Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-20-1981 Planning PacketAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 PM MONDAY, JULY 20, 1981 Council representative — Mary Butler Call to Order 1. Call to order/roll Public Hearing 2. 7:30 PM #626 C.E. Van Eeckhout, 1025 No. Brown Rd. Preliminary Subdivision Action 3. #612 A.H. Evans, 575 Oxford Road Vacation of Plowage Easement 4. #627 Gary E. Beito, 1141 Elmwood Road Variance 5. #628 Hans G. Weiler, 1137 Elmwood Road Variance 6. #631 Richard P. Mich, 1373 Rest Point Road Variance 7. #632 Charlefe. Hoinmeyer, 477 Park Leme Variance 8. #633 Thomas L. Ammerman, 3458 No. Shore Drive Variance 9. #635 Alden Anderson, 1900 Shoreline Drive Variance Work Session and Sketch Plan Review 10.#634 Craig Winters, 4100 Sixth Avenue North Sketch Plan Review - Subdivision 11.#636 Audrey Ogland, Work Session -2601 Casco Point Road Conditional Use Permit 12.#638 David Stearns, Work Session - 2171 Shadywood Road Subdivision Commercial Site Plan Review 13. #637 Lorraine Nordblom, 2535 Shadywood Road Site Plan Review m # (Page 2)agenda V Information Iteasintormarxon 4.1.1— «f An4-»4-lve to Council meeting o 14 Planning coawieeion representative to Approval of Minutes 15. RPPtov.l of th. -mat., of June 15, 1981. •*■ 75;*'/' wrnrm I «r * •, • J*' M . ; .. . ^ ".rs - *•-. 4 tv r I' j ; J.O, t9*-l City of Orono, Minnesota StTMl Nwrbarng Mept Atop UTbS:—fc- A ST PS: «I 'T . ir TO: FROM: Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth DATE: SUBJECT: July 15, 1981 #626 Charles Van Eeckhout, 1025 North Brown Road Preliminary Subdivision Public Hearing 7:30 PM I have enclosed a copy of the notification sent to the applicant after our June 15th meeting. Van Eeckhout was advised of the need to submit a completed septic report for the entire plat as required by ordinance. At that meeting, it was noted that Lot 4 did not contain suit­ able area for an on-site septic system. We have not received the completed septic report as required to permit preliminary approval. I would recommend tabeling the application until the required septic information has been received and reviewed by staff. •V- m 'tv % ■•t H<i« Bwy, Mii*nr*>>l* V <2.1* Mumripjl Offi< ^ TfVi-hon* «7;« ;.is: Variance conditional Use Pcnnit Subdivision. Preliminary Chuck Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake. MN 55356 Date of Mot-ice 6-19-81^ NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date o£ Meeting_6-15-81_ _ _ _ _ Votes: For _ _ Against Planning Coninissicn rcco.Tjnonds Uie tollcwing: _ Approval: As submitted Auo’'Qval* Subiect to conditions noted — Approval: L:Utional information required before Councxl meetrnq -- P^ndl^rr^cei^rof additionel information from applicant — Tailed; review by other,, or further Planning Commission study [_ _ No action required NOTES m;d SPEOIAL CONUITIONS JgP.lj5.5g?-Jresponsible for submittiqa ^ complete septic_ report prio£ to_^lijni^ajr^ approval -_£lea^. ^vrevTenclosed memo of Michael Gaffron. Please submit property_ownersJ- - list and preaddressed envelopes no later than July 6, 1981 so that_a .■ ,1 ..I.■ -1- — - ■ ■ ' "”” _ __ _ , a.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _• ^ ^ i^;i^c hearting can_be f^heduled^a^ Planning Commission Jor_J^y _20j [j Applicant-s next scheduled r.ec-w.ir.g is confirmed as: Planning CoiTaTiir.sion _____________________ Counci 1 r meeting is _ _ _- - - - - - - - - - -' —:- - - - - - - - -- “ for the_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _— In all cases, the application must bo continued with the submittal of requested information withinimrcity -ill consider thelFFriration ss formally withdrawn. If the epplicant has trouble obtaining additional infonsMion, please contact the Zoning Administrator. and app:oval by the Planning Ccr-".irsion. XT \ * :■ • > TO; FROM: Planning Conunission Jeanne Mabusth DATE:July 15, 1981 SUBJECT: #612 A.H. Evans, 575 Oxford Road - Vacation of Flowage Easement Please review the letter of June 15, 1981, from Jeff Watson, Mr. Evans' attorney. He has consulted with the City Attorney and both agree the original flowage and conservation easement was not filed as part of the plat "drainage easements as shown on the plat of Stielow Addition" but as a separate transaction The original easement has a separate metes and bounds legal description. The flowage easement can be refiled with a cor­ rected metes and bounds description. The applicant is fully aware of the limitations still placed on his property by the drainage easement that still remains. The applicant is released from all controls (tree removal, cutting of grass,- etc.) on that portion of the property not included in the designated wetland area. Mr. Watson has advised his client that although the sxibject has been released for normal maintenance that the pre­ sence of the drainage easement will still prevent any con­ struction within the designated area. Staff recommends approval of A.H. Evans application for a vacation of a portion of a flowage easement on Lot 2, Block 1, Klitzke Addition subject to the condition that the appli­ cant enter into a cunended flowage and conservation easement with the City and that the easement be filed by the City Attorney's office. HAHOLO j.sooKHStno noLUN r. wear noBcwT A. ronsTTHt »*vnn a. HNOAOS jcrrncv l.watson tnomas k . mamms OAVIO J. OOLOMAH ■ MUCK A. CNSTAO JOHN A. KNAaP JOAN M.CArANCLLA NICNARD C.MOMBTAO JAMKS A. STKIN WILLIAM •.■ONCHKRa •TCPMKN j. aCATTY WILLIAM J.UTCRMONLCN law orriccs Hessian , M?Kasy & Sodbbbbro PROFBSSIOKAL ASBOCIATIOIt laoo MiowcaT plaza wear auuoino MINNCAI»OU8,MINNC80TA 88408 • faiZl 330-3000 June 15, 1981 or couNSCL COWAMO J OCAffTV NAUAICK a MCttlAN. t« HAUAicc A MCttiAN, natO'iarii saint PAUL orricc 301 MIDWCST riOCPAL aUlLOINO SAINT PAUL.MINNKSOTA SSlOl laiii tt«-Aaii WABMIMOTON, O. C. OmCC jooa o aTPirr n . w. wasminoton . o. c. tooor ifoti aas-aata 330-3004 WfllTCR'a OIPCCT linc Ms. 0<^anne Mabusth Zon’!r-^; Administrator City of Orono P.U. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Application of A. H. Evans Dear Ms. Mabusth: As you know, on April 29. 1981, we filed with the City of,Orono on behalf of our client, A. H. Evans, an Application for Vacation of a portion of a certain Flowage and Conservation Easement and Waiver of Damages dated September 20. 1978, entered into between Lynn L. Chari son and Beryl W. Chari son, husband and wife, and the City of Orono (hereinafter referred to as the "Flowage Easement"). The Flowage Easement is recorded as Document No. 4416069 in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder, and as Document No. 1295752 in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. The Application was signed on behalf of our client, who owns Lot 2, Block 1, Klitzke Ac.'Hion, and on behalf of Loren J. Klitzke, who owns Lot 1, Block 1, Klitzke Addition. Attached to the Application was a statement of the reasons for the Application, and a legal description of the property over which the Flowage Easement is sought to be vacated. The Application was placed on the Work Session portion of the agenda of the Orono Planning Comnission meeting of May 4, 1981. At that meeting the Planning Commission members indicated the desire to consider a vacation of the Flowage Easement over only Mr. Evans' property. Accordingly, we advised you that the legal description attached to the Application should be revised to delete any reference to Lot 1. We understand that you then caused notice of a public hearing scheduled for June 1, 1981, to be duly published and posted in accordance with Section 32.700 of the Orono Code of Ordinances and Minnesota Statutes 1980, Section 412.851. The undersigned appeared on behalf of Mr. Evans at the public hearing on June 1, 1981. No other parties appeared in support or opposition to the proposed vacation. Notwithstanding the lack of any opposition from Mr. Evans' neighbors or other members of the public, the Planning Commission tabled Ms. Mabusth Page Two June 15, 1981 the Application. There was discussion among members of the Planning Coninisslon as to easements which had been Incorrectly described on the plat of Klltzke Addition, which affected both Mr. Evans' and Mr. Klltzke's property, and members of the Planning Conmlsslon apparently believe that the appropriate manner of proceeding was not by vacation but rather by replatting the two lots comprising Klltzke Addition. By tabling Mr. Evans' Application, the Planning Conmlsslon permitted us to discuss this matter with the City Attorney, In order that an appropriate manner of proceeding could be agreed upon. Following the public hearing, 1 contacted the City Attorney, Bruce Malkerson, Esq., and discussed the Application with him. From our discussion. It Is my understanding that Mr. Malkerson has no objection to the proposed vacation nor to the procedure which we are following In attempting to have the Flowage Easement vacated from a part of Mr. Evans' property. In discussing this matter with Mr. Malkerson, 1 brought to his attention certain facts described below, which I think should be borne in mind by the Planning Commission In connection with Its consideration of Mr. Evans' Application. Mr. Evans' property Is Included within what was formerly described as Lot 5, Block 1, Stielows Addition. The plat of Stielows Addition, which Is on file In the Hennepin County Recorder's and the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles' offices, shows various easements Including but not limited to a "drainage easement" over the western portion of Mr. Evans' property and other lands In the plat. When Lots 4 and 5, Block 1. Stielows Addition were replatted Into Klltzke Addition, the existing drainage and other easements encumbering those two lots according to the plat of Stielows Addition were also reflected on the plat of Klltzke Addition. However, It Is Important to note that the plat of Klltzke Addition did not create the drainage easement or other easements which were shown on the plat of Stielows Addition. Rather, those easements were creating by the platting of Stielows Addition in 1978. Unlike the drainage and other easements reflected on the plats of Stielows Addition and Klltzke Addition, the Flowage Easement was created by a written Instrument separate from any plat, and as Indicated above, that instrument was recorded in the offices of the Hennepin