.Allowing four units as proposed would require a nominal 20% hardcover variance. 5.Five units as might be allowed by gross lot area^ density is clearly not physically practical within the setback requirements. Recommended Considerations for Preliminary Plat Approval 1. Determine reasonable density to be allowed a) 2 units with driveway hardcover variance only b) 3 units with driveway and 10% structural hardcover variance c) 4 units with driveway and 20% structural hardcover variance 2.Conditioned upon a) drainage improvements per plan^ including holding ponds# relocated and resloped driveway# building eaves troughs# maximum hardcover sguare footage depending upon density# and erosion control measures. MCWD must approve drainage plan. b) new driveway with turnaround per plan 1) minimum 12* paved width for 2 units 2) minimxim 18* paved width for 3 or 4 units c) dedication of new City cul de sac and right of way including paving of street and cul de sac and rip rapping of shore as in previous applications. #669 Tonka Lake Properties Page 4 Subdivision - PRD 3. sewerage of existing house not later than July 31, 1982 ($5,000 security check is on file to assure this will happen regardless of whether subdivision proceeds or not) common open space to be held in m divided joint interest by lot owners, with open space and flowage easement to the City. joint dockage not to exceed 1 slip per lot, located as on plan. If 3 or 4 lots approved, then dockage should be divided as shown in which case we recommend no need for a joint use dock license, removal of existing garage and sheds as shown on the plans (demolition permit required). regrading, landscaping and sodding of all disturbed areas. i) payment of extra fees, depending upon approved density, for park dedication and sewer units. Note that the City should be prepared to condemn any public road right of way as may be necessary to allow extension of public road paving from end of paved road to new cul de sac. The developer should again try to privately acquire the necessary right of way, but I do expect public condemnation will be necessary. OPPENHtIMER WOLFF FOSTER SHEPARD AND DONNELLY . t •' • vf . • ; : I • t *i • *.• ♦.*,* I V •»*. * ‘ I.'. • . \'*K PI. Ill M SM V OC Tilt4 C.:J6 SAINT PAUL March 30, 1982 Orono City Planning Conunission City Hall Orono, Minnesota 55391 Dear Conunission Members: It has come to my attention that a slight misunderstanding has developed out of a statement which I have made at the last planning commission meeting which I attended with Gary Petersen regarding Baldur Park. At that meeting while we were discussing the DNR hardcover regulations, a comment was made to me that I should review not only the background of the DNR regulations but also the back ground of the Orono Hardcover regulations. In response to that comment, I indicated that I had spoken with Allen Olson concerning the background of the City's regulations and the practical difficulty in reviewing the voluminous background reports at this time. I did not intend to convey the impression that Mr. Olson would not make any of the City's reports available to me. To the contrary, he specifically indicated that the reports were available to public inspection, although such would be difficult and burdensome. I concurred with Mr. Olson that at this time it would not be necessary to sift through boxes of files to find these reports. I want to emphasize that Mr. Olson has been very helpful to me in my conversations with him and has taken a very objective and pro fessional approach to the planning aspects on Baldur Park. I hope this letter alleviates any misunderstanding. Very truly yours, OPPEp^IMER, WOLFF,. FOSTER, SHEPARD AND DONNELLY 1 By- Dennis J. TjrooTe! DJT/lkS cc: Mr. Allen Olson Mr. Gary Petersen t * Ernst Associates BALOUR PARK 3/29/82 Mr. AT Olson/Planning Department V, • 1 ‘ ’ ; « if------- . > t* .1 ‘"I MAR 29 1962 II ' :U. t t 9 COMPUTATIONS FOR RUN-OFF &STORAQE Sq. ft. Acres Coef. 0 » CiA EXISTING SURFACES Structures, existing house, patio garage, shed 3,173 .072 .9 .016 Gravel Drive 8,200 .188 .9 .042 Lawn & Rough areas 108,417 2.489 .3 .187 119,790 2.75 Qe .245 PROPOSED SURFACES Structures 2263 2400 2200 2000 886^8,863 .203 .9 .045 Git. Paving 11,340 .260 .9 .058 Lawn & Rough areas 99,587 2.286 .3 .171 119,790 2.75 .274 Q» CiA ia.25 6" rain/100 yr.flood .274 - .245 » .029 X 1.98 > Acre Feet Required .029 X 1.98 » .057 Ac. Ft. of storage (1* deep) .057 X 43,560 = 2,482.92 sq.ft. (2,500 sq.ft. 1' deep) ■f ^ Sift TO:Planning Conunission FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth DATE:April 13, 1982 SUBJECT: #615 Judd Ringer, 2480 Wayzata Boulevard Pinal Subdivision The subdivider has completed all the conditions setforth at preliminary approval to aliow for final approval of Ringerswood plat. Staff re,:v,.inmends final subdivision approval subject to the findings and conditions setforth in the enclosed staff resolution. » \ A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF RINSERSWOOD WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision plat by The Lyman Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, the subdivider; and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been approved as meeting all standards of the RR-lB zoning district finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence to be located without the need of any setback variances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found Outlot A to meet all current lot standards of the RR-lB zoning district for a residential lot in the rural service area. The subdivider is advised that if Outlot A is developed in the future, such development must meet all zoning and Comprehensive Management Plan requirements at that time and that the City Council has no current intent to allow now or in the future any type of development except existing 2 acre unit, unsewered, rural residential land use; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1) Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. 2) Dedication on the plat ot rights of way for public streets and roads, shown as U.S. Highway N^amber 12, Willow Drive, The subdivider has dedicated to the City a road and utility easement granting to the City temporary access, improvement and utility easement over that portion of the cul de sac not included in the dedicated right of way of Dedication to the City of a Flowage and Conservation Easement providing for limitations on the use of wetlands and/or drainageways described therein and shown on the plat as "drainage easements”. 1 of 2 wm f- 5) Execution of a Subdivider's Agreement providing for installation of certain improvements as a condition of subdivision approval. 6) Payment to the City of a Park Dedication Fee in the amount of $2,600.00. 7) Payment to the City for the legal review and recording of the plat and all documents related thereto in the amount of $75.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of RINGERSWOOD, Hennepin County, Minnesota; subject to the following conditions: 1) All use of the existing access to Wayzata Boulevard is to cease upon the completion of the gravel base road and upon the inspection and approval of that road by the City Engineer. 2) Prior to the installation of any improvements on the site, the tested ».r>tic sites on lots 3 and 4, Block 1 must be staked and protected. 3) The Orono Public Works Department will assume the responsibility of the maintenance and repair of upon a satisfactory final inspection by the City Engineer to assure that all standards for public roads within the City have been met. 4) Future access to the following lots is approved as follows: a) Lot 1, Block 1 via b) Outlot A, Block 3 via Road Circle 5) The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office together with a certified original copy of this Resolution and executed copies of documents noted above. day of Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono this , 1982. William B. Van Nest, Mayor Alberta M. Strom, City Clerk 2 of 2 I * • • • • « TO:Planning Coininission FROM;Jeanne A. Mabusth DATE:April 13, 1982 SUBJECT: #626 C.E. Van Eeckhout, 1025 North Brown Road Final Subdivision The subdivider has completed all the conditions setforth at preliminary approval to allowfor final approval of Dickey Lake Addition. Staff recommends final subdivision approval subject to the findings and conditions setforth in the enclosed staff resolution. fr- ■(.' “ V <\ > f'f c L- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF DICKEY LAKE ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municij>al corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision plat by Charles E. Van Eeckhout and .Sue L. Van Eeckhout, the subdividers; and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been approved as meeting all standards of the RR-IB zoning district finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence to be located without the need of any setback variances; and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1) Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. 2) Dedication on the plat of right of way for a public road, shown as Brown Road North. 3) Creation of a new private road shown on the plat as Outlot A, to be known henceforth as Concurrent with the creation of this private road, the Subdivider has dedicated to the City a Road and Utilities Easement granting to the City permanent access, improvement and utility easements over said Outlot; the Sibdivider has created non-exclusive ingress, egress, drainage and utility easements over said Outlot in favor of all abutting and/or benefiting lots including a declaration of certain maintenance covenants wherein each of the abutting and/or benefiting lot owners covenants and agrees to permanently maintain and pay the cost of maintenance for said private road. 5) Dedication to the City of a Fl'>v^qe and Conservation Easement providing for limitations on the use of wetlands and/or drainageways described therein and shown on the plat as "drainage easements". 1 of 2 r 6) Execution of a Subdivider’s Agreement providing for installation of certain improvements as a condition of subdivision approval. 7) Payment to the C;.ty of a Park Dedication Fee in the amount of $1,400.00. 6) Payment to the City for the legal review and recording of the plat and all documents related thereto in the amount of $75.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of DICKEY LAKE ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota; subject to the following conditions: 1) All septic test sites must be staked and protected prior to road construction and individual site development. 2) The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office together with a certified original copy of this Resolution and executed copies of the documents noted above. day of Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono this , 1982. William B. Van Nest, Mayor ATTEST: Alberta M. Strom, City Clerk 2 of 2 u2 4 Iti «lMrr«of. I . Van Mckhout •t I'• of tUu>t99^i* •» i'CMnif of Urn tain forr>«-un| ii»*t v«» Atria|» I'lr'i Lr<Airt«ui, liMV^an.t ■ifr. Bgp-— - unow all mmn by tli«M rr«M«««. tliat C. I. Vaa tar^Kim* a»i Saa l» Murilntaatara liatioaal 3aa>aaat, a uaita4 Itataa of Aernca C'>ria»ratl* tHa Coanty of Haaaaria, S%ata of fuaaaaota to oiti TKat |»ari of tiia toathaaot >aavtav of ftaetino ruauAhtf> 111* iaai Itaa of aaiJ loatliaoat Qaartar* 1% Hiaiaa fr«tl north o and paratlal atih %tio toatH liaa of aa«4 toatltaaat ^uar««r diaiaai * Ilia tract of lan<s daacribad la aad cuaoay^l by ti*r c**i * «mi .load da droaaa. racuidaJ A|»vAt >Y* 18«t la boot 4ff of taada* |*Oda f'Ult t! 420.tS faati thaaca loot aad fntrallal oitli tKa luuU. I laa of aai-l Laat llaa of aaid loattaMOt yaartart Iboitco •oatfc on aaoi i:aa« lina bayaantiri at a fioint on tHa taat lit* >if t>>c .Mart* uutxH of tHa soathaaat coraar of aat4 OOMtlairat .uarter* ilM-ncc ^ Utatant It.ta cHaina aora or laaa to tHa Mast i.n* .if ^i*# t$ « *• itavcH 2. lav), by CatHartno Caa* at«lua* to d. OrvaiMr. .•ortH aluny iha Moat Itaa of aald tract of land .fiAtant 2H»% favt; chaiaa to tha Mat itna of aa«4 toutHoaot uoartan t*«rfa.« :»ootn >•*. t tha plava of Haylnnittf. Alae That part of tha toatHwaat yoartar of torti.ai >T. r <o<ia«>ii ‘ lib. sai-l aootHoaat Ooartar at a potnt diataat %a- t**« ...rtH ot ti. i>arallal oitn tlia ikniih liaa of aaiJ footHoaat vo'ft.'t » liai-tta.** ot oaat on asi.l parsllal lina to tha Maat liaa of tHr tt* « of |.tn.i I *vt* by tati'orina Cua* atiHjo. l»* Locinda J. tv .<rJ.*4 i» tha Maat Una of aaid tract of land to tHa Mott*, lit.* if i»a w-i horiu I Id.* .fallal aitH tl.a Sooth ln.a of s«i i .• it*a Laai Itaa of a«|.i boMinoaat wo^rtai |ria> i».« .. t.. ,i d actual |•o|nt of ba,inning. iiavo raaaad ii.a aaaa to ba aufvrrcd ar.*i plaitao an poblii oaa lociorar tha roa*l* and tHa drainaoa an>t U A* V tta t. Van tartHuot aa*t nt.« V M. Ka% .* I li^* and Mof ( Hot .t .-M. !..*•». «» *| I o.Aoa »<Ja L*.“Van I a.*A»Hni« '***’*” S;.ata »f NMMiaaota. t'uwnty of Uannof.in ina fora«piiny Anatroaant oaa (..AirMif 1 1»-i f r I ®^. .............. «*i^i ^ ^ •» iiautsaat* a cnitatJ atataa ofVbtar7caCori<orac ion. uH ia*#rVlT^*f * * V I Hrratnr cmity that I t ava aafv*fv« flattvi ti^* ,t i**r*y f coit..t raprrsantation of aaiJ aoissyt t..t ii.# iia*af.c«*i ita .ot- tbat all «*nonanta >»aaa Maan cotracfly filarat in ti. it • •' 4aamnatad on tha plat. staia of f.innaaota. County of iiannaptn THa aaraayor'a cartificattofi aas «cHaaMla*laa*i i«fora a* t UMUMb. MH.-O-MrTA this I lat of t‘ics>.y LAPi: Aob|Tt*rj oaa ai*«dova<t aivi a..n|>fad !•« naaiin>| ii.nra<.f hold t» ta daa of 5». . I C.a«>issiu«Mpr of Ttanapotiatloa'an.f .Sr Coonly WtJKoar tr..nftaa? Hasa alapaa.1 nttioot rampt of aorh roHBoatA ««id ratnaaavr.tit na.*. i» pro rsiPsiiTV TAAAri(ji4 atrAfTTMtor. iiaaaapia Cttonty* aifMtaa*M « I haiaby Aaitify tnia __day of. iliriw ara m» ilal in>|arnt t«a«a for yll . ItU . ■ ■■ fei M iitffT.. TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Conunission Jeanne A. Mabusth April 15, 1982 SUBJECT: #64S First National Bank of Navarre, 2445 Shadywood Variance Zoning District - B-3 - B-4 Area required 20,000 sf existing 25,000 sf Application - Variance Setback Variance - canopy required proposea variance List of Exhibits 15* 3.5' 11.5* Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G - Planning Conunission minutes of September 21, 1981 - Diebold Plans - Letter from bank March 1, 1982 - Survey - Revised Parking Plan - Jacobs - Englund letter April 2, 1982 - Site Plan On September 21, 1981, we advised the applicants to demonstrate the site limitation hardship by submitting alternate plans showing why it would be unfeasible to locate 2 remote lanes to the rear of the bank. The Diebold firm submitted 2 plans (Exhibit B) that would require either the removal of several required parking stalls or additional lands from the neighbor to the south to allow for an adequate turning radius. The City Engineer has reviewed the site with staff members and concurred that the proposal is feasible but "mighty tight". The placement of the outer remote lane to the front of the building where there is 21.5' makes for the best use of the limited area. The 16.5' width at the rear will allow for a single car lane for 20' when it reverts to two lanes. Cook's review will be presented on our meeting night. The letter from the owner to the south has been enclosed for your packet confirming his approval of the encroachment. The revised site plan has defined a traffic plan that is very acceptable. Staff has problems with the design of the front parking lot - Jacobs has submitted a revised plan for the bank to review. The additional landscaping will bo provided by a planter along the front area. Curbing 6" high will be placed along the south and front yard of the bank. Standard approved MNDOT traffic signs will be required for entrance and exit lane. # #645 First National Bank of Navarre Page 2 Variance Staff recommends approval of the setback variance of 11.5' for an overhead canopy structure for the First National Bank of Navarre based on demonstration of sufficient hardship consisting of limited area, location of structure on site and defined parking areas subject to the following conditions; 1 -Applicant must use standard MNDOT approved traffic signs placement to be reviewed by staff. 2 -Copy of easement or agreement drafted between bank and property owner to south confirming the encroachment. 3 - Restoration of all disturbed areas. 4 - Any additional conditions required by the City Engineer in his report. 5 - Payment for the engineer's review with the building permit. EXHiOiT L MINUTES OE THE I'liANNING COMiMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, l.'Bl Kujc 3 4 5 Planting on the lakoshore slopes to help stability. LARSON (CONT.y Based on applicant’s intention not to improve boathouse but Council will further reviovc the boat house question. Adams seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0) Applicant was present. Aj^plicant misunderstood directions from previous meeting concerning an entryway to the \ re posed apartment that would satisfy code. Jabbour noted for the applicant that the proposed unit is considered two separate residential units and woulc. encourage a future owner to rent. The zoning district calls for single family units on each lot. He added that Casco Point already has problem of the similar nature. AUDREY OGLAND 2601 Casco Point Ri Conditional Use Permit §636 Mabusth again rev’iewed that there was not enough area or adequate lot width to allow lor a separate guest house. Jabbour noted that they would clearly have a hardcover problem and also that this proposal was too a.mbitious for this size lot. Mabusth noted that the apartment above the garage con sisted of 780 sq ft. of area. At the applicants request Rovegno moved to table the application. Jabbour seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Lloyd Sims was present for the bank. Jabbour wanted to know the hardships needed for the variance. Applicant stated it was the location of the cash window and the need for the extra lane for the overflow of traffic. Planning Commission suggested moving the cash w'indow to the back of the bank. Applicant stated this would create traffic stack-up problems. Planning Commission stated they would need a complete site plan before they could make any determination. t^IRST NATIONAL BANK OF NAVARRE 244 5 Shady’wood Rd. Variance S648 Jabbour moved to table the application giving the ap plicant time to come in with revised site plan designating all parking and traffic flow. Planning Commission urged applicant to find an alternate site for the cash window, preferably the back of the bank. Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Richard Ledstrom was present. Applicant requests per mission to perform maintenance dredging of a wildlife pond on his property'. The pond has become a very popular nesting area for Canadian Geese. Because ot this their droppings have filled the bottom and are outrophy'ing it to the point that he wishe?; to dredge it back to hard bottom. RICHARD LEDSTROM 3435 Sixth Ave. No Conditional Use Permit • 649 • M It V '' X • •% •! •» ' ' - 1 7T ^ « V i* ,', ...1 I i i—-------n ------------------ -----L w— • - f *• ••. ^ ~ * * ’ *"■*"" • • • •• • *%1Pi» iiiUMRi- -. ?1SWP"''^ EXHiSiT C First National Bank of Navarre cn Lake Kim.wtcrkd PJ nne%ot.^ 5t>39: Phone 471-8S22 iMKil'Vil MR-ISK J euyoFORONO V _ March 1, 1982 City of Orono Planning Commission P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Conmissioners: The following information is submitted in conjunction with the zoning variance application submitted by the First National Bank of Navarre and tabled at your September 21, 1981, meeting. Exhibit A - Two remote lanes in rear of building. This proposed location does not work because: 1. Reduces employee parking spaces from 16 to 9. 2. Requires removal of several trees and additional landfill at back and sides of property to use full width of lot.3. Turning radius for entrance to remote lanes is absolute minimum.4. Requires relocation of teller window out of teller line, which is less desirable from a security stand point. Exhibit B - Adjacent to rear of building. This proposed location does not work because: 1. Reduction of at least three employee parking spaces. 2. Automobiles would still back-up onto road because of shortened stacking area. 3. Turning radius does not meet even the minimum area needed to turn at the corners of the building. 4. Relocation of teller window out of teller line, which is less desirable from a security standpoint. // ,«-»f • / / • • • ■ I li irfl II ^(11 liliimwii* i<tl First National Bank of Navarre . c»/r idle V N.i¥dffe. Kfmnvs?td 5539J Phone 471-8522 li H«-IB® ________ ! CITY OF ORONO Exhibit C - Adjacent to current Une. This proposed location Is workable because: 1. Positioning of drive-up equipment takes the lane up to the side lot line. 2. No loss In either employee or customer parking. 3. Teller window remains In current position - Inside teller line. 4. Additional stacking area created has alleviated overflow onto street. In addition to the above proposal, there Is no change proposed In the customer parking area at the front of the bank. We feel very strongly that the current parking situation Is quite workable and safe. Customers are very cautious on both entering and exiting. At the September 21 meeting, there appeared to be some question as to whether a variance was needed. The requested variance Is to allow a canopy to be built, which would extend partially over the new drive-up lane to within eight feet of the property line (side setback requiring 15 feet). We look forward to discussing this with you at the March 15 meeting. Very truly yours. ‘^LToyo W. Simmsoyi Vice President LWS/jr Jl V »• »•*...• -il EXHIBIT Cfirtific-. lo or Purvey for First rational lank of Navarro 1 horely certiiy that tn?3 ic a true ^.nd corr'ict ronror.ontatior. of toumi irlc3 of ^h*it part uc'ta 1 and 2, ::lcr< 4, Tuvt .sU c of L'lnpion •4rr, ioKcrJbed U3 follows: ( omancir.t **t a point tnrthcar.torly line of said Lot 2, a dictarce .7 ?'?ot LoMlnDontorly fnr. ti'.o I.orthosst corner l,ot 1; th‘?r.co ri''utl.wejterly alonr a -r ^r:n\v . IV, v-!rri r-:r.t !r th*? acti^al cf of the lur.d to t-j dcorrli' i 'c.ilJ 'itov:* Cn:t*.eo':tc:rIy line i:: dcr.crlhf*J foliovy: C c .t- rmr.cir * *•! • | "'r. th ' t rly lire ol ja^c i^ot «. a cictar.c*"* of .••irtorly ! i' r l ort Kar.t corner of S'.'i ! Let 1; th^^nce Southwest-foot <’irt 1 «I ^ *«** f*r^- foot to 0 dirtant f f -• * V *rrn t\ r.-;t C'/Ut oBstorly of a ; ir.-; ••• r-ilo I/>t I dlGt-'int ’ ~ - ^ •'>rt’*- rt -f’-r-rr of r^id ./»t l!; U.«'r.C'i rontir’^e *rt fr'r.i*,*. or t,r.e k'*st 1 In-; irlv tr.'* •tLrv-;'.: rltr? Ur-* -i o” UC,, fe';t;to a judicial lar<i- rark; *J erce J.nrthvortcrly a iistan^'* of UXj.O io<?t t- a JtidirlaL landmrk; *-r;crro !'fvrtfjonntorL,v a dlstorra or fcot t<o u jujirlal lancr^irjc on thn dfv.tr.v's V;:- / rl.-'h*.-'---wiy tin* -''tnty Pr.^id ?;■*. L.*; t’.or.rn Couthe:istorly alonc ca'.d rlrN’-•'•'•vny ll**.'* >i dl r-turoo o'* Iff,'’, fcot to tfn* jmlr.t of (>«»; Inr in»', a-.d lo***.*'.--!. ('* all oxIr.*»r-' tulI”.It i<->VL not rur:«rt tt olir^v •'>t*^ or ir ••?