County Recorder and the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. From my discussions with you and my attendance at two meetings of the Planning Conmisslon, I have learned that the "drainage easement" reflected on the plats of Stielows Addition and Klitzke Addition was designed merely to refer to the Flowage Easement. However, from the standpoint of examining title to Mr. Evans' property, I believe that the "drainage easement" shown on the plats of Stielows Addition and Klltzke Addition would be considered to exist independently of the Flowage Easement. Conversely, the Flowage Easement, assuming adequate consideration and due execution and delivery, would be considered to be binding and enforceable without any reference thereto being made on the plat of Stielows Addition or lAlM- Ns. Mabusth Page Three June 15, 1981 Klltzke Addition. Nothing In the real estate records Indicates that the "drainage easement" referred to on the plats Is a mere reflection of the existence of the Flowage Easement. As a result, a prudent attorney examining title to Mr. Evans' property would probably assume that two independent easements exist, one being the Flowage Easement, and the other being a "drainage easement". The Flowage Easement benefits only the City of Orono by Its terms. Accordingly, I believe that the City can vacate the Flowage Easement by following the statutory vacation procedures. The "drainage easement' shown on the plats of Stielows Addition and Klitzke Addition, however, at least arguably benefits the owners and mortgagees of all other land in the plat of Stielows Addition. I have not researched the proper method to modify or extinguish the "drainage easement" shown on the plats. ^ It appears to me that would probably require an action in Hennepin County District Court, either to vacate a portion of a plat under Minnesota Statutes 1980, Section 505.14, or an action to register title to Mr. Evans' property unencumbered by the drainage easement as presently constituted, or some other form of action. Clearly a replatting of the two lots in Klitzke Addition would not be sufficient to limit the "drainage easement" as shown on the plats of Stielows and Klitzke Addition, since the plat of Stielows Addition (which created the "drainage easement") included more than just the two lots in Klltzke Addition. Further, it is not clear that a replatting of all of ^ Stielows Addition would be sufficient to limit the "drainage easement", and such a replatting of Stielows Addition would require the consent of all owners and mortgagees in that plat. The Flowage Easement is the major concern of Mr. Evans, since it contains severe restrictions on the use of a large portion of his land. Any "drainage easement" shown on the plat would not be as restrictive, but rather would merely require that the land designated as being covered by the "drainage easement" be available for the drainage of surface waters from adjacent property. The flowage easement, which is our client's primary concern, can be vacated in part by statutory vacation proceedings conducted by the City of Orono. On the other hand, the "drainage easement" which is of lesser concern to Hr. Evans, can be modified only through an action in the District Court, which would obviously involve uncertainty and additional delay and expense. Although I sympathize with the desire of members of the Planning Comnission to correct all incorrectly described easements created in connection with the original platting of Stielows Addition, I do not think it is appropriate to require that to be accomplished as a condition to vacating a portion of the Flowage Easement. It is n\y understanding that the City's staff agrees that the legal description over which the Flowage Easement exists was incorrectly drawn and is over-inclusive. Further, it is n\y understanding that the legal description attached to Mr. Evans' Application is acceptable to the City's staff. 1 Ns. Mabusth Page Four June 15, 1981 Accordingly, we are requesting that you again place on the agenda of the Planning Comnlsslon, the Application which Is on file In order that the public hearing required by law can be completed and the Planning Commission can then make Its reconnendatlon to the City Council with respect to the proposed vacation. We are seeking a resolution of the Orono City Council that the requested vacation Is In the Interest of the public, and an k..*- authorization for the appropriate officials of the City to execute and deliver to Mr. Evans a Quit Claim Deed for the property from which the Flowage Easemeni Is to be vacated. I am forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr. Malkerson, and am also enclosing herewith sufficient copies of this letter In order that you forward a copy hereto to each member of the Planning Commission If you believe that to be appropriate. If you have any questions concerning this letter or the Application, I would be happy to discuss this matter with you at your convenience. Thank you for your continued cooperation and assistance. Very, truly yours JLW:aft cc. Bruce Malkerson, Esq. A. H. Evans I TO:Jeanne Mabusth & Planning Commission FROM Alan P. Olson DATE:July 15, 1981 SUBJECT:#627 Gary Beito #628 Hans G. Weiler Adjacent lot area & lot width variances I have reviewed these applicationsI think the Planning Commission should ^°nsider the following points in review of these simultaneous applications. EXISTING USE Both lots are vacant and j^ggg^b°°the^ov^^ Neither K:£t:s= principle structures• weiler owns two r^i^ences i^adiately^east o£_^his -bject^lot 6. One is homestead; one is rental. deep, 62,000 sf B^uncombined^lots totaling ^200 the LR-IB zone. The Elmwood Avenue divides lot 6 S^eJopId because 20- wide, "feuIwiSg ?ot 6 ?o be combinedof topography. It could be vacated density to .85 acre/unitwith the other lots improving their '^^e density to .od / aid legalising the current lake access for one of the houses. • j __ *1Q cf ( 44 sere) cibout 3l block swsy* S!i^r!s^^tn?;«la°n''bi^ii^reil^9 1- ^ for lake access purposes including dockage. LOT AREA COMPARISONS - Minimum required is 1 acre U?lofif! 'Iw^iieiV^ELi'is'iiirirft 3?ie®vi “l«°?t’riquired. Tiiiireriiifdiirriterii Li: Le':t“i::si*^:rir wide (2 lots combined). Each of these 5 “i:J"sf (“I iriitLi: ts'Li? liLL sf but he auo owns i:Ll9 Lross Elmwood adding 6,200 sf more for a total area of 16,825 sf (.38 acre). n.KJ »_*- -□'a 4 I Beito & Weller Page 2 If lots 6 & 7 were combined, they would total 100 ft wide and 22,900 sf (.53 acre) in area. This is comparable to othersr U3J acre) in area, mis r:* ''w..-- nearby lot combination/area variances approved for DeSplinter (lots 4 & 5) and Schultz, now Harvey, (lots 12 & 13). ACCESS Both lots 6 & 7 abutt undeveloped Elmwood Avenue. DeSplinter (lots 4 S. 5) developed a private driveway in this right of way from the north but it does not run thru. A City sewer lift station is blocking the right of way on the south end. Access to these lots for building purposes will therefore require an easement from either Heit (lot 19) and Weiler (lots 20-23) or DeSplinter. There is nc cul de sac on either end. With two more houses in­ volved, Planning Commission and Council should consider requiring construction of a proper cul de sac for turnaround especially on the south end. This would serve the entire neighborhood(s) so should probably be done as a local improvement with assessments Additional right of way acquisition is required. HARDCOVER The preliminary sketches submitted by both applicants indicate similar structures. Both are being called "earth-sheltered but the sketches indicate standard construction of a "walkout basement" style. Standard roof systems are shown. Therefore these designs are not true "underground" homes and they would constitute full hardcover. More detailed designs are necessary to complete accurate hardcover calculations. Obviously if two such homes are built the hardcover would be twice as much as if only one home were built on the two lots. ASSESSMENTS Both lots were part of and served by the 1970 Forest Lake sewer project. Both lots received lateral sewer assessments for 50 ft, a total of $390.00 per lot. Neither lot was assessed a sewer unit charge ($1,270 per building site) and neither lot was assessed a $225.00 sewer plant charge. Thus neither lot was considered to be buildable at the time sewer was installed. Unit and plant assessments would be due with any new construction. HARDSHIPS Lot area and/or lot width variances to allow development of vacant lots are issued only when hardships are found consistent with all requirements of 32.340. This includes a finding that no ad5^ent vacant land is available for development. w i‘ I Beito & Weiler Page 3 These nearly identical applications were‘made simultaneously. By making the application, each owner has stated that he wants to develop his lot. Both lots are simultaneously "available" for development. This includes doing away with the existing lake access use of these lots. Variance approval very often results in sale of the "approved" lot and development by a person other than the original applicant. In this case, either applicant could purchase the other's lot and combine the applications into one building site which would better conform to our comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. The City is under no obligation to review each application in a vacuum. Both of these applications must be reviewed in light of the other. The effects of a combined application must be considered. The City should be under no duty to approve two very substandard sites when they can be combined into one site, which combined site is closer in area and width to most neighboring properties, and to the intent of the zoning regulations. Denial of the individual applications for two separate sites could be justified as follows: The owners have received substantial benefit in the use of these lots for private lakeshore access purposes. A substantial property value remains in each lot since it can be sold for combination with the other. These individual lots are not unique or special since all nearby building sites (except Heit lot 8) have been created by combination of 2 or more lots similar to these. 