*<*./or^T.tr c»r f • ^ 11• •.rr. ' 0' If r r.ir-c «'r.d Plaf.r.'T ^ n.* ;»iror, ‘•'.ir.n**} “ ta EXKlSiT F Box 60 Navarre^ MN 55392 April 2, 1982 Mr. David J. Delemey President First National Bank Navarre# MN 55392 Dear Mr. Delaney: In order to provide you the space to add a drive-in lane on the south side of your building# it is agreeable to me to grant you a temporary easement over that property ovmed by me and located between our buildings. As I am sure you understand# this agreement is contingent upon our reaching and executing a formal agreement for this purpose covering items such as con struction costs# indemnification for damages# term of the easement and compensation for this arrangement. I assume these details will be worked out once you have decided whether to proceed with the project. Very truly yours# Paul Englund# D.D.S. PE/DTB/bls TO; FROM; DATE; SUBJECT; Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth April 12, 1982 #674 Cortlen Cloutier, 2480 Casco Point Road - "After the Fact" Conditional Use Permit & Variance Area - 3 acres Zoning District - LR-IC Application a) Ordinance 31.831 Lakeshore Setback Variance required = 75' proposed stairs = O' variance 75' or 100% proposed wall = 10' variance of 75' or 87% b) Ordinance 31.700 - Conditional Use Permit for construction of retaining wall and excavation and filling on property List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Application Property Owners List Plat Map Survey Attorney's letter Resolution 1254 Site Plan Artist's sketch Background of Proposed Application On July 15, 1981, staff was advised of excavation work being done along the lakeshore of the Cloutier residence. Staff issued a stop work order advising owner to contact staff immediately and obtain the necessary permits. Cloutier had constructed a retaining wall approximately 30" high dividing a sandy beach and the grassed area. A pile of fill was placed along the lakeshore. Owner explained the proposed work was to protect an existing sand beach from the eroding grassed bank to the immediate rear. The pile of fill consisted of portions of soil released by the cutting into the bank and the sand from the beach area. This pile has been removed and hay bales installed along the lakeshore. Staff issued a citation the following day in consideration of Cloutier's conditional use permit application reviewed earlier that year. We concurred that this applicant was aware of the ordinances that deal with lakeshore improvements. #674 Cortlon Cloutier Page 2 Conditional Use Permit & Variance I have enclosed a copy of the denial resolution for that earlier application (Exhibit F). Briefly# Cloutier filed an after the fact application with the City to permit a guest home use of a non conforming boat house structure that had sustained several improvements without the benefit of building permits. As the resolution states# Cloutier was to remove the second story of the boat house by September 9# 1981# and cap it off with an originally authorized deck. Cloutier has pleaded not guilty to the citation issued on July 17, 1982 and a trial has been scheduled for May 11, 1982. During these many months of discussion# the resolution of the boat house and the pending application for the lakeshore improvements have been linked together. The attorney and staff have encouraged this course of action (Exhibit E). Review of Current Proposal Cloutier has advised that the plans enclosed.for this review were drafted by an over ambitious draftsman. I have designated the proposed improvements on Exhibit G; Cloutier reviews than as follows: 1 - Removal of second story of boat house structure and capping with deck. 2 - Rip rap of shoreline - rip rap to be continued up to each edge of the existing retaining wall. 3 - Construction of access stairs - stairs to be built according to recommendations of City staff not as sketched on site plan. Stairs need not run to the shoreline but may stop 20' to 30' from the shoreline. 4 - Grass sitting area - applicant claims this will involve cutting into a oank and may require some physical structure to prevent the bank from eroding to the rear and along the front. The sketch shows retaining walls. If Planning Commission approves this additional sitting area# staff will require additional information as follows: a) Amount of fill to be removed and the actual size of the sitting area. b) Proposed method to support disturbed banks - if retaining walls then sections of walls are needed #674 Cortlen Cloutier Page 3 Conditional Use Permit & Variance Staff Recommendation To approve an after the fact application for Cortlen Cloutier consisting of a conditional use permit and hardcover and setback variances subject to the following conditions: 1 -Retaining wall may remain because of the greater environmental harm done if removed. The north section of the retaining wall may be continued along the disturbed section of the bank for 6' to 8' providing the required support. 2 -Access stairs to be constructed down the lakeshore bank - not to run to the lakeshore but to stop at level grade. 20' to 30' setback from lakeshore. City Engineer to advise applicant on access stairs. 3 -Second story of boat house to be removed per Council's directive of Resolution 1254. Applicant must obtain the necessary permits. 4 -Applicant must obtain the necessary permits from the DNR and MCWD for rip rap of shoreline - rip rap may be placed along the outer edges of the sand beach until it connects to retaining wall. 1 5 -Deny the additional grass sitting area finding adequate level areas for sitting at the beach area, second story deck and top of lakeshore bank. Denial will prevent additional disturbance within 0-75' setback area. 6 - Restoration of all disturbed areas and placing of hay bales along the shoreline prior to reconstruction.I Review of Hardships — required for approval of variances 1 - Steep lakeshore slopes 2 - No defined lakeshore access. Review Section 32.460 for necessary findings to approve conditional use permit. at. : f J .’O ■. yMt r ,. ■ ini’j LOCATION OF PROPOSAL (or property) Address 2480 Casco Point Road, Orono, mn Ugal Description ,1 Addition - - ’ APPLICANT Name Cortlen G. Cloutier Tel #332-510 Addres^^^^ Casco r int Road, Orono, MN OWNER Name SAME Mailing Address 'Lei #332-51 nr SAME Present Zoning LR-lc Sketch Plan Review $50 Subdivision $150 + $10/Lot Conditional Use Permit _ _ $30.00 _ _ $50.00 Rezoning $250 - -$100 (Minimum) FEE ?A Date Roc * d I' fc By _ TQ .t2fi'Sh Present Use Residenf Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request 31.700 Specify Ordinance Re ^uireroents ^PP^^<^^tion for a conditional use permit drawing of proposed excavation, $30.00 deposit Explain your request and reasons for same To complete construction of a retain i^g_wau, and landscaplnc appUcgnfs lake7hore croportv. - -project would improve the appearance of the neighborhood as well as protecting applicanfs orooertv from VARIAN(— extent of noncontorraitv _ _ Setback Front Width Side Other, explain Rear Specify hardships to pro FEB75BB2 CONDITIONAL USE AND OTHER - explain proposed use of property in detail The property will continue in this residential use. (inist bc‘\™3;r?rd^r^So^fro''^Ln^„°":r^^ 1. 2. 3. 4. Application completed *’lat map section Certificate of survey of property sketch location and setbacks of proposal Construction plans, if applicable 5. 6. Certified Property Owner's list^o owners within (300') (150')- from Hennepin Co. Dept, of Finance ‘ A-603 Government Center Stamped, legal sized envelopes(#1 pre-addressod to each of the name DATE ATE A d / Applicant's Si'^nS Owner's Sign, 'plicant hereby agrees to provide all in^^ation Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Att'^ Council necessary to process tliis application oes as establisVied by ordinance.and lired or requested by Planning Commission further agrees to pay 5/78 EXHiBiT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST - CRO M O DEPT OF PROPERTY TAXATION A-609 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS. MN 9S4S7 UST SIZE '300^ I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED OH THIS CERTIFICATE ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRE SENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE DIVISION, TO THE REST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF HENNEPIN CO. DEPT. ----------------- DATE f ' - FEE OWNER TAX PAYER/ MAILING ADDRESS PROPERTY AOORESsjr;tIJ)! ■ g/) - //-7- 3 /■'7' ■ /;. 1 T / CmmN 5T V/)/i/r'f t» i— //// h;:cmL-L- /,r/Cc-ZBA’/c^'I?/, 2.73:M.Cp. '3s~S‘:rSy>_____722 NCjx/Z:Zj-B£3337i.jCani7'7)(i2Ja/g7... (7>3f/j)___ AW/i’ ^jlJLUMC. 2J/2/ ftn 5L. GK/icej:. /^£^MeK Q7i//7CL.. I, fUdiAL T. fUftScH PL2>cyQJ<r/^ _ r 7. TI tlg_7,^.Cfi a/mufALSl!.. %'c/cp: c'7 7.F/^<7)tfyY3 5a 13I & /LBXi&MF 7.^7'^ cF^^fC' /tpvr.FG. Fcftpe/i/<k M.7mi2)r'7y^cj a /,\ C pycyu 7r7k^N 777m■77.7:-\73?-fLft~>cc: -/V/wf- B'j2...-3mmA^..77'S C/I6CC . '/I/n?^AP. 7/\Ti7ft 3. CLap/Fj^ Z7c:_ .FFy^. /zz/z l/2____ "ni _ VmifH -L. Fftam 7-S^<'> . :7.. .7 Ficms.^. 7S/A.....A'_. litcmF. 3..'EfHHW..7S2C:___ 7 / // __________ "t\ /'■-IBFAd-JLSlM77Eti3MjF'SjEim?) Z /■am.fL7lMBl. :ZE3CL^ft<^^ &;iHTLFii-.3\- ' * A/zL7.3£z^.i^Jxiz ,N6i • . HC 1:33 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST - C' l\0 Kl 0 DEPT OF PROPERTY TAXATION *>60S OOVCRNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487 UST Slit - PftG^ Z- I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ON THIS CERTIFICATE ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRE SENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE DIVISION, TO THE SEST OF MV KNOVLEOOE AND BELIEF HENNEPIN CO. DEPT. OFDEPT. OF/PROPERTY TAXATION ’ 4 DATE ^ FEE OWNER TAX PAYER/ MAILING ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS N£T <s-i^c.N \ lyaj ^2. ^ (^02 SH£P/>^ ........ i IV • t FEB25lse2 ----rl CITY OF ORON L-^> ••cm EXHIBIT L**rt!fic\*r *.f j .n«v I'rr fort.af. J ;11#T :»f -r'.f . , u: r I, hi -< 1, ir.J fu*.i3t V. .1. :»r-An, Hsnr.* Ir C: .r.'.y, :-.rr.^5rV<#555 > t » • t I 4 \U’ ?«• •/ If i . *f, Ir.r. ri‘r >•*. V' ,^. ^i'. . •. .. . ;.r» =.r u , ■ *• r.'* ‘-'.tA i IT * A i EfcViai.T. POPHAH. HAIK, SCHNOBRICH. KAUPMAN & DOTY. LTO. IDS CCNTCP MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA BSA02 TCLCP h ONC and TC lCCOP iCM ei2>333-«eOO WAVNC O POPMAM PAVMONO A MAIK poocp m. scMNoamcM OCNVCP HAUPMAN OAVIO s. doty POBC AT A. MINIBH AOtPC A. WOAOCN O MARC WHiTCMCAO BAUCC D. MTILL'S rACDCRiCH S. R ichards O. ROSCRT JOHNSON OARV R. MACOMSCR ROSCRT 8. SURH rRCDCRiCK C. SROWN THOMAS A. BCRO • RUCC D. MALACRSON JAMCS R. STCILCN JAMCS S. LOCKHART ALLCN W. HINDCRAHCR CLIPPORO M. ORCCNC D WILLIAM KAUPMAN DCS tl L P£TCR50N MICHACL O. PRCCMAN THOMAS C. D’AOUILA LARRV D. CSPCL JANIC S. May CRON DAVID A. jONCS sally a . JOHNSON LCC C. Sh CCM y LCSLiC OillCTTC MICHACL T. NILAN ROBERT C MOILANCN DAVID J. COOUIST CATHERINE A. POLA5KY STCVCN O. HCIKCNS JOHN R. WILCOX KATHLEEN M MINDER NANCY J TURBAR JOHN C CHILDS Th ERCSC ambrusko ^ i » •• L‘ • 1 ' leSO PCTRO-LCWlS TOWER ocNvcp. COLOPAOO soaoz tCkCPMONC AND TC lCCOP iCR 303-a25-2660 FEB'3®® SUITC sot-tooo L street n w WASHINGTON. D C. tOOSG tc.c.komc *no mcco'ica A 1 O. COUNSEL rnco L. MORKisoN February 2, 1982 Mr, Cortlen Cloutier 2480 Casco Point Road Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Re: State vs. Cartlen Cloutier Dear Mr. Cloutier: Pursuant to our discussion at court on January 27, 1982, your matter has been scheduled for a trial c,n May 11, 1982. My understanding is that matters are proceeding smoothly through the City Administrator processes, and that the matter can be resolved by the time of this trial date. Sincerely U Oesyl L. Peterson Prosecuting Attorney City of Orono IJ /c DLP/mp cc Jeanne A. Mabusth .J.'- ■; 'll I EXKiSiT £ CITY. City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1254 A RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES REQUESTED BY CORTLEN CLOUTIER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD WHEREAS^ tho City of Oirono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant: to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq. the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the -public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Cortlen Cloutier hts applied for a conditional use permit and variances to the non-conforming use sections and to the hardcover regulations for lekeshore property to permit the following: 1. 2. To convert the second story of an existing boat house to a guest house apartment. To add a three-seasoned porch, 13'6'' X 18'6", to the second story of the existing boat house. WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission; affidavits from Mike Scheller, Maurine and Wilbur Andersen; comments by neighborhood ®'^tizens; and letters and comments by the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the application for a conditional use permit for a guest house (Section 34.027) and hereby denies all variances which would first be required to approve said conditional use permit, which variances propose new work within 75 feet of lakeshore (Section 34.202), expansion of a non-conforming use (Section 31.108), and a change from the existing non-conforming use to another non- conforming use (Section 31.101), all of which denial is based upon one or more of the following findings of fact: 1. The Cloutier property consists of approximately throe acres legally described as follows: Lots 1, 3 fit 4, Block 1 and Outlot 1, TilIson's Villa Carman PAGE CITY ORONO 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 1254NO. The existing boat house construction coitunencing sometime prior to May 7, 1971/ was completed in the fall of 1971. Building permit No. 2495 was written to cover construction of a single-story boat house capped with deck, approximate size 20' X 30*. Building permit No. 2495 was issued on May 7, 1971; fee of §5.00 was based on valuation of building material at $500.00; all work to be done by the owner. The affidavits of Mike Scheller, former building inspector, and Maurine and ifilbur Andersen, neighbors residing at 3555 Fredrick Street, attest that the origi.nal permit was to cover a single-story structure capped with a deck. No second story was ever authorized by permit and the inspector's affidavit states that he inspected a structure assumed to be con^lete that did not contain any second story. Following receipt of a complaint by an anonymous neighbor on June 19, 1980, an inspection was made by the building inspector and the zoning administrator of the boat house. The following was noted; a) b) A two-story boat house not of recent construction A 14' X 18' incomplete addition attached to lakeside of second story, including stud walls and roof and large window areas in walls. c) Partial installation of a new furnace. d) Partial connection of sewer and water lines for sinks and stool stored in second story. The City files have no record of a building permit being issued for second story of boat house required by Ordinance 32.260 of the zoning code. PAGE 2_OF 6 i ft I 'W ■ V2 CITY T<V‘ e 1 ORONO^ 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.1254 The City files have no record of a building permit being issued for the three-seasoned porch addition. Section 32.260 of the zoning code requires building permits for erection or structural alteration of all structures in the City. The City files have no record of a mechanical permit being issued for peurtial work done on furnace, of boat house. The City files have no record of a plumbing permit being issued for partial plumbing work done for boat house, including underground sewer and water piping installed. The boat house, located 30 feet from shoreline of Carman's Bay, has been a non-conforming use as of January 1, 1975 per Sections 34.201 and 34.202. The City files have no record of a Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the non-conforming boat house structure per Section 32.250. The City files have no record of a conditional uae permit being issued for the non-conforming boat house use per Section 34.480. Construction or occupancy of guest houses have required prior City Council approval of a conditional use permit since the adoption of the first Comprehensive Zoning Code, Ordinance NO. 93 in 1967. The City files have no record of any application by Cloutier or any other person to have a guest house on this property, until this application was made in 1980. The Assessor, on January 2, 1977, appraised the fair market value of the single story and deck at $2,500.00. The second story and proposed three-seasoned porch are an expansion of a non-conforming use. The City has consistently denied variances for expansion of non-conforming structures. PAGE 3_OF 6 CITY OF . ORONO 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1254 A guest house use is a change from the original ncn-conforming use of the boat house. The existing structure could not meet the setback standards required by the conditional use permit for a guest house. Applicant applied for a conditional use permit to relocate a guest house on his three-acre site, but withdrew the application on January 19, 1981 when he realii ed the required avera.ge lakeshore setback for the relocated structure would interfere with an addition proposed for the main house. In that application, the second story would have been removed and the remaining boat house capped with a deck. The proposed addition of a three-seasoned porch within the restricted lakeshore setback area is additional hardcover as prohibited by Section 34.202, and is a violation of the 75 ft. lakeshore setback regulations of Section 34.201. Applicant argues that the building permit issued by the City on May 7, 1971 must have included the request to build a second story even though the building permit clearly does not provide such a right and that in 1971, he would have had a right to build an upper story, such arguments have no merit for one or more of the following reasons: a) A building permit has not been provided for upper story. b) Building permit No. 2495 was written for only $500.00. Cost of construction material for a two-story structure in 1971 would have been more than $500.00. There are no architectural plans on file to substantiate a two-story structure. A conditional use permit would have been required in 1971 and there is none on record. f) A mechanical permit would have been required in 1971 for all work done on furnace. PAGE_4 OF CITY 0F_ ORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ _ _ _ g) A plumbing permit would have been required in 1971 for all work on sewer and water lines. h) There is no record of a State permit for the electrical work. i) Neighbors and former building inspector attest the boat house structure was to be a single-story structure capped with a deck. j) The State Building Code requires the inspection of the various phases of construction and there is no record of any except that the former building inspector states he remembers inspecting a single story structure that he assumed was conqpleted. 24. The granting of the required variances would result in the following violations of Section 32.340 of the zoning code with which the applicant must first comply before the required variance can be granted: a) The variances would have an adverse effect upon the health, safety and welfare of the community. b) The value of surrounding properties will be adversely affected. c) There are no special conditions applying to the land in question which are peculiar to the land or immediately adjoining property. d) The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. e) The granting of the variances would impair the health, safety, comfort and be contrary to the intent of the zoning code and Con^)rehensive Plan. f) The granting of the variances will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. g) The granting of the variances would be adverse to the regulations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. PAGE 5_OF 6 CITY OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1254 h) The granting of the variances would be adverse to the Department of Natural Resources Shoreland Management Regulations. 25. The applicant has not introduced any evidence contrary to any of the above findings of fact, except to state that he thought that permit No. 2495 covered all such work, even though said permit contains no reference to anything except a boat house and even though work was suspended for at least nine years between 1971 and 1980, during which time Cloutier did not continuously reside on the property. FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the foregoing findings that confirm the upper story was erected in violation of the rules and regulations of the State Building Code and the Orono Zoning Code, the City Council hereby requires the removal of the entire second story of the boat house at 2480 Casco Point Road subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. .1 That applicant obtain the necessary building permits to make the required structural changes to be completed no later than six months after adoption of this resolution. Upon removal of the second story, the remaining structure may be capped with a deck pursuant to obtaining a build ing permit therefore. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held March 9 ^ 1981. Attest:z <f7 Alberta Strom, City Clerk PAGE _6_OF _6 ^A’ W^ ‘--•411 I'^^i'iijgffi'i ent PLAN •:«f> •v ••■- SCMS l'- /6'-c?'Mt>Km .J h i : *•> n»* ^ 5. •i, h ' 'Ji .• E^-'* ■ . ' r -r-,.‘ -•••. fc A. •: Ur^V w.ii' T*jr a*\"sb^ kfcefcU»>SC ^ mmEBBaes'smsBseeBB^^s^ - “ —ir-t • L________: muA .. •/ . V. ir. l; •:,i^i:■ i jripiysi r: i4^ 'r^ ' ^ I! • . .4 . .. ‘ ■ . ' ^ - i® V ^ L 4 *• • • . -.iii:'.- .S'iV.^srH 'i§. V'■i EXHIBIT V' ' r • /|[jjV!l©ig^./!-■ FEB25SK I Si >V /Tf/, cA I •' ^ V • f /- • "/* •' • ■• *■ Mir • •» r J 5^1 V 7 :‘:3‘ : ■ - -f '' JJ-I------!,._■ TO:Planning Conunission FROM: Thomas J. Jacobs, Building Official DATE: April 8, 1982 SUBJECT: #675 Donald Carter, 4460 North Shore Drive - Variance Renewal - Lot Area, Lot Width Zoning District - LR-lB Lot Area - 14,800 sf Lot Width - 100' List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit D - I - Application Property Owners List Survey Site Plan Plat Map Letter from Carter Proof of lot combination Council minutes (3-16-78) Council minutes (11-13-79) This application is a renewal of a lot area and lot width variance approved by Council on March 16, 1978 (Exhibit H) and November 13, 1979 (Exhibit I) . The variances are as follows: Lot Area: Minimum required 43,560 sf (one acre) Actual 14,800 sf Variance 28,760 sf 56% Code Sec. 34.450 Lot Width: Minimum Required 140’ Actual 100’ Variance 40’29% Code Sec. 34.450 There has been some change in the plan as far as hardcover. The residence will consist of 1950 sf, and the driveway 575 sf. Total hardcover is 2,525 sf, which is consistent with requirements of the last approval. All setbacks required for this zoning district are met on the site plan. The applicant is asking (Exhibit F) that the mobile home and the two garages remain on the property for storage of building materials. Staff recommends approval of the lot width, lot area variance renewal application oi Donald Carter with the following conditions: I #675 Donald Carter Page 2 Variance 1 - That all hardcover must be limited to 2,525 s£ or less. No hardcover variances. 