4) Neither lot has been assessed for sewer as a separate building site. Granting of two adjacent 50' lakeshore lots in a 140 ft minimiom district is contrary to the intent of the zoning code. Combination into one 100 ft wide lot would at least meet the minimum DNR shoreland management regulations, the LR-lC *sacre district lot width, and be similar to most nearby lakeshore lot widths. I recommend that the applicants withdraw these two requests and return with one combined application for 1 house on 2 lots. Alternately, I would recommend denial of these two separate applications as outlined above. 1 1 V?Sill'-if ^ ? - li")'^ » #:;-7W- ^ —-4,i#- C:!- . >> |'<^r.(/M) ^/»ij INSTI roNo /•»« : 1 a'« 2... cii«)‘: ■Cn • • >- - - •-- A Oi' ( /»; immi pin L?Bl3b S Tdll~W$1>. llj —• ctfc) ; ^ y 7^»V (*’: Vm i»;Ji (Ml {D »i)'(i’)^)'^)M(a) • , ■ ■■■'■ >M- :X:#i ^ i'^KRSlSE tr (.. ___«r47t *** • (jO ALVIR COUNTY HENNEPtI //ail0filCAi * ^ i. «►' ITI * ‘ »} 1^’'(t^) fJ'U*f ALVIR COUNTY HENNEPI MaM0fZMi >.• W h ■' « « % * >i . -A. • . \ \ u *A *%1 1 1 . I f 9 9 9 1 • I t?r• 1 ■ Kf' 8 / V I V \ • ' . i •'V t ^ » * »' ■; <fi^v ^- V.. .{^SKi rT .»- « k. '' VJ ■^*1-4^ • Vsi :'W. ■i ' fj«_______________________________M m 1 ■ •*. f ’' LAND USE PLANNING ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF ORONO P*0. Box 66, Crystal Ea/, Minnesota 5S32J 4;i-73S;-o O ngTBUCnWB; PU«M flrit r««d tha attacheil Infornatlon Sheet. Conplata Itesa 1 - 13 i i Print). If naadad, attach latter or othar information to batter^ datcrlba your requaat. Incomplcta appllcationa will not ba accapted. 1. 2. 5. 6. 7. 8. PROPERTY ADDRESS TfenKT F^r> Ugal daacrlptton ahall ba ahotm on attachad Suivay, Eahlblc rA APPLICANT fucmen p n Iich ^ Hailing Addraaa P>f^r ~^>rfT If Applicant la not oimer, explain 3. OWNER N...f^one Hailing Addraaa Date Property Acquired < 2./7 CL_____ (jtenth/Year) I (do not) also ovm other adjacent parcels of land *f?oiJm\voR:n-t iw. An^-o^i4. AGENT "*« Firm rAiHH^TOHkLA PC^ IC30 ^ AVc/E. Mailing Addraaa rV\ M ^ \ NOTICES Should ba aant to:Applicant X (Vnar Agent PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT _ PRESENT USE «aaldentUl (Othar) _ Vacant Land_____ Vacant Bulldlng(a) Deaeriotlon Initial APDllcatlon axiat Include: Application Form _ Property Omara List Cartificate of Surve l/ Tea Aecaipt # Date Shelved > /7^ iIM__ Staff Information 4 ^ Plat Hap 5 Inventory 6 Staff CosBaanta Other Information 7 S 9 H 1 11) Uf i i: TO JH=9 Occupied Buildlng(a) CITY OF 0 'V *1 ' A i DESCRIBE REQUEST ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ *5000 }< aatabllah nan uaa _ eontlnu. or aapand aalatlng uaa X«»«11<1 nai* _ add on _ rawdal _ raptaea Describe request in detail: TO A / r\r' 1 EXHIBIT 1 J L O 5 rA- ‘\ )f land Peieriptlon Initial Application Mat Ineluda: Application Fom Property <^«rt Llat Certificate of Surve 1/ Fee Receipt # JC£L> reived » /7 /i / Staff Information 4 Plat Hap Inventory Staff Co—enta Other Infonaaticm ✓ §£d* CITY OF 0 'MO JCTION COST $ ^000 lid new add on ranodal replace land use planning ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF ORONO Bay, Hlnneaoln S532J)WI.UC,1I».. - , , • ■ * ‘ »>n »' <I«acrttie your rrquaat. Incomoleta a Information to better* ^incomplete appUcatlona will not be accepted. 1. 2.applicant _K>cHfteo P p/Ii^h ^ w. Mailing Addreaa 1^7^ FSr^JP TtMrfT If Applicant la not owner, explain 3. OWNER Name Hailing Addreaa Property Acquired 1 2./~7 4. T /j M^ArCU --------1. / > ^________ (Month/Year) ^ also own other adjacent parcels of land AGENT B at ‘tPOUTMWORm pho„, 4-"?^-(Pg.^/ Finn PJeAJ- i*50 *3 fKsj^ Hailing Addreaa WATfZ.»*yrA rV\ M <yS | 5. 6. 7. NOTIGES Should ba aent to:Applicant X (Wner Agent PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT PRESENT USE Realdentlal *X (Other) Peacriotion Initial ApDlication BKiat include: Application Fora Property CWnera Llat Certific<*.ce of Surve \/ Fee Receipt # 'rA? ■» Date Rppetved « /^J^ iData KfCi By 7~y Staff Informacion 4 ^ Plat Hap 5 Inventory Staff CoMenta 6 Other Information >\T i • =1 ±S» Vacant Land Vacant Bullding(a)Occupied Buildiny(a) U; CITY OF 0 MMO 8.DESeWBE REQUEST ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ ^000 ^ dCi eatabllah new uae __ continue or expend exlatlng uaa K build ».» aa build new ^ add on __ raaotfal _repUca Describe request In detail: TO ^Li\L.O A Hgsy_______ TMO I^E-fDUie. &.P. CooE Il'l'bCT » __—» _____ 9. g>t= 1 0-0" (=F»cp/\ uNE -rr> VARIANCEj^-&)^REQUIRED to do the raquaatad Work: Lot Area Sathack (_ Front y Side __ _ Rear) Other Lot Width Hardeovor 10. Describe UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS pr*vantlng coi.pli.nca with loning Ood. ra,uira-.«ta: 1^0^. 6\f^p At-c> Vjy^p a TrEVAlLiH^ vH-‘?gT Rr<t:|OtgJaNAlfWP£a .__________ Describe UNDUE HARDSHIP or PP.ACTICAL DIFFICULTY r,.uiti„. no. .trict •nfor..-«.t of .onm, regular Iona ~ on neighboring proj^r^a and on the nel,hborl«od In ,«.ral: ’ " IaAvJCXC? Di*3TUeC>tt~^fe 12. DescrSe^mCT''^‘^ofesED ^RK I'-O ^^«.^S ’LICANT and the PROPERTY OWNER mu: Tha APPLICANT hvrehy agrees to provide all Infomwitlon required or requeated hy the Zoning Adnlnlatrator, agre^aa to pay all fee. and/or untisunl expenaes incurred In rcvlc*w of thla application, and certifies that the informaition supplied la true and vjrrect to the best of his knowledge: \/AUj sign and date this application. The ^ER hereby acknowledge, and agreca Co thla application nod further authorltea reasonable entry onto tha proparcy by CUy staff, conaultanta. agenta, eonalaslon ne^era, ^ and^uncll neabert for purposas of Investigation and verification of this raqi^st: 7a A nr\ I *1 /•* .ri m #“ ^ g_ /- uU<!:'A<a.&-\-s\ w dfk.Wb V* * _C_i 1 of land 6 Staff Goenenti Other Information 7 vUJC 9 ^ Agent .■'ie@gft^‘4 '' % «-»^ v EXH!3rr C' !‘tiric?>to of £»u*voy for U>rJ'rd Kirh In I'-l's 3!* U Best Point F^r : Jail-! r.Irr.r t* •'/»:, ■*>nn**oin Count.., Minnesota « . i •JiiX'M'iii';;;' ■ i I her^jby certiTy th*t this Is a true or-! cerr- r-t rcnr-aontition cf a ' of fourd'^rl'.*" of that rert 3?” >tf, !'• in’d 17, -ino that ufirt o’* t'u.' V i'•■«tir'-i; uli 'sj 4iljolr“ inj; th-* V-'T?. Ur.B. cf Jot 17, all lr/sc?JiYI3IC': c;* JOT 14 HiST .* ?C1!:T r«Hr: J. and frit n.!l o:' .jov<'iT.r'V.t Ixt T, f-'ctfor. 7, To n-' ' .' 117 Mo-ti, •1..V3 ;■» of t.: -. ‘'th Prl.nol- -al Vf-riuian, alJL dosori:«dl ae bejilnnin^’ at a print cn the Tort' -afl*’rly line cf raid Jot !.•: dl.it.r.t 1.': foot Sciithanei- orly rTv-r i>. l.orth‘.i.ist- rly m coTTivr c ' iv.ild wOt I'S; thenro Viestorl.v , alonr a line which ir.teriiyct« f’ e Sc jtherly line of Jot 21, 5l!PDIVISinr CF JCT 14 Hv:t rcuirr .°ark UiTJ ► /M:*?:STT.’rj». cr the i-;rtcn8lon # • ^ t * r • ^4 V - a ^1C lU.-v V I t ' i 1/^*^ *’'"•* T'f 14 K3- r -r r,i ••7-: • ^ . */« 1 -* i rr ^r? u y lir.'- ^o t'i'? lSr.3 PM*'‘ o^ ruli lojthsrly lire at a point 141 .?0 foul lecteriy frc" ttc ."outh-jas* co-..fjer o'* wOt n,to the center- lir-' rf *> e v-acuf'd alley adjol.-lni: th-' A-st Hr.-? cf f •'..1 Jt^t 17; th»m r fortr.- -jrly nr.a M — r-.o: tr.rl,; frv* oiji.teriirfc I,.-.-., . i .o '-h- lir. - of sr.’d «ot IV ar.u Hior.,* the certerlir^ of “V 'i:i'oln!:-- . 0;tex'lv Hr j of v.'iC.ited I/)ta it a.nJ li, in celd -s.-.rk.i IMI . ----------------------------------O - rl!n * of t“' \ iii i; -^ajoininr; ^.*^3 Kortheasts^rl/ -4 '•i i wOUl.r*"^»st jriy CfinL*rrXir.*j t.no ■i\ isiwiiiiiiis •i rrovar^entc or .^nerc -chrort •. So;lo I Jnt»‘ : (j : sr» *-> :1 T' ' • r ^ r #631 ;’ot Dur:>ort to jJjnv cth*?r inn 3 r-’-r. r. Reflf . •/’'O04 J.;vj urn or »r • n *..nor Jan-; .---"I, yir.n-acta 4. r- f t r-'^'r -.•.(nt.tion rf 9 r.r ':^-.raT< --; 5f t‘at r I -ir.'d 17, -.n': t*-.nt t •l.! V . •. *.il. ?:» uiijoin- •» f.*■* f ^ ^ i *•5 , ill 'i^iV *, > i ^ *ry .'T 14 ;‘^T t ih • • . •• • <*• • *: ’ L' ’ »*♦* . *': li^'d^ r„ nr \ o * j '.yrvr^r*^: \ .x- ^, * % 9 4 •’ # * n-' ^ No-tl , ■ ■) •5 • ♦ < 9 of* *: “tV* — V r■lul !n,<i!A uf r ori :*?a ur k r. f*»..f i w •i ycirit •-'!. tb*? "t *'.” llfi*’ ^ot ci^► t.r.*. ". r -nt .V ''.t*‘i‘' >s.t- ’^' ‘ V • ts'. riy *v •:• r ' :•■■.'■ j 1'.: tSv.if M -rl:-- ,;lor;.' f lire vhir!. ’.tc *.:r,r .l''vrly 11 r.^- •* tt-*’t n,, irFjivir.inr c? :x.i-U Hv ;T rrr:? pai-i/. 4rv<>. .. • %r\• %- •• • % * - i«*'i, l: *!.t‘ .-.rtcnslon o'••v;*>. ,rly lire %t, i* HARDCOVER Mtia o • rt. m taka o - n rt. ox taka TS - 250 rt. 2SX Laka 250 - 500 rt. SOX taka 500 - 1000 rt. 25X VARIANCES REQUIRED D ensity winimum acumam I«t kraa ^3 ^ ^^ ^ V >11W1MUM RCQUIWfD gxisxnic raorosp vmixua /33 A ' CODE SCCTtOg 75 Ft.. 75 rt. LOr AREA PERKJTTED MARDCOVUI • af. « OCISTXKC tlAADCOVOI _______ PROPOSED HARDCOVER ■ af a TOTAL VARIARCS % RaC*_____COPE SCCTI si.tn 34.301 34a70:> 34.702 34.202 OTHER SECTIONS rbooirep EXlSTPiq PROPOSED VARIRWCE fODF SECTIOt •liiidino Baiflit fi FRdfinf CMin. ) (.1 ^ e. c »vS W •CrVkc/«^'<’n*t^ 3 p. ^ot DXVlSlCRit Z plat AVAXLARXlaJTYt ad^acant Xot-a/parcal* C ^ I .. January I, 1975 CKmarahlp ___ TOPCCRAPHY includaat _____ laRaahora _____ %#«tlanda _____ at««p alopaa opan araaa %ooodad araaa untalatiad € lota/parcala par applicatloA ___ vacant occuplad aaj cswnaraliip aaparata ownarahip aingla aaparata _ _coablnad with other parccla not in thla applicitloii ------high ground ______ level ground _____ rolling tiillo CEOCRAPHY affecting applicationi ____ lot aisa/ahapei ____ conaiatent ACOCSSi _____ naR# _____ exiating ____ unuaual lot ahapo unuaual building location - -- Inconalatent with neighborhood develofnent city _ _ _ county/atate _____ private available . conneetedi City water __ availableUT2L1TXESI City aawer _ _ avaiiaoie __ conneeteai city water _ _ available _ _ connected aeptic ayatan _ _ new propoaed _ _ axiating confonai^ _ _ axieting aubatandard _ _ exiating non>conforalng LAND USE C*“CUpiod OCISTXNG XARD USE conparad to xonin<j upe diatricti principal a vacant PROPOSAL affacte confonaing oae acccasory building or oae conditional uae *confoalng uae STRUCTURES niSTXRO BVtlDlMGS Oeficiancioai ____ PROPOSAL TYPES ^ do do not cooply with toning parfoivance atandardo ___ entlraly RDf building or oae review aa RIM building or uaa (coat excaeda SOS PMV| 7^ review aa CXPAMSIOM of exiating fcoat laaa than 50Xting Ccoat laaa than 50X PffV) Aiatifig building pair nARxrr value (yr| ____ |______ ^1X1 ........ will not reduce an exiating aubatandard yard diaMnaioo TAXES & ASSESSMENTS PROPERTY XD. Lata/Parcala owned in co—n _ _ are _ _ ere not legally conblned for tax purpoaaa. tAXESs _____ are PAID curiant _____ ere DCLXMOirEirT to year ____________ televiedi :XHIBIT 5 District 2- /I ^ rear siCTiCTt s/. ✓*~a 3/. ¥^>- F . cooc stcTigi i^REPARED FOR; CITY OF ORONO ^ND USE PLANNING TAFF comments & RECOMMENDATIONS EXHIBIT 6 Page 1 Flcrming Ooin«iaaju„ Meetln9 (Date) OKunell Mactin, ci»«ta) ___________ (Staff) (Staff) application REVIEWED BY: City Administrator • , City Attornay City E^ginssr ^lllaga Fiannar Zoning Administrator Planning Oonmiission Fsrk Oorasission . Public Works coordinator P'^blic Safaty Director Pinanca Director Building Inspector Septic Inspector W , nt// , Hennepin Cty. DOT Minn. State DOT Minn. DNR HCWD LMCD » TOTAL Ui VAHXAfta % s^Ts_____CODC StCTI Jl.BJl 34.202 34.20T 34.202 34.202 IXAMCS CODf; SECTtCW 3/.S/6 *y * 3 ^. ^of *SPECIAL COMMENTS JSi^ U rship •aparata ownarablp r parcels not in this applicatii B - rolling liilla rtod •aiating nen^confonsinf el mao i-oonfonaing use staff recommendation Approve application aa aubmittod approve application aubjact to follo«#ing conditioiis TAELB application for additional infonaation application for raaaons noted above •iWr* - SBC toia iLIlDI!«C CODB SBC 8012 Joint Coupoun^ Joint £aU rSm to the Iclion ol liquiScJ pcuolcutn gases.UJail DC IVMSlUUfc —-.w- SBC 801J Structure Protection. "oTsu^aJl^SltirioSkS “r,'.s sifK u«« .»• thority. SBC 8015 Rertrlcled Pipe Rni^ Cm pijxs “*^^^“’^o^“fluc “ten(^laUD^ be run in or through an air in’falseMilines when the space will be acceptable. S"£s'"fo nrevent a hazardous accumulation of gas. t-or.ccaicu pii»u*u be located in hollow rather than solid partitions. Piping n.n »nd..gr.i,nd inj,fc y tni^-n g nr mp b shall be left open into an accessible lovation or be vcnieo w a ic readily detected. ^ tcrtniaatea in the building, ****J2*“^®???^ be sealed to prevent the possible shall be vented above grade to ^ owj***®*! end JUn tiB left • Concealed tubmg m^^^^ K?g^ w?far?TallV?r" bV~,‘‘l?r Ke, of at least 20 gauge ^ebn^ jiS <?L?sh?nva-rbeS^o^ buildiof.DUUOUli. SBC 8018 PIptog CodergrowHl Outside. Any gas P^ing to b^n under- outside .he budding shall he copper, steel, or wrought Iron. 231 i«, -^ I " ' I \ > I n / umii r-%-» r- 1^ I :>. CO H ..V-J!^, I. I ^ t I [ I •1 I'' ■■' » 8 o CO h* I / V /"i s ? __1 -p«c*V>W M»cH TT- (A03HO rt 47?*49Td 'V «t » J___-Jt^-^J ffiiUCTIOils land use planning ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO ----Crystal Bay, Minnesota J5321 47}*;)S7 . <Trp* or rJlnO*** l5*nodJd'**ftt‘sfhT“"" **'"*• » * »> ^•■ertba your request Inemnisr *^il**' other Inforsiatlon to better •«> t. Ineonpletc eppUcetlons win not be accepted. \ PROPERTY ADDRESS V4.,,1> .f',..//, APrn^NT " --.3 Mailing Address if .Ai ft 3 If Applicant la not owner, csplstn __ _ _ _ _ _ _ OWNER > ‘‘I r-Phone Hailing Addratt Acquired . Af-, i‘-ri. .^znz::-. i Cdo; (d»-i»»t) also own other adjacent parcels of land AGENT »— 0 Flrn Phone Hailing Addrtaa NOTICES Should b« aanc to: ^ Applicant PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT L ( PRESENT USE Saaldantlal \ (Other) __________ C^er Agent LIST OF EXHIBITS t Pticriptioi^ Initial ApDli<^effnt^ ■uat include: ^ Application Fona l/ Property Ownera Liat i/^ Certiflcaca of Surve* Fee Receipt # / 1 ^^“7 I Oats_«p^lved S'/ Staff Inforemtion 4 5 6 Plat Hap ^ Inventory Staff ChaMente Other Infonaacion 7 j/ (li2A#fw 8 9 10 :L^m Ald»<a>€>wD _£Aa^ ^©■fe’WV/S fi'T*-7 r, I I Vacant Land Vacant Butlding(a) DESCRIBE REQUEST occupied Bulldlng(s) -------i^ CilY OF OROfNjO _ sstabllsh now use A continue or aspand aatsting ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION C^T $ uie VARIANCE(S) REQUIRED to do th# raquaatad Work: Lot Araa Setback ( ^ Front _ _ Sida __ _ Rear) Other Lot Width Mardcoarar . Describe UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS preventing ccaapllanca uith Zoning Oado rkiittitRMata: ^ Describe UNDUE HARDSHIP or PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY r.a«iti«g ragulatloni «. .i < i ^ < strict anferoanMit af tonlag Describe EFFECT OF PROPOSED WORK <m naighborm*propertlaa .*4 on th. «atghb.rHood in e APPLICANT cind the PROPERTY OWNER must Tha APPLICANT hareby agreaa to provide all Information required or requeeted by the Zoning Adalnletracor» egreea R*® feee end/or unueuel eapenaee Incurx id In revleu of chle eppllcetlon, end certlflee chet the Infonaetlon aupplled te true end correct to the beat of hla knowledge: sign and date this application. *'*^•*’1; •'‘■""“‘•‘••A BIHI agrasa te this applieatlen and f«th.r authorlsaa rasannabU entry onto the proporty by City staff, cenaultanta, agones, coMlaston Mlbara.^ and tou^U .i^ar. for purpn... of lnv.atlg.tlon and verlficetlon of thl# request: •* / Applicant's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date ir' t « I 8 ' 10 rr\L W-*'TT-n^I ." .;\ I.1 ti q3 existing 20 x 10 enclosed front poc<di* Add nsM 20 x 16 living zoos and second story over entire building. Essentially estending present building by six feet on the front. location of existing building and trees make w effective renodel tnfeaseable without tnovlng building and renoving two to three large trees New living roan is designed with the latest passive solar energy concepts large windows cn the south, heat collecting ooncrete floor, overhang for sunner shading, thermal insulating window blinds and autonatically controlled heat distribution system. Existing building perimeter %dll not produce sufficient solar EflU storage or total building space to werxent remodel necessary for a five person family. Itaprove property values by replacing old one bed room winterised cabin with a solar designed four bedroom nodem house. New building vdJJ. not obstruct view of the lake frcm hemes on either side. .'. . a ■ . -'f ■« * » JUN24l9ei I - cur Or OROtiOJ » -xts .Ki "'.r i^ESSSl i. 8 ‘ 10 t I I -A j:.• 1 JULffty (Tb A-».’ ^ txQj? O existing 20 x 10 encloaed front pordi. Add fww 20 x 16 living nxa and aooond story over entire building. Essentially estending present building by six feet on the front. Location of existing building and trees make an effective renodel unfeaseable without moving building and renoving tMC to three large trees New living room is designed with the latest passive solar energy concepts large windowe on the south, heat collecting ooncrete floor, overhang for —shading, thermal insulating window blinds and automatically controlled heat distribution system. Existing building perimeter %«ill not produce sufficient solar BIU storage or total building qpace to wvTxent mcdel neoessary for a five person family. Inprove proper^ values by replacing old one bed room winterized cabin with a solar designed four bedroom modem house. Nw building will not obstruct view of the lake from homes on either side. JUN24ISei Uy s cur Or CiUOMO 1 Hr 1 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST OCMTMCNT OP FINANCE A-005 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS^ MN 88487 utT ai»» Ex::i?n ^ I CCRTirV THAT THE PACTS RCPRESCNTEO OH THIS CERTIPICATE ARE AH ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRE- SENTATIOH OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE DIVISION, TO THE REST OF NT KNOWLEOSE and DELIEF. HENNEPIN CO. FINANCE DIVISION DATE FEE OWNER F^oy^ f WilUA/» C. Jf/ji ■/ fj£aur,,/rftK TAX PAYER/ MAILING ADDRESS C/f£~^^9 /A/re^Ar/uv^t. PROPERTY ADDRESS //'7- 2. 3*9^ A ^7 >/7/»/ -k£A/n>/y W 1*4\41^ / P^A/A9^C^ F. ^e^oga-/'. ^47o A/9 r^£'. /(UliLl./M/tt /./9 / /C<?^4f>h '■c*r?^ C^P-PJO'/ P /PjQ \/^4^2^-A/^ SA^/iTyr •'^44o /jO.Cfp'Z.r •■ - # /> on O «l':3 o • • 1 . 1 ■: ■ ‘ i JUN ? ^ iQfll *' * i J (:> « '. V T, au EX!;,'-?;7 Jl >• > _ OC«rtlficat« of Sunroji for Thoima L. Aazonaaa la l4>t 19* ”!^Urd's Park" lai^ Mlnaotonja; Hamopln Count/, Minnoaota ^ • \ir- r>.r-^ JUN 2 4 1981 tu! ■-/•it'll C3rtiric!i ‘:«> of Surv)/: I ••?r-'’by '•'irtl:'/ this ia i tr;e ind <*3rrHCt r*»pr"rar.tati';n of i zirvey of ‘hi r.c r.dirias of *.hut per' of tr.i ' or^r.jastarl/ of jot I-*, .'ar-<' -.'.a I-irrc V'.r's, l^lr.e. ir*.tr3a»t»rl.* o: *.•*•• Nort-fis'.arl,, jrai »' tha w^ut-'-is’-irly ^l•.^.t-of-•.*J/ Ll-e of rlrch *5 s.'.O'.n .'C : •? ro;:ri-jJ oL»t o'* •’"aU tr md the loca*-ion of all exlstir** -ail-lr. a dees rot p-jrport to shot othor l.-orcvjrcr.ts or jr''rra-'..oent.t. "or ov.-^osis tMs s’irvey, the^Northeiaterly '.il;'” of Jot 19 h.s rien ass-cad ta te t-it ' of sai i lot 1; Ire ?crti aasterl/ of t line thr- :.^h a toLr.t 5r. -.li “c-.thsi.a* r1<.r.t-or-yay line sc/ildlstsrt fror. tho orth-?-f'.-•rly ■' *- •“ >s*orl -« . salt lot, tr>:, drs-Q parallel ’-Ith sold '‘orth visVjrV •»"- Jou*.r.’-os*.arl/ V* irelet OaU t 9 t I* = 5C 2-l6-7« Iron aarkar *.eO Alvin .'i. Asroer he^-. 'c.i3rV5 Lerd survayors onj I'lar.r.ers Lon^ !.»<•, Minnesota -y’7j-V/4<’/ f 'TTr 'aBB i' » ttaaafiiai lir^o =# y / <4 oo\2. //• \'7 *7OAv rvi i-P'"U»t «l M w. • r •t a. 5v\ \ \ r \ r .V »\ \/ / ■of^ rs* (T3 n n 1/N ■’• . ., » kj t I Ui Ui\iii... CITY OF ORONO EXHIBIT 5 LAND USE PUNNING ZONING VARIANCE INVENTORY ^^ARIANCES REQUIRED Zoning Use District ^ /T" /-^ •ENSITY HI HI HUM HrjUlHtP ACTUAL VAAIAHCC r.i /dA ^ /_ 5ETBACKS HIKIKUM mPOUlRIg EXISTING PfiOPOStD coot StCTIQi r •'* ildy. to Bldg. ^A«s>iortt ctlandB 75 jri. 76 rt. lARDCOVER LOT ARJU JIML- iilj--------- PERniTTO) HAADCQVCB W.i. CXXSTLNG IIARDCOVEX ».f .______ FROPOSO) KAAOCOVUI tJL_____ TOTAL VXJIXAMCS f JL___Jg CODE $tCTI< 31.BJ1 rtJL4 O - 35 rt. O - 75 rt. ^k« 75 - 350 rt. jOt« 250 - 500 rt. 34.302 ^/i,aso a, sm.s- jjtfs.r 34.302 34.302 34.302 500 - lOOO rt. 35% )THER SECTIONS jieopirep t%iiiaing Height <ms. I --------------- PCISTPiC FBOPOSCP VARIAWCg COPE SECTION •affking (MIa .I 3 3.0 /iol 3/ »o/ LAND DXVlSXOtft plet tniS _____ unplatted • lota/parcela per •pplicetion AVAllAalUTV. .dj.cnt »ot./p.rc.l. C* » ------- v.e.nt occupimA ------- own.r.hlp ••perele ownerahip January 1, 1975 Ounarahlp ✓ alnEla aeparate ____combined with other parcels not in thla application TOroCBAmy Includeai LT lakeahore ____wetlands _____high gremnd _____ level ground ____ roiling Mila ____ steep slopes ____open srsas _____ %-ooded areas CEOCiunfy effecting sppllcatlofit ----- lot siae/ahapet ^ conalatsnt ACCESSI __ unusual lot shape unusual building location n«w nimtlat inconsistent with neighborhood dsvelopraent _ _ county/stats private connected! City water _ _ availableutilities I City sewer _ _ evailabls \r__ connected! City water _ _ available _ _ connected septic syetesi _ new proposed _ _ existing confonai^ existing substandard _ _ existing non-conforaing land use Subject lot is vacant i/*^occupied CXXSTXIIG LAUD USE PAOrOSAL effects ccxBMred to toning use district 1 conforaing use iX principal ____ accessory building or use conditional use non-oonfooting use #S!FM}CTUR£S mSriJM MltAMOS Oeficiencieat _____ do not cooply with aonlng perfonaance standards moroSAL ryPEi ___^entirely HEW building or use review as HD« building or use icost exceeds 50% rHV| review se EEFANSiai of existing icost less then 50% ruv) btatlMf bnildtng PAIR market VAUB (yr» $ ^ 7, SbO PROPORAL _.