2 -Removal of mobile home, two existing garages, existing slabs and gravel driveway before sheet rock inspection and resoding all disturbed areas. 3 - Approved access permit from Hennepin County. 4 “ No setback variances. r-r ) sf or less Bs, existing k inspection LAND USE PLANNING ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO — *^'^*“* Hianesota 5S323 *7J-?I57 —crib. ,our r»,u..t. Ineo-pl.t. .ppUe«?^r!)m exhibit ^ JJL ft \J I LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. PROPERTY ADDRESS ____^460 North shore Drive ^•criorlnfi UMl d-crtptl«» .h.n b.T5;;« «, ,euch.d 8„n,„. Uhfba V applicant ^ Donald M.Phon# 472- /^r lQl£i£i_A££neatian •Mt Include; ftottlnt *ddr*M 4460 North Shore Drive Hound, HN 55364 Application Fora XXX_ Property Owners tier If Appltcent la not owner, explain 3. OWNER Donald M. Carter Phone Mi Hint Address (same as above) err 472-7^ i i j Vf s o 3 X^ Certificate of Survr Receipt P«f^^lved w 4. 1° -October 9. i9«. .-TTz:: (do; (do not) also own other adjacent parcels of land $teff In forma '♦ Pl*t Hep 5 6 AGENT Pirn ___ Inventory ___ Staff Hione t Mslllng Addreea Other InforsiB^iof^ ^ py U Mishit ^ ■ II . _ _ _,1 - ' .1, I. , ^ a. . ' < r. 5. 0 0. NOTICES Should b# aeot to:Appllcn.i-------- PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT lb-ib " - I / .PRESENT USE lUeldentlal J^L (Other) Vacant Land _ Vacant Building(a) 3. Occupied Bulldlngla)XX cost ____ — _ add on raandal Describe request in detail: _ want to build permanent year round h^e - “ see attached survey and location of house. 9. VARIANCE(S) REQUIRED t. do th, ,.,u..t.4 »ort ■■■■ SRtbacIi ( Front ___ Sido Raar) Othar Lot Araa XXX Width Hardcover 10. Describe UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS ™,lu«. «u, toto, tot Width is approinately 20 fo.t shorter tl,a. thu. „.Kino I >. u.33 than ' 1^00 toot 11 • l^DUE HARDSHIP or PRACTICAL DTPPTPin*rv r 1 Ri o^Jh" 7roh^^^^ •» «»< 7‘“‘7, the property. The new home as proposed woulS sionifica^t 1 „ the area plus create a higher tax haso (see 12. Describe EFFECT OF PROPOSFn unoiT --------------------------------------------v/r rivuru&tu WORK on neighboring propartln e.a .w Tho oonotroot i„„ ,,.......................................................... •”■ “ “* *. The APPLICANT Dnd the rRnrrii J\ jiu ji l „ application. ....... t..... ..'1 - Jr::-.-.- 'V X \A I L __Vie ) li \ ' V.\ii 4' '.I. it . HC 1233 OEPARTMEHT OF FINANCE A-609 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55487 PROPERTY OVVNgRS LIST EXHIBIT e li$t $izi.„ fti FEE OUVNER I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS RCPRESEMTEO W THIS CERTIFICATE ARC AH ACCURATE AND T«UC RERRE- SCNTATION OF IHFORMATIOH AS IT ARREARS THIS DATE OH THE RECORDS OF THE HCHHERIH FIHAHCC OlVISIOH. TO THE lEST OF HY KHOHLCOCE AHO DEUCF. HSHNERIH CO. FIHAHCC DIVISlOH /"> -I/-9/ g TAX PAYER/ MAILING ADDRESS /r>,j}A. ;fr G. jTy/^s£. 4f/^> A!------f: TA Cr^. kr^-^>r,» L.h^-rr-Vfl.'c^.lS^6-L-SS3SJ. DATE. PROPERTY ADDRESS OC't‘7- Qg»»*^er- g7‘ M''/tTA>^i .^±22^oc>/o ^ // ^ 00/7.. /*/’ / ^ C £>?'.< jLlllcjl-JZ.—PAi*1/L * Do//.yi^P L/i/i/j/'o^\t^7tr \ ■ t I > ► —-H- ««■ «^EB 2 6 198?-^ § • />7- //•?- C^£>£> • •LI© * I \Iii\^ IDWB'''''’ --------1 FEB266K EXI-’^BIT If “TN J »r/-.y‘ 7i u CITY OF ORONO riat of f>m\ey 1 for Villi»i-'.3 lioalty of Lola 5 »*nd 6, Pfjrpqulst ’p ?nd Addition to f.oga lUll Hc’'nopln County, Minn^sotA ■2s> ‘bORVEY Kevnser> Sv-Ve TLAhl (€iiCl..t -P ") C^rtlflcnto of Sur ’/oy: I li^reby c^^rtlfy tint thlfj In u true imd ^o^roc^ r^r?r*»'«^?^tntlon of n nurvoy of thM boundiirlin of I/>ts 5 «nd •*Pnn:qnln!.*n ^nd //yillon to finf/.n and tho loc^tlcn of oil oxlntJng b»?lldlnj;n ih»»ronn« It i^oon not purport to slnu oth'^r lrrprrv^-«*^*:n nr on- cro ic}iT»*nln. •v. ♦ .. I" - /.J* I -i:-77 Iron TM!•'•■»* Lnnd Surveyor *»*•'! I’l.......... l/'r.c L»tV»', J'I t ! a EXHIBIT \ \ \ \ \ \^ V -N V \ W \ ♦A ’•:c > >> •» f \ 1 Vr*\ • V r*.\'rn v:#•r \ \ 'vV ? \ 'f \'',' \ a S *• tr»n\ o f \ \ 7 r .> - / V- n% \ .;.v - T ^ - ‘ •z -A r< / % h'' i I > 'V. fo 'res t (NOT MEANDERED) LAKE in.v./'— Wi 8f V m Hoc *I 5 K •■•■ -v:': •• •• : *t / riSM k ■k,. ^ *■ i •t u • • f 1 I •••f i:v ■ 9 r ), i: !• ILI 1 1 FEB26See i if CITY OF ORCMO January 5i 1982 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mfl 55323 Subject: Land Use Planning - Zoning Variance Gentlemen: I am requesting a variance on lot size to build my new home. (See enclosed data.) I also would like your help and understanding an another request as part of this variance. Because of economic conditions, I will be the general contractor on my new home. I live on the property now, it is my only home. 1 want to continue to live there while I build the new structure. For a quick construction and storage of buildinn materials, I want to keep the present three structures. These three structures are very important for storage of my lumber and materials, and if I can't use them thieves will carry off everything. I believe v;e all want the same thing: the removal of these three structures as soon as possible. The closer I am to this site and the easier the construction, the sooner the three structures can be removed If you desire, 1 will enter contractual agreement with the city to remove them as soon as I can move into my new structure. Sincerely, Don Carter 4^60 North Shore Oriv^ Mound, Ml! 55364 1 ;1 t \ EXH^niT k2. Fobrunrv 26> 19 82 VZStNON T. HOPPS fin /Wce division DIRECTCR 1X0 COURTHOUSE MINNSAPOUS, MINNESOTA 55615 DEAR SIR; 1 HSRSaY MAKS RJfiUEST FCR A iSSOmSSi CaiBINED) ASS2SS^:EN^ ON IHB FOLLOUIN6 DESCRIBED LAND: TOWN, VILLAGE CR Orono „__SlOMATURE OF FEE CUN£R^'^oT C -jd FCR 1983 tax YErUl NAME OF TAX PAY£R . TAX PAYIR'S ADDRESS CQ4BINED CIRREKT VALUES •TOTAL FULL TOTAL H OR N.R.ACSt SMP.LAND BUILDING MACHINE and TRUE ASSESSED I gy // .'}:gi*i,/\r MixTinr. of the opoho couhcii., :v*pch 16, 1978 P.mo 17 Planning Connission rocoi:un<?ndcd approval of SUBDIVISION piolininary pint subject to the following conditions; 1125 Spring Hill Road (Continued) Approval of drainage plans and drainage and utility easements by City Engineer. Approval of flowage and conservation oasenont over wetlands. / / Suggest applicant reserve the right to locate 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. a 6 ft. access to the lake. Upon deterjiining location* designate walkway as outlot. Title opinion addressed to the City and approved by the City Attorney, Park dedication fee. Additional 10 ft. right-of-way dedication along County Road 96 to Hennepin County. Permanent private easements on access roads as required. o O77 Council Meeting - November 28, 1977 Approved preliminary plat subject to casorr.ents, etcJ, as approved by Planning Commission. Staff - March 3, 1978 for Council Meeting - March 16, 1978 The attached resolution including exhibits A & D are submitted f^'r your review and approval. The original parcel was split by Resolution #818 dated August 22, 1977, Mr. Brooks then returned with a second division which received preliminary approval on November 28, 1977, Conditions for both divisions have now been completed thereby allowing the Council to make final approval. The original division was never recorded although it could have been. Though it is irregular, .1 do recommend approving the two divisions at one time because all the legal documents have been assembled Butler moved, Pesek seconded, to adopt Resolution #884, A Resolution Approving A Subdivision For Conley Brooks. Motion, Ayes (4) - Hays (0). RESOLUTION 1884 Conley Brooks 1125 Spring Hill Road Mr. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Acb.iinis- trator, entered into the record the following information concerning a lot area and width variance request of Paul Berglund, 4460 North Shore Drive, dated February 3, 1978, which states: VARIANCE 4460 North Shore Drive #349 Paul Berglund The above applicant is requesting approval of several variances at the above address. The pro perty is located in a LR-lB zoning district. The lot and setback requirements in this /one are as follows:(Continued) ,.. 'Ac r p(* -M^-‘ BCCUI-AR MK.;TI..G of VUE ORONO council. .U-Rcn U. 1978 SykiiiT // “ page 18 1. Area - 43,560 sq. ft. 1. Width - 140 ft. 3. Street setback “ ^5 tt. 4. Side setback - 10 £t. ^ 5. Lakeshorc sotbacl. - * • VAKIANCC 4460 North Shore Drrvc (Continued) ro JfraJ^oprrS ‘?s Ll^Ton'JoJnin,. 1 Existing nobils homo - 10 ft- ^ 5'; Sbe \ -- it it: - -oUno ..a , it. ftom side lot line. The subject lot does not poet renuirononts. Lot dimensions: 1. Lot area - approxinatoly U.800 sq. ft 2. Lot width - 40 ft. New residence would meet setback requirements • A He should address the issues of non-conformity currently existing. 1 Removal of mobile home * c. n 2: Slvtng or removal of garages A s B Although the lot f* ' Ho^additional sewered and assess wio for expansion as S^erScerpy^^n^e^Ues on either side. Planning Commission Meeting - February 27, 1978 .Mr. Richard J. Milliams, J®Ptesenting^the^are^ was present. Mr. ^^55 North Shore Drive, I”tfreifed*^nS“s!'w«ralso present. The toning Administrator printed the pr^osal as submitted. He proposalhome and two non-conforming garages i i were to be approved. The Planning Commission recommended all variances subiect to tne 1. 2. 3. Removing existing of new dwellingfrom site before construction or street) is started (mobile home garages Razing of two existing non started - before construction "^^/'J^ardeSver within 75*demolition permits re<iuired (haruco of lakeshorc) ,v,= (hardcover) beforeRemoval of all existing slabs (hara construction is started. «- tm A tU (Continued)!| A1mM: -A ^ ' •J/*' if ci. - £.)iLLit- // • inrlQTR P»1CJC18 »ugu:.^r mk,:ti.ig of vhe orono cogncu., -erRch 16. 1. Area - 43,560 sq. ft. 1. Width - 140 ft. i. Street setback " 4. Side setback - 10 ft. ^ 5. Lakeshore setback - V5 i.t. VAHIANCi: 4460 North Shore (Continued) Drive V:l Jara^ls'^Se'p'ropcrtyls cir?on?li'non-contornin. 1 Existing mobile home - 10 l\ Garage B - 15 ft- shoreline and 7 ft. from side lot line. 7ho subject lot docs not neet roquirenents. Lot dimensions: 1. Lot area - approxlnatoly 14,800 sq. ft 2I Lot width - 40 ft. New residence would meet setback requirements. We should address the issues of non-conformaty currently existing. 1. Removal of mobile s B 2. Moving or removal of garages a Although t^®^°^g^e/^r^sewer?' l^^additional sewered and doable for expansion as intrn^c»“Scci;yT«P«ii« - Plannlnq Coocisslon .Icetln, - February 21. 1978 • Mr. Richard J. Willies, "P'®®®"'ie|resentiKq the Mtrh^^iraS^ons 4«SR- interested neighbors, were The Zoning ^^^®^®^’^®g°g<j^r^|Cal^of^the mobile ro^^^^d^wo ron!c?rfrr:tnnarages if Proposal were to be approved The Planning ’^the^ollowing^conditions all variances subiect to tne 1. 2. ■ifI 3. Reinovinq ®J‘^?'^"’-"S"trucU™*of now dwellinq fron site before constru street) -rde:^iC:rL‘’st;r;tcd -rcri!trnlrr:nrrc,'.urr “ed''.hardc2ver wUhln 7S' BUva!'or:’ll erlstlnq slabs (h.ardcover) before construction is startc-d. (Continued) ■tfin i :!rr,’Jj.AR J-.KETING of the OROHO council, 16, 10 78 19 Justifications: Ho additional land available 2. Property is sewered and assessed 3. Proposed location of new dwelling c^'20ts all setback requirements VARIANCE 4460 North Shore Drive (Continued) Staff - March 6, 1978 for Council Meeting March 16, 1978 m !ro'5or “?ootiof . .923.52, and'one'connoction charge ($225.00). The lots are separate parcels. I recommend that approval bo subiect to three Planning Commission recommendations plus lot combination for tax purposes and County approval of the driveway location, all prior to issuance of any building permit. Council Meeting - March 16, 1978 Jlriancr^equesrirpIurBe?gluJd,^446rNo^i^ condition: combination of front and back lots. Motion, Ayes (4) - Hays (0). Mr. Alan Olson, Assistant Building i Zoning Adminis trator, entered into the record the following information concerning a variance request of Don Phenicie,3765 Togo Road, dated February 2, 1978 which states: Applicant is requesting a permit for an addition to existing dwelling. Before a permit can be issued, several variances would require Placing Commission and Council approval. Exhibit A This property is located in a LR-IC The lot and setback requirements in this district are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Lot area - 21,780 sq. ft. Lot width - 100 ft. Street setback - 30 ft. Rear setback - 30 ft. Side setback - 10 ft. Exhibit B indicates location of subject property on plat map section. Exhibit C (survey) lot dimensions and location of existing owe^ inq. The following non—conforming conditions exist VARIANCE 3765 Togo Road #353 Don Phonicie • 1 (Continued) f-* V' » • ^ 'C.Ar‘.«v;;»i REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, NO'^EMBER 13, 1979 _ _ _ _ P'lge 7 • Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record jyvKUlPCACZ the following variance rcsquest of O. E. Fisher, ^ 4460 North Shore Drive 4460 North Shore Drive, dated November 6, 1979, which states:#522 O. E. Fisher This application is a renewal of a lot area variance approved by Council on March 16, 1978. There are no changes from the original proposal. The site plan meets all the setbacks of the Zoning District LR-IB. Planning Commission restated the original conditions of approval and added one more; the gravel driveways serving the non-confoming garages are to be removed and seeded. Planning Commission also notes for the record their concern that the new driveway should not exceed the allowed additional hardcover of 360 sq. ft. They recommend against exceeding allowed hardcover for the substandard lot and applicant to be advised that patios, cement walks, etc. are considered hardcover. Please review the Planning Commission minutes of October 29, 1979 for background and recomnendation. Council Meeting - November 13, 1979 Butler moved, Massengale seconded, to approve the variance request of O, E, Fisher, 4460 North Shore Drive, per the Planning Commission recommendations, as follows: 1. The gravel driveways serving the non-conforming garages are to be removed and seeded 2.The new driveway should not exceed the allowed additional hardcover of 360 sq. ft. 3.The applicant to be advised that patios, cement walks, etc are considered hardcover Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0), Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record the variance request of A. R. Backstrom, 1973 Fagerness Point Road, dated November 6, 1979, which states: Mr. Backstrom requests a street setback variance of 33* for a new garage 20* X 28* to replace a 20* X 18* garage located 12* ihto the right of way of Fagerness Point Road. The second part of his request involves an 8* X 28* addition to the rear of the house. The proposed improvements will require a hardcover variance of 266 sq. ft. or 9%, The improvements will add approximately 434 sq, ft, of hardcover or 14,6%, The addition will add 221 sq. ft. or 7.5%. The new garage (subtract existing garage ) will add 210 sq. ft. or 7.1%, VARIANCE 1973 Fagerness Point 4524 A. R. Backstrom 1 tj TO:Planning Commission FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth DATE:April 9, 1982 SUBJECT: #679 William Smiley, 2720 Pheasant Road - Variance Zoning District - LR-lB Area = 26,342.5 sf - Lot 16 - Pheasant Lawn Application - lot area and lot width variance - Lot in joint ownerships with Lot 17 — 100% of standard required a) Lot Area required existing variance Lot 16, Pheasant Lawn 43,560 sf 26.342.5 sf 17.217.5 sf or 40% b) Lot Width required = existing = variance = 140' 100' 40* or 29% List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit P Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Application Property Owners List Plat Map Survey \ Attorney's letter (3-29-82) Planner's letter (3-30-82) Neighbor's petitions Lot Area survey of Pheasant Lawn Plat Map - developed lots both lots 16 and 17, Pheasant Lawn since purchased when'^L^^^^L^^eL^iSL^JCctedr^^iLirtl a?e^ iot'So^bined Lo^ ifir^h^r !L^^^L%^ro°t ?-LnrRSainiis!^ir • existing house on Lot 17 encroaches 8' into Lot 16. (Exhibit D) filing of this application, the applicant and his ?ots of Council's position concerning tCbstaCdard ownership (Exhibit F). staff had a meeting with Smiley and their attorney advising them of staff's ir-rCamv applicatiofas proposed.application should consist of a subdivision application for lot line rearrangement and a rezoning of the not a IHstwe Inef "" ='PP''°P'^“‘« application but A .. ■.v.'V "V, #679 William Smiley Page 2 Variance The applicant will advise staff at the meeting of their intention. Staff Recommendation To deny the lot -rea and lot widt’ 'a. iance application of William Smiley based on the following findings: 1 -Lot 16, Pheasant Lawn does not meet 100% of lot standards for LR-lB zoning district - 40% area variance 29% width variance 2 - Encroachment of 8' by existing structure into Lot 16. 3 a) *s water unit charge on Lot 16 *5 water unit charge on Lot 17 b) 1 sewer unit charged on Lot 17- no sewer unit assessment for Lot 16 i j ting of their intention. ; application of Lngs: I of lot standards ariance i/^ariance re into Lot 16. sewer unit i LAND USE PLANNING ZONINQ VARIANCE APPLICATION EXHIBIT A CITY OF ORONO P.O. ftoK 66« Crystal Day, Minnesota 55323 4;3-7357 ^RUCTIONS; first rssd t,‘ sttsehsd Inforsistlon Sheet. Cowplstt Ite«s 1 • 13 (Type or Print). If n*c1sd» sttsch letter or other inforostlcm to better your request. Incottpletc sppHcstlons will not be sccepted. PROPERTY ADDRESS 2720 Pheasant Road Leftsl description shell be shown on sttsehsd Survey^ Exhibit 3 APPLICANT Isabel Smiley and'*•"* -■Wi-lliam Yalo-Sml-ley ----471~912.5 Killing Address 2720 Pheasant Road If Apptiesne Is not o%#ner, explain N/A OWNER Kao. William Yale Smilev »»onr 471-9125 and Isabel R. Smiley, husband and wife Kalllng Address . . -_ _ _ Date Property Acquired 1949 (»tonth/Ye«r) 1 (do) also own other adjacent parcela of land AGFNT Rl<^hard A. Hassel and Larry J. Berg rtn.Wright, West & Diessner Pho.473-2515 Hailing Address 320 Manitoba Ave., Wayzata, MN 55391 NOTICES Should be •ant to;Appllcsnt Owner Agent PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT L^-16 LIST OF EXHIBITS Description In It 1st Applies tlot^ ■ust include: __ Application Fora ^ Property Owners List ^ Certifiesre of Surv* * Fee Receipt # /> )! w » 0 Date lUcctved ,'J S - 8y J_.______ Staff Information 4 Plat Hsp 5 Inventory 6 ___ Staff CosaMfits Other Infrr?natton PRESENT USE "••liJ.ntUl X (other) Vacant L^nd Vseint Bulldlng(s)Occupied Bulldlng(s) X 8. DESCRIBE REQUEST ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION MAR 3 0 1982 co|f[?iuMiNa — nw _ continue or ««p.n«l exteclng u«e ^ build new _ «dd on _ re«>dol _ ropl^ Describe request in detail: Applicant desires to build house upon Lot 16, Pheasant Lawn, adjacent to applicant's home, in which applicants' son and son's wife will live. 9. VARIANCE(S) REQUIRED to do the requested Work: _____ Setback (____ Front ____ Side Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover User) Other 10. Describe UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS preventlm coaplUnee with toning Cud* requlr«e«te: Lot 16 Pheasant Lawn is loss than one acre in area. LVscrlbe U:\'DUK HARDSHIP or PIb\CTICAL DIFFICULTY r,.uum, (ro. .inct en(oree*mt of remm* MK'tuti.n. At time of purchase, said lot was a buildable lot; average lot size in area is not materially larger than Lot 16 Pheasant Lawn. 1. . DC’SCrillC EH F.Cr Oh l’ROP(.)SED WORK "•'K»Aorln* propertle# end on the nelghbcthood in gmer.l: __ - nn nGiyhborinq DroDorty.___________________________ The AFPLICLXNT and the PROPERTY OWNER must rht APPLICANT hereby agrees to provide all Inforraitlon requited or requested by the Zoning Admlnlatrator, agreea to pav all fees snd/or unusual expenaes incurred in review if thla applicatlcng and certifies that ths informat ion aujpHrd la true and correct to the best of his knowledge: sign and date this application. The OWNFR hereby acknowledges and agreea to this spplicati and further authoriiea reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, coaniaaion nenbers, and Council aienbera for purposes of inveatigstion and \<-t L It*-i_V A. I li location of thls^^uest:r iikiy X >V /S////k C* i r> yt\C. 1233 -------------------------- ^ „ mrain t«x«>'« A>eOS 60VERHMCHT CEHTEK WNHEAPOLIS, mm 99*9’ 'ct.T..ic»« IT»««»t«i* SCMTATIOW tMC OATC 0« TMC ACSt Of tt't KMOWCCOCe FIHAMCI OIVISIOO. to THt M»T . ano Otuff ' ^ - '■'■ list sits I'T iOA HENNCfIN CO. ITT TSl date . fee owner ,»» PAYER / UA» IMG AODRESS^ I ^ //“7- 7," ID // n /f // i _______—---------- : « '7fnS lIV------- ’■' --.r;----------------- ,\Uli'iO .f-\ C?:u53'fe D K^ma Y ------------- 5asK3r. V TMl *^9ub\ ---------------\ (») —^- -^1,^ ¥/. >‘l,A V mi f'* ^ 5» .A / ^ i 2 - / ‘V '7^'^'.V •''ts. . (}0 s'-ir^-jjv/ 7 *;(?4) ’* •N 20'' 21 (fv) \.- 16 f \ (/•) VC.. '■ \ , 1 1 i: > \ m ? • » ^ 'iii- f* «4V'n V*V'^(!■) ■V ’5 ,»f ■ ,■ ^\® '•■■ stt(r)' 2 iO % M'4lf •<< t A \ N • )4 Cl • 4 CQ W V J **•«# ^ (j») 5". ' • V . kn <%< >^y••.'xs. .v,! • nue ?{\ii3 -Vl-i/ii. / '■.'v ^/v 5s? Sr ^ <0*1 • «*• l£ji'««iu I *A < •? •% V >, ^ X » L-.V ; ^ Vn I » a*)'>15 o«* , « 5 d \V. (/) i .AV. •i.-r:i i,r •••,:*•» (I) J5 .•« 'y L g/-/^7- »■»■ \(r^;A Port of 1 Lot 10 !— -I5a :..m ■ \ \\> <. / \\Stt rt( fl.L.S't V ife - *«» A-.:d; ;y ’: ■ .;*• t; .'.'-i ‘.V . .< •! . ' V. ,.- ■ . «v- <f • >5^*..' :■ ■ :iis^S.as a 1 / yf 3 7 9 EXHIBIT « . . • . \ 1 r • • • •« •i • I ^ .. .. , ■aiTi*'3J«»L ■ ^ . •.' _ \ .i .-f H • • .j . i' »■ • '• 1 WC.CCS J. WRIOMT KARL r. OICS9NCR SMtrntLO <ACST PCTCR MCiSS ALOCRT ARORCWS.JR. RICHARD A.HA5SCL THOMAS R. KIND CHAR lCS ** OICSSNCR Thomas R mia MuCR ROBCRT H. ZALK DO as 0*4 WEST LEO O . STERN LARRT J.BERO VIRGINIA L. LiEB iG ANNE morrow ANDREW I. COULTER PATRICIA A. BEIT mON MICHAEL A. TRlTTlPO SUSAN SMirrLER ENLOW WRIGHT, WEST & DIESSNER law orriccs eoo MIDWEST Plaza builD ino 0Oi nicollct mall MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 e^i?* 330 * 38CO March 29, 1982 WAYZATA orricc 3ZO MANITOBA WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 ei2* A73-ZSI5 Mr. Alan Olson City Planner City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN ;pl»»ra i>\ .. 