&]kl _____will noE raduc an aniatijia .utk.a.ndnrd vmrA TAXES 6 ASSESSMENTS n*. lata^Mrcla EXHIBIT 5 nis^r^ct: /. CgpE_5CCTlOfi iiL roQg stmcm TOTAL VmiXAilCE % B.r,_____CODE stern 1I.0J1 34.202 34.202 34.202 34.202 VAAJAHCt CODE SECTIOH -5ao/ imcrship •»p«fo^«r»hlp »thcr parcels f»ot In thla application ound __ roilinf hilla eonnoetod ndaxd __ oxlating non-cOnfonlnf tlonal umm non-eon^oaing uao CITY OF ORONO LAND USE PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS EXHIBIT 6 Page 1 prepared FOR: BY: Ouuneil Muetin9 .^71. APPLICATION REVIEWED BY: City Adminiairator • • City Atiornay City Cng inoar Vi1logo Plannor Zoning Adaiini at rotor Planning CDimiaaion Public Wdrka Coordinator Public Safoty Director rinanco Director Building Inspector Septic Inapoctor Hennepin Cty. DOT Minn. State DOT Minn. OMR MCWD LHC3) Park Oonmlaaion (datea) (datoa) “SPECIAL COMMENTS /Xjor ctb if i/n t_ auJ r } CtA /U.,^ ^ t:t^ ^ ^ COL ^ ------i|* 1*4^- ^ a yeM j/w^giw /” r:-WTT------- c«cJ/ >1 d d.^i6#ipw A» y-iTMTn-^V ^ gyp ■^>viai4 4 S-rAFF RJECOMMENOATION ^ APPAOVZ application aa aubnittod r Af.-aowe .pplicatien .ubjaet to (olle.lf.9 eei>«itlen» TA.I* .ppHctio. tot .Mltloo.1 l«fom.tioo ©nnr appllc.tion fe* r.aaona not«) aboira EXHIBIT 6 Page 1 nator tor Nannepin Cty. DOT Minn. Stata DOT Mirui. DM11 MCWD LMCD 4- ^ j gfv TZJ : - '-ixx Ui- UKUNO LAND USE PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS EXHlBil^^ Page 2 SUGGESTED FINDINGS — — •Racial cronditiona applyin9 ^ atructura or land In quaation ara peculiar lo such property or ififAtdlataly aurrounding proparty and do not apply gancrally to other land or atructuiaa in the diatrlct in %dtich aaid land ia locatadi OR _ Iha conditions applying to tha atructura or land in question ara not peculiar to such property or inmadiataly aurrounding property but do apply generally to othar land or structures In the district In which said landl is located. The granting of tha application ^ is _ _ is not necessary for tha preservation and enjoyisent of a substantial property right of tha applicant. Tha granting of tha proposed variance will not in any way itnpair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare; Oil Tha granting of tha proposed variance may impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare. Tha granting of thg proposed variance will not be contrary to tha intent of tha Comprehensive Land Use Plan or tha Zoning Godai OR Tha granting of tha proposed variance would be contrary to tha intent of tha Comprehensive Land Use Plan or tha Zoning Code. Tha granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to tha applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrated hardships or difficulties; OR Tha applicant has demonatrated no recognised hardship or difficulty and therefore the granting of such variance would merely serve as a convenience to such applicant. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL JUN 2 4 i9ai C2rMr!cn‘.t» of f.urvsy: I ••.?r'»hy '•irtlfy this is x tr;d ir.d r-jrrHCi r^nrorertaticn of i o irvay of ‘hj f.p; r.iorLiS of that p-or' of thi ' orhr.aartorl/ o -l:' of 1 ‘, '-/'ii't’. ?ir<' -•• :'*rr.-sV.r.c», l^io_ of *r^ >.rt-. ?i3t^r-. ^Atsrai ’r rl ht-cf-v.1/ Uc* of :-lroh hi-ra *5 i.-.o.n oc t ro;:r:-iJ -=iU :r r'ir<^, ir.rf loci‘l-r> of ill •ixlsMra -lil-lr. ? icoa rot ''•irtyort to z'-Q\ oth;r 1 -jrcvj-'or.ts or :r^r:j-*...“«r.ti. "or r’;r“o:<4 trls s-irr-v, tho-Ncrt.'.tistorly • iLf" of U>t lO h.s non oss-.aid ti to t-*t ' of s'Ai lo*t l:lrc Vcrti.iistcrl/ of s llr.o Vr.r- :..h x oolr.t ir. -.ii !c;thji.v' r1-o.t-or-Jdy lins jqUilstH: : frrr. tho ‘ortho •• •? .t- 'Storl.- 1 ‘? 3«ii lot, ^r.- irs-n panllel -Itn salt! t^orthoJSVirl/ '"i frut.--o3t»rl/ U iralaj Dat« t 0 I t- = 5C 2-1^78 Iron T«rk»r or-.R ... “offin ..j /\Lvin .'t. .^orcor ‘c.l3rV5 Irfsrd iur*? >/ors ■•.ni rlAnrort Vlr.nosotA • v/y/ 1 1 I -i / exhibit .-tJ I .» > « *—•-> f I. . -/U it— r-" . .^. ' • • 1 ■ ’ \ 1 •• .# ■* - 1 « • w . • « • 1•• •«* »• ' . ■...•*> » ) k . - - % « t •'• • • M.* , : V. • .• f. ^ V .• .* •• • • % . ! » -.31X1.!-------•111* 1 1 « • • • W \ k •• ■» - . > .------n » - w •i j —^' ».» • • « A -—T\ - . M. / %- L-_I^-i «1 , » « H - ..^.: % •. ’. • • ff »; f! .f* <=£ • i :=r5sl' exhibit V I i 11 m' */ / f / *' — •■n; ft} *‘T •— i 1() 1 i i 1 1 1 1 , |H i I A ^ i. .il •.•• r ', f!f}! ‘ • .♦ /v: r/^v • • —.. 1 • >,f* I p % • -r |.9 •:1 ^'1 '•* }. *1. “ t -f KI « • ■ , ,, .A t *. • ^ i‘ •• ‘ '4 •. ■ * f > • .• >. » • V • i.i.,.w I . .............. 1 I I -4 i ,/4.^ \ k> ** • ♦ * ’. • I \ * f ^ * : ' - $K V;• «• V » t P > iM 1|h • :s,. I t » 1 rc finr]i1Jd^1 J U3 S 1 1 ± CD fW)^ < CM L ; t W]? : : i ^ 1 CO COm m.'. 4 i-. C #• 2 1^.'. ubE planning ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION c.AniDii 1 CITY OF OkONO B.iy, Hinnci.iii.i 5S323 473-735; ‘ ^•Mrlbl "••^'^^•tueh'utl'*" *'*''’*; Co-pipi* Imp I . n r * 1. roOPERTY ADDRESS 2. applicant*”" «^Mbit 3' naat '2^-A' '■i ,■-•/./ V ' ------------ --------— > ‘ Phcinp ^ , c LIST OF EXHIBITS — PetcrlDtloi^ •**t Inoludc: ^ Application Foni ^ Property 0#nera Llat 3 Certificate of Survc Fee Receipt # . Date^Received ®y w71 Hailing Address / ^ 5 ^'/iV- A / V/r^ f*^ope*^ty Acquired ,W~ ----;----- I (do) „i „„ —5^-------------J--^ (Honth/Year) own Other adjacent parcels of land Staf^ti Mailing Address information __ Plat Mapy 5 , Inventory 6 Staff Cowenta Other Informatlot| 7 - SsAjfTl^ - 5 • NOTICES Should ba acnt to: 6. PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT IJY OFTO (Other)PRESENT USE Saaldentlal __ Vacant Land __ Vacant BulldtnR(a)Occupied nulldlng(a) “ST - - - - - - -- Describe request In detail: _ _.,„i,,.. ,„. "."‘"“-‘t"- - -- Lot Area9. VARIANCE(S) REQUIRED .h. ,te«, - - - Setback („. Front — Side _ _ Peer) Other . Lot Width Hardcover 10. Describe UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS .............................us a-nu c- / If'i ^ / -/c/ 11. ........................................................................... 12. Describe EFFECT OF PROPOSED WORK IT -- - - - -iwotu WOKK on neljhhorlng properttea * ♦ # • ______________- * •"0 on th. neighborhood m The APPLICANT and the PROPERTY oumpd Ih. APPLICAKT hereby agree."To required or requeated by the Zonina aL?„i.. " to pay all feea and/or unuaual e»oSn^«^?i "*'^*‘"* of thla application, and certifiea that thmjforiitl'''^'^ aupplled I. true and correct to the beat of hi. Uaw^dge: .............-by City ataff, conaultanta •"try mto the property end Council menbera for mi^*«**”^*i comlsalon aeabers, verlflc.tltm of thl, r^qwIT*** " •"<» 0/? •/ l it / Applicant's Signature APPLICATION ?/i 4 K 4 t Date - // / Owner's Signature Date iiiitty&mtu EXHIBIT 1 '.L LIST OF EXHIBITS i>etcrlDtiyn D Applleatiofi ^uac Inaludc: Application Form Property (Vnera List Cert if lea ta of Surve- Fea Receipt # , Data^ Received ____________ .Lul\ Datar R Jl Staff fi / land fhformat ion ___ Pl*t Nap 5 . Inventory ® ^ Staff Gbamenta Other Information «-____„ yJUI26B8r [to IJY ofUiTo: io •ION COST $ KL^mdd on _ r< v^A C ------- __ rapUea hot Width Hardcover ith Zoning Code rnqulrementa *"• •*'*« •"fotet.wt of .onln. *»»• ncichlwrtioed i„general this application. rJlffUilr* -P^HcottonRntry onto the property ng*nta, commlaslon membera ►r purpmaea of Inveaclgatlon end 'e^oeat: :ure Date PROPERTY OWNERS LIST ocpaRTMcirr of finance A-ROB oovcnnmcnt ccntcr MINNCAP0LI8; Mp 55437 LIST sue 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 SEST OF MY KNOWLEOOE AND BEUEF. HENNEPIN CO. FINANCE DIVISION DATE PEE OWNER j/ Mh tax payer / MAILING ADDRESS ICE DIVISION - PROPERTY ADDRESS 2^ ~ //^- -2.^ pLf6<\/ -----/9a>-SvaCf/yj^ /p, /> /y^oP^e.TY ^ / { J * 1^ ZETser OF OROf'^o II m mm ■ ix*B8iBS<ag«: VO ''O So •• •• t \ -J 1 A S >-%*'ZT Hr OO o • - • \r > K*» iio •s* Ilf *'* w. «»«o Zf p“ A /. TT5 ^ ,•• iiV /' i/ •.{? >- >i'j ic . SI t i. oJ?-' »?••«S!' CITY OF ORONO land use planning ZONING VARIANCE INVENTORY EXHIBIT 5 ^RIANCES REOllTRFn >ensity Zoning Use District Z ^ - f/9z WJNJXUW KrTUykyn ACTUAL VAR I ANcr COOC StCTION IWt Xf«a »t «l«tll y> A^o /^A , 3 a #m« /O « 3 j LASj ^ 7 9.1 < 2j L^9- ETBACKS >tlK*3KU»» mpQuiRIP gyiSTlWC rROROSO>VAAIAVCE 7S Ft. 24 PL. .RDCOVER LOT AREA J5ML FCAKJTTED KARDCOVIJI _____________* EXISTING KAAOCOVTJI B.f . faoposqd KARDCOVCJl TOTAL VXAXANCS Jl R-f- lltLU O - 24 rt. |1aL« 0 •> 7S Pt. \lMhm 7S - 2SO Pt< \vAm ISO - 500 Ft. \lMkm 500 - 1000 Pt. COpC_J^ CTUM Jg CODE StCT 31.0J1 54.202 34.202 34.202 34.201 I* |A / y // rJ« / y 7Jt«j y ^ V /M :^v >vVH A-r-..s: w: or^i r- -^ r 4 i; jOTHER SECTIONS iueodiiusd Oiiiidifif fMJt.) __________ Inin. I ___ pcisTrvc PAOROSCD VARIAKCt CODC SECTIOH LAND OSVXS3CII: _ plRl 1^ W.S _____ un^i«tt*d AVASIABVLlTyi •d:>»r€nt lols/pRrcala !• I —vRC«nt J«mi«r]f I, 1975 CAm»r«hlp _ _ aingle aeparace _ _ combined with other percelt not in this eppllcation TOPOCAAnfV Includes I .. ,.^ leheehore i,n.. ^*tlends . hi^h ground . level groiotd colling __ steep elopee op«n ——-------------------- — d lola/parccle per spplScstlon 3^ occupied _^^sss*e ownership lepsrste ownership GCOSAAPHY effecting appllcstiofii lot sise/shspei consisteat ACCeSli ■ new existing ____ utilities I City sewer^ ssptic systen unusual let shsps _ _ unusual building locstioo incor^isient with nslghborhood dsvslopnieat ____ svsilsble new proposed city _ ^ county/etete __ connected! City water existing confoming ^ private ____ eveileble -. connec ted ••(l.tlng .ubat.n4.rd non-confonUf LAND USE Subject lot ie niSTXIK LAUD USE FSOrOSAL effects ^veceat __ pared to soning use district i occupied principel confoming use eccesoory building or use conditional uee non->confoming use STRUCTURES cxicruio BUILDINGS OsfIcisncieos do not comply with soning psrfomsncs standards PAOSOSAL TtTLt sntirsly IfEW building or use _____ review as 013# building or use (cost exceeds 50S rHV) _____ rsvlew as E3CPAKS1CM of existing (cost less than SUE PlfV) _____ listing buildir>9 PAIA MAJUaCT VALUE (yr) ______ |________ PSOPQSAL will _will not reduce en existing substandard yard dinenaion «BIT 6 ;e 1 ftonnepin Cty. tfOT Mififi. Btmtm DOT Minn, mtn MCHD LMCD « t A • ■f * CITY OF ORONO suggested findings WND USE PLANNING ff comments & recommendations tXHIBIT Page 2 1. ✓ ’J'* granting of th. ** ^ •"Joym.nt of a—U -r g^.rarr.r?:-- -U not In ^.granting of th. ____________»*• granting of th. „ « ••".ral wlf„o."- *»"*>«••- varlanc. granting of th. » * ’ ' **'**^' «>»»ort. wral. or ------------------------------------------------- «•" or th. zoning -ul- b. contr.^ ^ Of ,uch V.r,._ prahanalv.9r«f)tinb of mu^h i * ^™Pi'«h€ntlv« LM„d Us«r^c.r:rir“‘" ” “ - —- - - ~......!^iJT2Z T7 7 - —• - ■*- •»*- £jUbtuL SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. 7. ■ 4. I ■nru. \ >m .«—*'>■ »y»’ TO:Jeanne Mabusth & Planning Commission PROM;Alan P. Olson DATE;July 8, 1981 SUBJECT; #634 Lot Rearrangement Subdivision - Craig Winters et all 4100 Sixth Avenue North BACKGROUND Mr. Winters has purchased the large tract of land north of County Road 6 known to us as the "TMG property". It contains about 115 acres of which over 44 acres are wetlands, most of which are on the DNR’s public waters inventory. Winters intent is to build 1 house on the land. This is a complicated set of properties with a very tangled history of owners, subdivision applications, and unapproved lot divisions. At one time, TMG applied for up to 112 units on this property. They have had many different applications the last of which was for 13 units in 1979. Since 1977, even before TMG's last applications, they sold off parts of several parcels to two neighbors (Peters and Gehrman) without City subdivision approval. Gehrman inturn sold off part of his part to a third neighbor (Hagfors). Tax records were never changed and in fact Winters' first survey submitted for permit purposes included all original TMG land including those parts in which Peters, Gehrman and Hagfors have interest. This application by all four parties is thus made to ratify and properly record the unapproved subdivisions and sales by TMG and Gehrman. Winters will end up with about 95 acres in one parcel to be used for one building site. The Peters, Gehrman and Hagfors parcels will be combined with their existing resi­ dential lots to expand the currently undersized area of those lots. Because of these combinations, no new building sites are created and this proposal meets all RR-lA zoning standards. It will probably simplify your review if you disregard the past problems and concentrate on this simple proposal. If you are interested in the history, a review of my March 18, 1981 memo attached should bring you up to the date of this actual application. ( CURRENT PROPOSAL Zoninq District RR-lA, 5 acres/lot This subdivision consists of combining 8 separate tax parcels and then redividing into 4 resulting parcels as indicated on the Jur, 25, 1981, topographical plan attached. After redivision, lot combinations are to be completed with the following results: Si* .■WW'IJ ' I- • <1 Craig Winters Page 2 Winters Lot Peters Lot >> Craig G. Winters, 4100 Sixth Avenue North (1355 Shoreline Drive) Approximately 95 acres including much wetland. Includes all of parcels 2500, 3500, 4510 and 4520. Includes part of parcels 1185, 1525 and 1530. Access is via a new driveway thru parcel 1525 built under authority of a Hennepin County permit issued May 15, 1981. This entire parcel will be combined into one tax parcel/building site for Winter's home. The home is being built on high ground near the center of parcel 3500. Septic testing has been approved tor a mound system with additional testing likely to allow a standard system. Building Permit 4532 was issued June 23, 1981, to allow construction of the house to proceed during this subdivision review because these are separate existing parcels and because there are no lot area, septic or setback concerns. Issuance of the permit was conditioned upon completion of this subdivision before occupancy because there is no legal access to parcel 3500 until combination with part of sever­ al other parcels is completed. Building Permit 4534 was also issued June 23, 1981, for the new pole barn erected on the property. It will be used for horses when the home is occupied. This lot could obviously be redivided at a later date into additional building sites under separate subdivision applications. This is not the current intent. John Peters, 4220 Sixth Avenue North Final result is one residential lot of about 12.65 acres made up of the following parts: a) The existing Peters residential lot: 3.01 acres b) Part of parcels 1525 & 1530 : 4.47 acres c) Part of parcel 1185 : 5.17 acres This lot would contain Peters existing residence plus a pole barn existing on parcel 1185. Addition of parts (b) and (c) will make Peters residential lot fully conforming with all RR-IA standards. combination of parts (a) and (b) is required because both parts are less than the 5 acre minimum in the RR-lA district. Combination of part (c) is optional because it exceeds 5 acres and 300 feet in v/idth and it has separate access to County Road 6 Combination of all 3 parts is intended to as part of this application. I! ■ I .ii ii >*V V . i^:,j I ' rzz“^rr ^SiSgBr» ^r Craig Winters Page 3 Gehrman Lot Robert Gehrman, 4300 Sixth Avenue North Final result is one residential lot of about 11 acres made up of two parts: a) The existing Gehrman residential parcel (lots 2 & 3 combined) : 3.46 acres b) Part of parcel 1185 : 7.53 acres Combination of both parts into one parcel is necessary because part (b) would otherwise be an unapprovable landlocked parcel and because combination will make the Gehrman residential lot fully conforming with all RR-IA standards. Hagfors Lot Curtis Hagfors, 4360 Sixth Avenue North Final result is one residential lot of about 2.24 acres made up of two parts: a) The existing Hagfors residential parcel, lot 6 : 1.15 acres b) Part of parcel 1185 : 1.09 acres Combination of both parts into one parcel is necessary becuase part (b) would otherwise be an unapprovable substandard, landlocked parcel Combination does not make the Hagfors lot into a conforming 5 acres but it does improve the lot area conformity. Viewed as a lot line re­ arrangement, this also meets the intent of our zoning code. SUBDIVISION APPLICATION This application is consequently a 4-lot lot-line rearrangement subdivision. No new building sites are created although the subdivision does clear titles and records to allow construction on the Winters parcel. PENALTY In addition to the normal subdivision application fee, a $300 penalty fee has been charged for the 3 unapproved lot transfers per Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462.358 Subdivision (4): "Any owni'v or agent of the owner of land who conveys a lot or parcel in violation of the provisions of this subdivision shall forfeit and pay to the municipality a penalty of not less than $100 for each lot or parcel so conveyed." This fee is used to pay for the unusual staff expenses and time involved in handling after-the-fact subdivision applications. In this case, staff has worked many hours over 3 years or more with several different parties including Winter's attorney to finally see an application made to resolve the problems created by the unapproved subdivisions. * ^ ^ » Craig Winters Page 4 VARIANCE As a lot-line rearrangement, there is no variance necessary to any zoning district standards. There is however a variance requested from Section 39.400 of the platting code regarding final plats. The Minnesota Statutes 462.358 Subdivision (4) and the Orono platting code requires this application to be completed in the form of a record plat because: 1) 2) 3) There are more than 2 resulting lots One parcel (1185) is divided into 4 pieces Two new parcels are each less than 5 acres in area (before combination) There are 8 separate parcels created from 3 original parcels (before combination) The combinations required mean that 11 separate, original tax parcels must be reorganized in all records into 4 final parcels. Most of the parcels are unplatted having long metes and bounds legal descriptions. None of the legal descriptions are "simple" in language. The applicants have prepared legal descriptions of the resulting parcels but they have not prepared legal descriptions of the actual parcel subdivisions necessary to arrive at the final re­ sult. They have applied for a variance to allow metes and bounds recording of the results for purposes of saving time and surveying costs. I have informed Mr. Winters and his attorney, and Mr. Gehrman as long ago as 1978, that I believe formal platting is necessary and desireable from our point of view and from theirs. I have informed them that I understnad their reasons for desiring a metes and bounds approval but that, from a planners point of view, I must oppose granting of that variance. I recommend that Planning Commission and Council expeditiously approve this application, but that the approval be conditioned upon submittal of record plat drawings for final approval. My reasons for recommending platting are: The permanent record is simplified and far less subject to error or misinterpretation. Field sta)cing of property corners eliminates on­ site disagreements about actual ownership. A boundary survey has already been done of the entire property (for TMG in 1976 - by the same surveyor Winters used for this application) so field survey costs should be minimized. The draw­ ing used for this application is basically the same drawing used as the basis for a plat. Staff time necessary for preparation of documents is kept to the normal eunount. If metes and bounds recording is approved in this case, the final sub­ division resolution will be horrendous. || I •I •i f ■’1— » Craig Winters Page 5 Platting can automatically include the necessary lot combinations. If done by metes and bounds, combination is a separate record-keeping instru­ ment for tax purposes. The 15 separate small slivers of land will always remain on the record and on the plat maps. Wetlands (and public waters) can be shown on a plat. The only hardship discussed (but not documented) to justify the variance is the extra cost of the plat. After explaining my concerns and the platting advantages to Winters on June 25th, he seemed to agree that platting does have advantages for all parties. PROCEDURE AND SCHEDULE Sketch Plan Review will be on the Planning Commission agenda for July 20, 1981. Public Hearing will be called for the Planning Commission meeting of August 3, 1981. City Council review of the preliminary plat can be on August 24, 1981. If metes and bounds recording is approved, allow four weeks for preparation of resolution and receipt of all required signatures by applicants, spouses and others. If platting is required the drafting time is beyond City con' trol but final approval normally occurs within three weeks of reciept of the signed plats. If platting is required, I think the City could consider granting a certificate of occupancy for Winters house at any time after preliminary approval, subject to a performance bond equal to the final plat costs. -.1 ■i i 1/ .A mt. . i —mm\ £ £ft9ri^s Cdtietuttlj TM fMcus rat T-f-^l MCMC / « 3S!Po ^40c „=.