55323 Be:Application for Variance of Mr. & Mrs. William Yale Smiley Dear Alan: I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for meeting with me this past Wednesday March 24, 1982, concerning the above application for variance. I am enclosing a check in the amount of $50 to cover the filing fee for the variance application in asmuch as the Smileys have decided that they do wish to pursue this matter. Alan, I have given considerable thought to the request variance made by the Smileys. It occurs to me that when the zoning for a neighborhood is such that the majority of homes in the neighborhood do not comply with the zoning, the zoning for that neighborhood simply must be judged inappropriate. I feel that Orono probably lacks justification for its zoning classification of that neighborhood which would justify granting of a variance, (or mere appropriately a rezoning of the neighborhood,) in this case. v;here the use of the property is not being unjustifiably intensified, and where the property is sewered, I simply cannot think of any justification for re quiring a full acre as a minimum lot size. I would appreciate it if sometime at your convenience you would advise me of the name of the applicant on Casco Point who was refused a variance under similar circumstances as in the present Mr. Alan Olson March 29, 1982 Page 2 case, and is litigating that matter with O^ono. to file a brief with the Court as amicus curiae^ earliest possible matter on the Planning Commission ^ agenda at the earl P Mme which I understand to be the 19th of April, it you siiwu* have'any questions, or if you need any additional materials or information, please give me a call. Very best regards. LJB/djw cc; Yale Smiley, II Yale Smiley, HI I 1 I 1 7^ B *79CITY of ORONO l^»sl Offli't* lion Hay. Minnesota Municipal Officeii On thi* Sorth Shore of Lake Minnetonka EXHIBIT March 30, 1982 Mr. Larry Berg Wright, West & Diessner 320 Manitoba Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: Mr. & Mrs. William Smiley, Variance Application Dear Mr. Berg: This letter is written to clarify the comments I made to you on March 24, 1982, and again this morning concerning this application. Mr. and Mrs. Smiley seek to obtain permission to build a new house on Lot 16, Pheasant Lawn, adjacent to their existing house on Lot 17. I have not completed detailed calculations, but it appears that both lots total 1.25 acres, 40% less than the 2 acres required for 2 lots in the LR-lB zoning district. Also, the 2 lots combined total about 210 feet of shoreline or lot width, 25% less than the 280 feet required in the LR-IB district. And the existing house encroaches over the lot line being actually built on both subject lots. Thus lot 16 is not "vacant”. As I told you, I am extremely reluctant to accept this application as it appears from the facts at hand that a simple variance application can not be approved, especially with the building encroachment. At the minimum I have to require that the appropriate application also include a request for a lot line rearrangement subdivision in addition to variance requests for lot area, lot width, common ownership, and perhaps setback. Also, if your client feels as you state in your March 29, 1982, letter that the area zoning is "inappropriate", then perhaps the correct application would be for a zoning amendment or rezoning as well. Lacking the above, I'm afraid the staff will have to recommend denial of the variance request as submitted. In our discussion this morning, T advised you of the subdivision application requirement, and of the fact that these application fees are non-refundable. You acknowledged this and stated you wished to proceed as submitted. I feel it is unfortunate the Smileys proceeded this far without ever coming to our office to discuss their situation, ilowever, since you fully understand lil llIilM* A/(ISIM. 4^17157 • WSI SMN4. \HMIMSIM \IIO\ a \M I 4' I ’I I BIK l%UkKS 4“ I ** 15 # 1' Larry Berg Wright, West & Diessner Page 2 , •Smiley Variance Application oar position »nd still to pro^d, 1 havo no^ohoice^^^^^ accept the Smiley application as suomicc 1982. Jeanne for review by of our reports prior to thatMabusth will supply you with copies ot our meeting. I am relaying to ^gg^g®Jrounding”the^nmilar°c pendingthe name ®nd circustances^surrounds ^i^ig^tion, I feel he shoSlf?espind‘directly to you on the matter. Sincerely, Alan P/ Olson City Planner Brice^.^niiKrson, City Attorney jLnne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator 4' I //•• •Otj EXHIBIT —G •V t«•/ -1 n •> -'^j- T^-® ^ ^ '*’-1 ............................. MAft30l982 _______j'r'. ■': o:-!o;'!0 TO: The CiLy Couiuvil of tlu? City of Oroiuj .«m! Lho Phintiiiui Cf»ii'!ni ss ion of Ll c City of Or*>no The Petition of the Uiulersinnecl, olJ reaiilents, owm'rn anil oeeupants oC property situated in the plat of Pheas.mt Lawn, respect fully state: 1. This Petition is made for the purpose of documentinq the personal feelinqs and irosition of the undoraiqned residents i*f Pheasant l.avn wi tlr respect to the construction of a sinqle family residence on Lot 16, Pheasant Lawn by V/i 11 iam Yale 3i'iiley,lil and Suzit' Smiley. •)Your petitioners wish to state cltrarly that they approve of the pri'posed construction of a house on Lot 16, Pheasant Lawn, and tlrat tliey consent to any necessary or appropriate action by the City of orono, whether by variance or otherwise, to enable Williar.- Yale Smiley, III and Suzie Smiley to construct tlieir hone on said lot. WllLREl'OKL, your petitioners pray that the City of Orono may rotiiin the above Petition as record of tlie position of the-residents of Pheasant Lawn who would be affected by the construction of a home on sail! lot. UAiME ADDIILSS ' I / / ' ■/ ^_______________ LOT .5: /i /• I • ' /,.V. /y • rl' ^ y * ’ * ^ !t -'f ^ ^ C “/----------------------------- ■- i.uLL./__________ y / ^/ / I j V.. /, y.( tlit _i4- -It— ' — - •—V ..t'' / / Ifl__{__ / - ■21 l\ • • m ■<r ( __li'-wi 1.. /icLu-iJJl .i-<4 i-iliw: l'.<i. _./J p'.' f y : ^ f' .»%?T • < •• t v»-< , , ■; -vrio- .■ .*i ; I . » / r ^ 1982PETITION TO: The City Council of the City of Orono and the Planning Commission of the City of Orono The Petition of the Undersigned, all residents, owners and occupants of property situated in the plat of Pheasant Lawn, respect fully state: 1. This Petition is made for the purpose of documenting the personal feelings and position of the undersigned residents of Pheasant Lawn with respect to the construction of a single family residence on Lot 16, Pheasant Lawn by William Yale Smiley,III and Suzie Smiley. 2. Your petitioners wish to state clearly that they approve of the proposed construction of a house on Lot 16, Pheasant Lawn, and that they consent to any necessary or appropriate action by the City of Orono, whether by variance or otherwise, to enable VJilliam Yale Smiley, III and Suzie Smiley to construct their home on said lot. WHEREFORE, your petitioners pray that the City of Orono may retain the above Petition as record of the position of the residents of Pheasant Lawn who would be affected by the construction of a home on said lot. NAME ADDRESS LOT • : , • 'I*. > • • t /■' •• ^^(1 11111111%•••/■ / ( • . * • • • / • - • • : '1 • • ‘ »n ' V ■*'u 1—1• . I r > * •• ^ rarimiTm rm J * f NAME Vt*-v. ADDRESS LOT 9’f f-i-* '« • • ^ i ^ ^ lajL Qti^flrA,1^ #6 7"9 EXHIBIT H Lot Area Survey of Pheasant Lawn Neighborhood (Refer to attached plat map) Lots Approximate Areas 5 25,000 sf 6 25,000 sf 7 24,000 sf 8 24,000 sf 9 24,000 sf 10 30,000 sf Part of Lot 10 30,000 sf 15 38,000 sf 16 26,342 .5 sf • 17 29,602 . 5 sf 18 31,000 sf 19 34,000 sf 20 39,000 sf 21 40,000 sf 22 37,000 sf 23 39,000 sf EXHIBIT ^679 '"I ^ • ■./ \- AUO.j SUBO. ~jyo. 344 -> 4r. l,,jklLd____* * *-----7 lb. * SIO ^ • Xi - ‘A ^ — AT^---------S ■* • M« :•• *• Tj I la =:i"v-wT' IftRi f 5' [<3^:‘S^ / C^»\ ■ N-' 16 niK \ o‘ u 2 -e. .0 i I#? f V fC> (5/^.V % »/4 “/<P (not 3r/a » 7 I / ^ yj ■v^ ^ / 4; 7 .Si?-15 /7 c pO^ * Port of Lot 1 3 >• Of mlfUn .i/^S NO 6^6 ; *•> * 'r’ I/O'' "‘j* s '• #'05^ J6 itVt '•5^ /« 7^- • •O Hs-'72aX ‘0* i Port c (;K ’’ uttio^. I lA,''' I ‘ t ««r<; (__ X ..■(Ti •• rXr. A-a*/' ^ J />• / /V>'*’/ a’ '" r,' / • -* r> / — 7 ^ ^/ih^—17^'.^ '.“’'>7r-rvV>^i 5; ■ ^ri -ly Portof V V.' Lot 10 \ ^7 r TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Conunission Jeanne A. Mabusth April 16, 1982 SUBJECT: #679 William Smiley, 2720 Pheasant Road - Variance Re: Additional Information for your review (Table comparing lot area & lot width standards of 4 similar applications) Name Zoning District Lot Area Lot Width 1)William Smiley LR-IB Req. 43,560 sf Req.140* (common ownership)Act. 26,342.5 sf or Act.100*or 71% 60% 2)Gullickson LR-lB Req. 43,560 sf Req.140* (variance)Act. 22,275 sf or Act.135*or 96% 51% Approval basis 1- single separate ownership 2- property sewered + assessed 3- no adjacent land available 3) Watson (variance) (common ownership) LR-IB Req. 43,560 sf Exist. 26,800 sf or 62% Approval basis 1- sewer water service to lot 2- building site is consistent with development in surrounding neighborhood 3- no opposition to proposal by neighbors 4- subject property not maintained as part of yard Req. 140* Act. 101.6* or 27.5? Chapman (subdivision)LR-lB Req. 43,560 sf Req.140* Act. 41,382 sf or 95% Act.220* Lorge (variance)LR-IC Req. 21,780 sf Req.100* (common ownership)Act. 19,641 sf or Act.60* or 60% 90.18% Denied basis 1> lots in common or joint ownership require 100% of standards 2- traffic concerns 3- drainage concerns 4- applicant previously forewarned of need for land use review prior to sale of his homestead adjacent lot. L. V 1^1 l-ii --I ^ -1* TO;Planning Commission FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth DATE;April 9, 1982 SUBJECT;1680 David J. Butler, 4685 North Shore Drive Variance and Conditional Use Permit Area - 16,800 sf Zoning District - LR-lB Application Ordinance 31.831 Lakeshore Setback Variance required = 75' proposed stairs = 45’, variance 30' or 40% retaining wall variance 20' or 27% List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Application Property Owners List Plat Map Survey Section - Retaining Wall Butler proposes the construction of a second tier of retaining wall parallel to the existing retaining wall. The wall will be approximately 5' high, the same height as the existing wall and will be approximately 75' in length. There will be a 20' separation distance between the two walls. Butler proposes to plant shrubs on the remaining slope and seed the entire area. Staff has been out on the Butler site on several occasions and confirm the continuous erosion problem. The second retaining wall will break the steepness of the slope and allow for adequate yard maintenance. Butler has no defined access to his lakeshore or dock area. The enclosed section (Exhibit E) of the retaining wall will be reviewed by the City Engineer. Staff would recommend approval of the conditional use permit and variance application of David Butler subject to the following conditions; 1 - Applicant file a permit with the M.C.W.D. 2 -Adequate erosion control devices be employed during period of construction such as placement of hay bales along the edge of shoreline and at strategic areas along east and west lakeshore banks. Review of Hardships; 1 - Steepness of slopes. 2 - Difficult access to lake. 1 lorth Shore Drive ! Permit Variance or 40% or 27% second tier of retaining ig wall. The wall will be : as the existing wall and There will be a 20' ills. Butler proposes to id seed the entire area. on several occasions and i. The second retaining tlope and allow for i no defined access to his retaining wall will be 3uld recorunend approv'al ace application of David lions: l.C.W.D. )e employed during icement of hay and at strategic re banks. CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA _ A Land Use Application EXHJLIT ' ^ Y i I f I/OCATION PROPOSAL (5r property) Address gtr AJoA'fh JPO. CONDITIOMAL USK A^PLIC.^TIO^* ^ 77 $30.00 a) Kos. Acc. i-m- -----$50.00 b) Institiition.il (Church, sch. L-tC. ) APPLICANT Name T. Tel #4/72 A Mailing Address _____________ aWER Name .T Tel # 4/2 Mailing ^ ^ ^ Address (JAJccd/* ___________ $75.00 c) I’ujilcx Cr/lU<) d) Land Alteration (qradinrj, fil ling) $100.00 c*; CoRi/ind. Use PRD/PID - See foe .schedule ,< Present Zoning _P^AS>/_ _ _ _ _ Present Use Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request __ Specify Ordinance Requirements _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ Variance $50.00 *• (►i©finwrg(^ bxplain your requost and roasonn for same JjitKl/ ^.1/ . tn. ,^^ll u ritni, tkf C—a.x..... f.