■-) • «* V y (lit) 9.J.. i r I \ s..<» A >$*• I S / «M • ♦ • W ^Li^RONO, MINNESOTA ^ ndoSs^Apij^^ation KJCATION of PROPOSA^^Ot p I«9al description Stt. TYPE OP APPLICATION y Sketch Plan Review $50 . i applicant Name Mailing /Jgr S t\^t. ’.A j^Subdivision $150 + $10/Lot JJ£~ _ Conditional Use Papiit _ _ $50.00 ^ if SLr' ^ Address i4t<aoigue Vacation $100 (Minimum) Present Zoning Present Use FEE #SYO. /to 74 Date Rec*d A By {/ff^ Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request Specify Ordinance Requirements LSTcFLlljWiii Mzsm II^nFnROMn i Explain your request and reasons for same /a > > ^ Ay /»»awfy ■ ^ L A 1,1. VARIMICE required - extent of nonconformity -X— Area _ _ _ Setback Front_ _ Side - - Width _ _ Other, explain Rear PaooU SluaMA. it SUBDIVISION application y Residential Other, explain yp’<>«*«■ ^ atti bsturU CONDITIONAL USE AND OTHER - explain proposed use of property in detail MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE APPLICATIOM (Must be submitted 10 days prior to Planning ^tssiTZting) Application completed Plat map section Certificate of survey of property sketch location and setbacks of proposal Construction plans, if applicable Certified Prcp^tv ^ner»s list o owners within iC5o^ from Hennepin Co, De^rTof Finance A-603 Government Center Stamped, legal sized envelofies (#1 pre-addressed to each of the name on the above list. DATE -^/ — Applicant's Signature I' T i di i Bna.if ' ^ ' #6^4 CONSENT to Land Use Application of Craig G. Winters The undersigned, who together own all the parcels of land contained in the proposed subdivision which are not owned by the Applicant, Craig G. Winters, hereby consent to and join in the attached Land Use Application of Craig G. Winters. -r-r /p / / Curtxs O. Uagfor^ ' JW25Sei ____________________ « I Cliv OF oao;;o > -M i ■ i “ M. ' ' ' 4 •i J^4- CONSENT to Land Use Application of Craig G, Winters The undersigned, who together own all the parcels of land m . M M.*J ^r ‘:j TO:Files; Address: 4100, 4220, 4300 & 4360 6th Ave N Zoning: 1188, 1529 TO: PROM: T. Jacobs, J. Mabusth, H. Benson Alan P. Olson DATE: March 18, 1981 SUBJECT: TMG-Winters property, 4100 Sixth Ave. N. OBJECTIVE Craig Winters is purchasing a large tract of land from TMG and wishes to erect a single family house on it. ISSUE SOLUTION HISTORY TMG has previously sold off parts of 3 separate tax parcels without receiving city subdivision approval. At least one unapproved division does not meet the 5.0 acre minimum zoning size. These unapproved sales have resulted in multiple interest in the parcels of record. Winters must combine several tax parcels in order to gain legal access from County Road 6 to the parcel on which he plana to build. The unapproved subdivisions prevent parcel combination and thereby prevent issuance of the permit until such time as the subdivisions are consumated If Winters can produce an agreement between all affected parties providing that the subdivision and combination wilj. be applied for and completed upon formal City approval, and prior to occupancy of the house, than the City can issue the building permit and allow construction to begin based upon such agreement. A. TMG has had several proposals for subdivision before the City for a number of years. These proposals have all included 8 separate parcels under the same ownership as shown on Drawing 1: 1. parcel 2500 PID 30-118-23 2. parcel 4000 PID 30-118-23 3. parcel 3500 PID 30-118-23 4. parcel 4510 PID 30-118-23 5. parcel 1185 PID 31-118-23 6. parcel 1530 PID 31-118-23 7. parcel 4520 PID 30-118-23 8. parcel 1525 PID 31-118-23 1: 42 0003 41 0003 43 0001 44 0001 12 0002 11 0001 44 0002 11 0002 B. File #188 in 1976 and early 1977 was cabled pending the applicant making some minor changes to reflect wetlands. TMG never made the revisions and the application expired. I I*•aj! TMG-Winters property, 4100 Sixth Ave. N, March 18, 1981 page 2 « * t \ I .I C. In May, 1978, the City learned of a sale of a portion of parcel 1185 to Robert Gehrman of 4300 Sixth Avenue. This constituted ar unapproved sub­ division which has never been submitted for City review. Tax records have never been changed. Parcel 1185 still carries one PID number. Drawing No. 2 shows the original ($&existing) parcel layout. Drawing 3 shows tho unapproved division. Gehrman and TMG were advised of the non-approval and of the required subdivision proceeding. See letters dated May 8, 1978 and November 29, 1978. D. TMG made a new subdivision application on October 30, 1979, in which all parcels noted in **A" above were included. One lot was proposed to be consistent with the description in the Gehrman deed. See Drawing 4. E. Gehrman in turn in June 1978 deeded part of his TMG parcel to another neighbor Curtis Hagfors, 4360 Sixth Ave. This was after Gehrman received the May '78 notice of disapproval of the TMG-Gehinnan split. The county notice map shows this as a split of the total original parcel 1185 and does not re-_ /jk 1 cognize the May TMG-Gehrman split. This'split does J not show on the 1979 TMG subdivision proposal. See Drawing 5. F. Way back in 1977, TMG apparently made another unapproved division, this time where part of parcels 1525 and 1530 were sold to John Peters, 4220 Sixth. Ave. We heard about this from Gehrman but never saw a description or map until March 18, 1981, when Winter's attorney produced a map showing the deed recorded October 27, 1977. This division does not coincide with the proposed lots in the 1979 TMG ap­ plication. As with the other divisions, this has never been approved by the City and the original tax parcels remain of record. Drawing 6 shows this unapproved division. Drawing 7 shows the difference between this split and the 1979 TMG proposal. G. On March 4, 1981, Craig Winters applied for a building permit for the TMG property. The survey submitted was dated February 27, 1981 and Included all TMG parcels as originally sho%m on Drawing 1, Including that part of the TMG property previously sold by unapproved subdivision to Gehrman and Peters. I iiUfttlli mm • • •A _ «.I 's: TMG-Winters oroperty, 4100 Sixth Ave. N, March 18, 1981 page 3 This application was held without review pending: 1. receipt of complete septic information. 2. resolution of the land ownership and subdivision conflicts. H. On March 18, 1981, Alam P. Olson met with Winter s attorney Fredric Rosenblatt. A new survey was shown that respected the Gehrman and Peters sales but would have recTuired subdivision of parcels 1185, 1525 and 1530. See Drawing 8. The situation was explained and the solution outlined. The City would like to see the properties combined and the Winter's residence built without delay. Our Concerns are: I. That there be no overlapping title to any parcel 2. That there be no parcel or remainder of less than 5 acres 3. That no parcel is landlocked Apparently, Winters has not yet closed on any purchase. I. The final property outcome desired is apparently shown on Drawing 9. Because there 4 resulting parcels, and the Hagfors parcel is less than 5 acres, the City platting code requires a formal plat, as TMG and Gehrman have been advised. Because it is in everyones interest to clear up this confusion, and because the original TMG property consists of several separate tax parcels, it may be possible to expedite the formal subdivision process in order to allow Winters to proceed with construction. Winters must combine parcels to gain legal access to his building site. Since parcel 1525 controls all access to the remaining Winters parcels, and since part of parcel 1525 (C 1530) were sold off to Peters, consumation of this subdivision must occur before the remainder can be combined with the other Winter's parcels. And since the Peter's part of parcels 1525 and 1530 is only 4 H acres, this must be combined with the existing Peters residential parcellllO. I The subdivision of parcel 1185 is more complicated because Winters, Gehrman, Peters and Hagfors are all involved. The City would like to see this re­ solved now too, but it is not absolutely necessary. Development or title transfer of parcel 1185 can continue to be in limbo without affecting the zoning conformity or access to the remaining Winter's property. Mil. ♦'.a-^ - J*1 i TMG-Winters property, 4100 Sixth Ave. N. March 18, 1981 page 4 s a i J, The following procedure is suggested for coming to a satisfactory solution: 1. 2. 3. 4. Combine parcels 1525 and 1530 Redivide parcels 1525 and 1530 into Winters and Peters portions. This could be a simple metes and bounds division as shown on Drawing 10 Combine the Peters part with his existing residen tial parcel 1110. This is required because the Peters part is only 4 acres, less than the 5.0 + acres required for a separate lot in the RR-IA district Combine the Winters part with his other parcels 4520, 4510, 3500, 2500 and 4000 to provide legal access thereto The Winters building permit can be issued after steps 1—4 are completed or after receipt of a satisfactory agreement between the parties providing that steps 1-4 will be completed prior to issuance of a certif­ icate of occupancy. .. 