---...://, .v.ri | r VARIANCE required - extent of nonconformity ------ Ix>t Area ____ Setback Front__ _ _ Width V Side Rear Specify hardships to property V SUBDIVISION application Residential Other, explain No. of Lots CONDITIONAL USE AND OTHER - explain proposed use of property in detail MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE APPLICATION (Must bo submitted 10 days prior to Planning Commission meeting) Application completed Plat map section Certificate of survey of property sketch location and setbacks of proposal Construction plans, if applicable DATE 5. Certified Property Owner's list c owners within (300') (150*)- fron Hennepin Co. Dept, of Finance A-603 Government Center 6. Stamped, legal sized envelopes(#1 P^®“®^^i^®ssed to each of the name on the above list. DATE ^/s/s Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested bv Engineer. City Attorney. Pl.nning Commission A f ‘'jI!c' / 1a<'hs>* i CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATror'. ___ $30.00 a) kos. Acc. Vin-> ___ $50.00 b) Institution.il (Church, Sch. etc.) __ $75.00 c) I'ujilcx Cr/lU<) <3) Land Alteration (qra«lin<-j, fil ling) _ $100.00 a) Com/ind. Use — PR15/P1D - Soo fee schedule _Variance $50.00 L., tTTY OF ORflNO lAr it f »ot^l( # JAi^j M i frti il' k^Ji * __ Rear r« explain _ No. of Lots >roperty in detail •PLICATION .ssion meeting) I Property Owner’s list c thin (300') (150 ’)- froit Co. Dept, of Finance ernment Center legal sized envelopes(#] ssed to each of the name equf^d or requested by By, Planning Commission MC 1?33 DEPT OF PROPERTY TAXATION A-60S GOVERNMeNT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST LIST SIZE . CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ON THIS CERTIFICATE ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRE SENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE DIVISION, TO TNE REST OF MY KNOWLEOCE AND BELIEF. HENNEPIN CO. DEPT. OF PROPERTY TAX. DATE FEE OWNER ^ / Bern'S aflieref- mbu /ub CtRQE y, '£fl/MS fl M£y5J? .... ( 1 tf r f' fieuRy £.rs^ 'FKui s (f ME yeF TR l/jf MOSoR SR’. TAX PAVER/ MAILING ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS OA'e^v'' <^7J9nk;km'/£u/L^~ /:fn/^s7A£ c( (( a ti eZvt'A^ ft fliFFSWT- Ho a ms *ILSnif6ipmsHc/PEo£- Mf/ MOEtfJD 470jCU0imi sHckE Mpt/h/PjHfT MEtM S/fOjCE t?/C- HoiiJTP j>:A/n£- _ , S£jriE.___ ^ A/^J!) NtaiMSSi^MSQ. MTT assui/EJi HcerU sfk)iC£ o/e ( V 47^ S4mS It H H P -Jr S £uTlE/7____sm£ S' /, M/ELiReiF EtffL n'Js 'EesT/i'/i^'rc.ii- ■SVieR ME/^SjVes' _l£cS'-£rMit.Muu--.»t^^'iis)^i'’F^ r. L^oafff^D sffiJoo £7^£fsr/v/K'Tm’f^r£Bi>'3Ay sa/r}t^ mf j„ 'L j" - 1 ----------------------- 'O^E^TTUMF£77fC^ ^3?// £Is££7l£D..^. _________ fffeeder F-mi.(^msrpe/^/eb- ss-ME.SRroF FI F/yiCrtJfRi>^E/lLCH --Vjsy f/RF/A^. AycENSCMUyf£Ji£i^ i'- 'l__------1' '< £. lRAflCE/l-£ Wl- 'E&/0 A. y __'7 s/)tr)£- saiM. sAma. imczacl /- . ^ 4 UV.?-. — LTJ............................... X. ACH-^5J98i .CSe TS/R’A 3R 0/^Pr/o THE FACTS RCPRESENTEO ON THIS AN ACCUNATE AND TRUE REPRE- rORMATlOH AS IT APPEARS THIS eOROt OP the HENNCPIN county n, TO THE REST OP MV KNOMLEOCC pt. iTE OP PROPCRtY TAEfTlBII ^ PROPERTY ADDRESS ID 7'P^//-7-^S- -\f^ s '4j7i£ ... _/i\ J_ . 1 _ 7T f^ss/Cn/cj:> _ . (TC OSS a £a /££>____ ?r Bss/^ A/B'/:) • 1 IT RSSf^A/EJD _ . ^ Bceni sHok‘£ db I z/’ 3^ (V fc '''1 /7\ ^ A t! 1 /^J -SV/7?/f [1 Vf 5W/>7£; 4 ^fl/nE ...1_ . 7^ A'im'riSTiCA'e aC. sm£. ___SMIE ^/dsrj:/:£D. VfT£^siAd^£Jl SSME. s/ime- S-Amf 2g J \ i iw-5l 9g • • Vf • V?--- C-* / • I «I • I .........~ J (1^6 ‘ \ \ V -i V B 40um ^ \e>') S a \*’ N' ■^* •»^ » \v^ \ \Hii^ t ^ V. jL.i' "t o QT''? roiNT PARK, hav\bMn vacottd ^•»o ' 736004 • 'n 2r*. *, l/f NP^ M, i#-5•V / ^ III it. '^ \ U±. •\A ^ \ \ ^;iac Tsjo ’f 07-//7^3^ 53 APR -5 1982 - N / ^A/cs <' / / i r> o ,.f \ Q OU I >f3» ^.7* ■<—*^' *7 I ' / ‘f -'I. • ^• r ►j ^24'— .<> ..^.« It- exhibit Vt’> -V T\gi?£,o CjerKHiM*^ o'* vr YfV - -'^'(SV/ .. '\ir ycj:> 'ianiT' -* 4 noiiowii i1I WR-SBe \ ' , 1 CITY OF 0:;n!'!0 Mit O nu* TO;Jeanne A. Mabusth FROM:Alan P. Olson DATE: April 14, 1982 \ SUBJECT; Ordinance Interpretation - Section 31.841 You asked for clarification of the intent and application of this section of the Flood Plain and Wetlands Manapement ordinance #213 adopted in 1978. Since I drafted this ordinance, I feel free to criticize its language as being unclear. I also feel free to interpret its intent. Section 31.841 is an expansion of the previous section of the same number adopted as part of the original wetlands ordinance #125 in 1970. Some of the language problems are duo to carry over from that first ordinance. To read this section correctly, one must always read the basic clause first, and then go on to the exception subsections a, b or c. Reading only the subsections is definitely confusing. Basic Requirement "The minimum lot area requirements (of all zoning districts) means that all of the required land area ... shall be in one contiguous parcel ... and no land within the protected area shall be included in determination of minimum lot area" except as specifically stated in subsections a, b or c. This basic requirement means that in every zoning district, the minimum lot area requirement of that district must all be dry buildable ground. Any wetlands included in the lot would be extra. Exception (a) - Unsewered land - No Wetland Credit Requires at least 2.0 acres of continguous dry buildable ground at the building site (for septic drainfield). 2 acre zone 5 acre zone requires 2 acres dry; any wetlands extra. requires 5 acres dry land in the lot; wetlands extra: allows the dry land to be in 2 or more pieces divided by wetlands provided the building site is at least 2.0 acres dry. Exception (b) - Sewered Land - Mo Wetland Credit Does not give any credit for wetland area (total lot must have dry land equal to zoning lot area minimum) but does allow the dry land to be divided by wetlands provided the building site is at least *> acre dry. Page 2 Jj acre zone - requires >s acre dry; any wetlands extra (same as basic requirement) 1 acre zone - requires total 1 acfe dry in lot; wetlands extra: allows the dry land to be in 2 or more pieces divided by wetlands provided the building site is at least ^ acre dry. Exception (c) - Sewered Land - Wetland Credit w/Flowaqe Easement This is the scune 50% wetlands credit as in Ordinance #125, with an added requirement that to receive this credit the developer has to dedicate a Flowage and Conservation easement over the wetland area. Granting the easement allows exception (c) to supercede more restrictive exception (b). >j acre zone - requires acre total lot size but allows building site to be H acre with credit for up to acre of wetlands. 1 acre zone - reqn’.-ts 1 acre total lot size but allows building site to be acre with credit for up to S aero of wetlands. ten 31.84^ Miniinmn T.ot Area Rfqtil s_ Tlic ininiiminj lot nroa rcquircmcMits of the Zoning Code shall be Interpreted to mean that a^l^ofthe^gfli^j^j^J^^jl^arca for each building site undivided by Floodway or Flood Fringe ^jj^noland^w^OiMi^^Jjg^jmoitPc^d^^rc^^hal^ be included in dcternunaT^t^of^rnninnim lot area, except as specITTcalrt^provide^^^rTTcrrnr?^**'""'"*"^*^^^ (a) For properties not served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area n.ay be divided-Jby Flood Fringe lands provided at least of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area. . (b) For properties ser\’ed by municipal sanitary sewer, the Fl-pod Fringe lands provided at least one_Jjalf_^cre of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and both municipal sewer and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area. (c) For residential properties served by mxinicipal sanitary sewer, a ^^imitcdden^^j^jcredi^f may be allowed for inclusion of Flood Fringe lands as part of the required minimum lot area for purposes of complying with the land use density, open space, building unit to land area ratios dr other similar requirements of the land development and zoning ordinances of the City. The owner or developer of such property will be credited with an amouilt of his land within the Flood Fringe equal to, but not exceeding, the amount of his adjacent land which otherwise fo^^^elopment I under these ‘ordinaiicfia^l Such credit shall be conditioned upon dedicaTToiT^l^per^tual open space and flowage easements to the City over all protected areas so utilize^for density credit. 31.850 Special Assessments The land area in the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area which is not to be developed and is not used for credit as in 31.841c, and which is. dedicated as an casement shall not be subject to special assessments to defray the cost of other municipal improvement projects. Including but not limited to trvinV sanitary sewer and water mains and storm sewer improvements. -15- JM«eS P K BENEOtT P £UTILITY AND STREET PLAN PREPARED FOR 2t46 SILVER lake HOAO WE» BRIGHTON ,Mlf*»SOT*FOR NAVARRO SCHLEE BUILDERS 1 feiL Pl^ tf ut* gmu«L ■fe »»S!gg tVMoU niaua d«pth of of T'oruwrt of Troro- nrwio'. • Ufon MtlofMtenr coapiotlon of oil fro4 «h«II b« r«pU««d on «U diotar^od orooo fo<jr Inchoo, S««4 c«iifor«lns to Mltmototo Oop •ortion oilsturo »uHfe>or ^ fSoctlon 1*7^) »holI bo pUcod at o ■ifilMB roto of J) p«\tfiilo por aero. Trpo ono mlcb. Mlfmooo ftopoKwot of Ironoportatlon (Soctlon 111/) sholi h« o^iiod at a rata of appcaaltetoW oota ton par aara. Trpo ona anich ahall ha ilac aachorad. All aoadinit and ■ulaMan oparatlono ahall ba Aona in aacordanca with m^iMtaota Dapartmat of Tranaportatlan (Saction 2575). Jota fabric ovar ■alch or aod aay ba oaad la placa of aaad and milth. Hr* balaa ahall So placad aa ladleatad an ttia plana. All hap balat ahall ba aeakad vUh t‘* a 2" paata. nialaM af two poo to pat baU (aaa datall). balaa ahall ba plaaad araand all catch Satina and at rb£‘, V _I_ _L _,. j a>i - • ^ • ZD ^— . J —4 *r 1 L_y /*■£• .-wa -a**- ^ A* SC^.Lct * 'iV fl:r mm; a #369 DATA •aa Aorao orano ord. ’55'glB<wd ligroat aeraa PfbuMaMa afeoMM«3 tlATM •MW MS UO 1C03S (N atoaod) (tejot) »09pl* bate* MU OMtO VM graa o^ T# aatMak 2M00 Jt Ory baMMIa ^oop^mn ; olMiTraoPacA 22. to*•St M24 •.••• total hardeovar ob M. on aNo total hardeovor proaoaad B k CTMO total aaft landacapad araaa pfogoaad n.A7S 20,200 gg.M7 .20 .40 2.20 g^ataadl [ MWiMAgvaM g.M2 •4.1 It 4.1t4 ,219 2.1«1 .OtM >Muao A gwago taoo af. doot MO ag. a (X'tOO) 5.24S .12 r twuao A garaga 2000 at. daoh ado aa a (aaoo) 0.000 .oto hovao A garaga 1IM at doefc too ag a (2000) o.o2g oog racPARCD rofc TONKA LAKE raowmn . V#«/W - _? A2r •n ,•% p^,PRELMNARY PLAT total t t9,7M 2.7S »* •*, ■«*<•• LW »• ’H rOM* ip4 -# .>|;, PLANNED RESN)ENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BALDUR PARK PENINSULA /<nP OROMaMHCOOTA TC ■?'" rtK. MEET V’ - .Vi-t .. 3fi(_ [..t ► 'li:^ it «ni0f // \ V / / r ■■ ' ►-ii' \ . lor kW L '. «iMNe> r1»J Z' \ DATA M. «W propc—< groM acfM 11VB»ATft *y taMMN •AMO tJO aboMMtS ModpiMfi MjItO Ut •0 i balQwMLS V arM wtmn 7S' M»«eh tueo M ' f ErvMMMIa 22,tOS .•t >• j««Mi TO* MttMk total harOcovor 11.373 M aaiat on alia total liarOeovor propeaoE •MM M total aott lanOaoapotf mm Mt atom proooaaO M«aialraa«».»••J10 auBot b {aoaaaaii J4.1M Al«1 «r :-.*■ t .y • „■> iwuMft 9>ra«i kMM t 0M«i t2M ftt. ^«Mk ito •« n. (2400) 0 IMUM k gwa«a kOOO a-f. «Mk MO •« ft <2200) tMld^l «nv««op« 4 hM« A >f g» 1AM ft.1 ama mo •% a (2000) n. VP« ^ AA» I«r H, * ■MK.ttm »t M *-iA* *«otQr mt «u «i AT «cn« m «*€ < or ■»* n^nr^ «■■____■ nn^T'pw ca#*r*. ' k« Art«.n4 f9 fi« «A* tMnaar » »fir m v amm »i «*« -P to ««. W V4T- I. "VMittii N*«. n.en—— 4T 'MWi.i^ 9i i4u « ana a M %MtWi a flMj •• v«t r<fcart. ^ proposed GRAOINQ & DRAINAGE PLAN Pf!lfV-4WQUI IWALY FuSMMHMDenML OEmonMSNT baldur park penmsula OnONaiMCSOTA mVARKO POWr TONKA LAKE PflOPEATIES «9 4n ‘HHaOL. %fr9t»* i-€. V V '<*« * "f] .'Vf'Vj'V "-,- • ' .i J. ^'.4: • s' > .. ■* ►■