5.Parcel 1185 can then be subdivided with the 4 parts being combined inturn with the respective Winters, GehrmM, Hagfors and Peters properties as shown on Drawing 11. If subdivided, the Gehrman, Hagfors and Winters parts of 1185 must be combined because they are all landlocked and * the Winters and Hagfors portions are less than 5 acres. Only the Peters portion of 1185 exceeds 5 acres and has independent access. Combination of the Peters part of 1185 is therefore optional. Subdivision of parcel 1185 should be by means of a plat, although Council may consider a variance to allow metes and bounds division into 4 pieces 4ts all the pieces are to be combined with other properties. r 'ir *^ ^ /. ■TM6 4PPU<. «y« ^ r A/!m0.l9^- <€1- 5 I 1 1 • . I’ I ® I .Vxn- I i -f W •#«- —#- I / %./4- i ! 2 mi. 'm s 5 i J t f k ( i i I • ll ■«____'- 7^ .. ■ 7^1 i 1 I'lf'fi m/•n*. /•» 4 OMAlftiPTe d77 1N«- nrroif wo W7t TM6 ro^/:v5ic 4 AiM/c 4i^ a. pitin^^ sfmtfkf /# e PH6's 1977 M«**<yyp^#»€g^ 5!. " ^ tu 39.i„ ■, < ,T-j. ------------------------------------------------^ ^\i A I — • • v/r-f/ ; i i I 5s'.f Mjy 4Wi- » r KV « >\> __ IV^ ‘ f 1^I (m)\.• •1^^ f • #. J\r‘l #• 1 . -"1 • X*" ^ *: * I ^ I --25! o n-Ji #.V M ► • • ^ s I iV I OMOMO I i ]«>Uioov Ultrjui V: 44.^ « i I / ft \^3m I » r 1•• • .1 • 1 • mi w^' • .9# • • • / Is •• w * * < 1 ----- I i 1^ 1^ I yf.rt ir ■w WWSidW § I 4 I- I I it 1 CITY OF ORONO CITY of ORONO Huat UHicc Box fi6*CryxUl Bay. MinnaaoU SS323 a Municipal Oflicaa On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 8, 1981 Mr. John Peters 4220 Sixth Ave. No. Long Lake, MN 55356 Mr. Robert Gehrman 4300 Sixth Ave. No. Long Lake, MN 55356 Mr. Curtis Hagfors 4360 Sixth Ave. No. Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: #634 Subdivision - 4100 Sixth Avenue North i Gentlemen: f Mr. Craig Winters has made the complete, formal application to the City for subdivision of the "TMG" land, including your con­ sent to and participation in the application. The application appears to respect the previous unapproved lot divisions which created your interest in parts of this property. The application as made conforms to City zoning requirements and will be approved following the review process mandated by ordinance and State Statute. Because you have deeds to various parts of the land, you, your spouses and any other party having financial interest (such as a mortgage lender) will be required to "sign-off" on the final documents along with Mr. Winters. You will also be required to sign a document legally combining your part of this land with your existing residential property so they become one tax par­ cel as soon as the division is completed. The application as made includes a variance request to allow final recording by metes and bounds legal description. This format has some advantages to you but also certain disadvan­ tages, particularly in clarity of intent and future misinter­ pretations. Because of the complexity of this property, the City staff is on record and will oppose granting of this var­ iance. The staff will recommend expeditious approval of the subdivision but will also recommend requiring preparation of formal plat drawings for final recording. The City Council has authority to approve or disapprove this variance request. The review schedule for this application is expected to be as follows: BLILDINO A ZONING - 47J 7J57 ASStSSING ADMINISTRATION A FINA.NCI1 - 47) 7158 PLILiC WORKS - 47) 7)sv • o" • r1- •» ■6 -->4 ■ ■ vA ^] Craig Winters Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting 7-20-81, Sketch Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting 8-3-81, Public Hearing City Council Meeting 8-24-81, Preliminary Approval Final Approval date will depend upon the type of final documents required by the City Council. You or your representative should plan on attending these meetings. You will receive all legal notices of the meetings including agendas. This application is made to resolve the conflicting records and overlapping interests created by deeding parts of existing record parcels without the subdivision approval necessary to change those parcel records. Luckily, those deeds created parcels that can conform to zoning requirements without changes. If they had not, such transfers would not have been able to be approved. An "after the fact" application such as this one is subject to the statutory penalty fee provided to reimburse Cities for the extra staff time and confusion necessary to deal with such un­ approved subdivisions. Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 462.358 Subdivision (4) states: "Any owner or agent of the owner of land who conveys a lot or parcel in violation of the provisions of this subdivision (by metes & bounds without City approval) shall forfeit and pay to the municipality a penalty of not less than $100 for each lot or parcel so conveyed." Consequently, I am enclosing a statement xor each of you, Peters, Gehrman and Hagfors, to pay to the City a $100 penalty fee ($300 total) to reimburse the City for the extra added expenses of this application. The total application fee including penalty is $590. This penalty should be received by the City before the August 3, 1981, public hearing. Along with this letter I am enclosing for your information a copy of my memo regarding TMG and Winters. I thank you for working with Mr. Winters and the City to finally make this application and to resolve the problems created by the previous parcel divisions. I expect to work with you to effec­ tively complete the review and record an approved subdivision as quickly as possible. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincertfl son 'Planner cc:Craig Winters Fred Rosenblatt iTiHHitiitlimi 11 1 'i Ct i KJl TO;Planning Commission FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth DATE:July 15, 1981 SUBJECT:#636 Audrey Ogland, 2601 Casco Point Road Conditional Use Permit v'\.T Zoning District - LR-IC Application - Work Session - Conditional Use Permit per section 34.027 - guest house Lot Area - approximately 18,000 sf required 21,780 sf Lot width - 98' required 100' The applicant seeks a conditional use permit to construct a mother-in-law, non rental unit above the existing garage. Please review the face of the application reviewing her reasons for the request. Our code classifies such use as a guest house use requiring^ all regular lot requirements for the guest house. The lot is under the required 1 acre of area for 2 residential units and the required lot width of 200'. The City is consistent in denying such requests when the required lot standards are not met. We can certainly understand Mrs. Ogland's problem but this clearly cannot affect our responsibility to interpret the code fairly and equally for all residents. Plannning Commission may recommend as a compromise position the construction of a mother—in—law apartment within the prin^ cipal structure. The apartment unit would be allowed a sep­ arate kitchen and bathroom but an interior access would have to be designed through the principal residence. Apartments of this type cannot be allowed independent accesses. This type of design consideration will prevent rental of the unit when the Oglands no longer own the property. This is just a work session item, Mrs. Ogland may take the opportunity to review her situation. The application will be rescheduled for action when Mrs. Ogland determines the scope and type of application to be acted on. * r»t Road - Permit : to construct a .sting garage, •viewing her reasons use requiring use. The lot is ential xinits and Its when :an certainly ;arly cannot affect :ly and equally romise position t within the prin- 5 allowed a sep- zcess would have ce. Apartments ccesses. This tal of the unit r. nay take the Lcation will ermines the Land Use Application 9 9 I^)CATION OP PROPOSAL (or property) -fit, I^al Description __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ applicant Name/^y^y y Tel #^/ yf/'7 Mailing (/ J ^ /^. lP.l. DWNER Name Mailing ^ Address J^^o/ ( Tel CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION / ^ y.J. //I I ^ *> -.f . / $30.00 a) ^es. Acc. Use _ $50.00 b) Institutional (Churchf Sch. etc.) $75.00 c) Duplex Cr/Blg d) Land Alteration (grading> fil­ ling) $100.00 e) Con/Ind. Use PRD/PID - See fee schedule Variance $50.00 Present Zoning Present Use Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request Specify Ordinance Requirements •ilM29B8l CITY OF ORONO • Explain your request and reasons for same /.t i A a ^ j/ti VARIANCE required _ _ _ Lot Area _ _ Width extent of nonconformity _ _ Setback Front_ _ _ Other, explain Side Rear Specify hardships to property <5^ SUBDIVISION application Residential Other, explain No. of Lots C0NDITIC»IAL use and OTHER - explain proposed use of property in detail MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE APPLICATICXf (Must be 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 Certified Propert^_^ner's list of owners wlthln^^poXS (150*)- from Hennepin Co. Dept^of_X4nance_ A-603 Go'’ernmenfr~Center^^ Stamped, legal sized envelopes(#1C pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list. 7 DATE y/-/Applicant's Signature ^ '> y' >,On^ner's Signature ■y;yr ^ yy • y-,.. Applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Ccxnmlssion and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay ell foes as established by ordinance. 5/78 INDITIONAL USE APPLICATION VToY^ _ $30.00 a) ^es. Acc. Use $50.00 b) Institutional (Church* Sch. etc.) $75.00 c) Duplex Cr/Blg d) Land Alteration (grading* fil­ ling) $100.00 e) Com/Ind. Use PRD/PID - See fee schedule Variance $50.00 CITY OF ORONO } T' 7? ' f - Rear o - * explain lio. of Lots roperty in detail PLICATIOH ssion meeting) Property- CAmer*e list of thin<Qifi^ (ISO*)- from Co. Dept, of Finanen^ eriSent~Center legal sized envelopes(#1C seed to each of the names ove list. L.^ r^.a. eqnired or requested by ey. Planning Commission i further agrees to pay 5/78 r I • T —1 N 3/0.H. 000K.S a-^v»u!o 5^'’-SHT.e»z. Ke>ov;e: p o -1 f C^V’ vr. OowoHO^ u».0. 'C.'^lFVM V* (C u »N ■op, 3£H*v.c?be. C»Aft.ACie s OOT\f ’OOwV DIOl V)G- <U^. • U\\|\W«» «0OH * it'x jy I aaaiiiE Ml/ III -ou 4>*4Wt r V se^jouotauooRr* o««i.vc ' 12.x »«•' () a«c> W-ooh"> • i BCD n'x u' 1001 K»TC.rtCO UlV^«K)Cr HftUU ^ \2!^\i1 1 O9T\0OAw (3eP ^H. lO'KU* 5BBIII •1^ UIVIWO Q.OOH 13^X »a* ■ '5 I- ‘ ‘ " H-------1 ^tsuooK.1 h'POcrr^w^^wT . ', iz-’xiu' (e. «.ooh'> ; • -f- M . /T> ft O i3 O JlM 2 91961 'N i > ci-o*v^rt Houser rpt. ! : • • # • S^tvwc.: I 2m*u. 4- f V K r --t—r- -f I T r kvjniiA #336 •AJN29l9n CITY OF ORONO IRoJ of- £>UftN»lV^ jArv^cS ^ OexLA<OY> i i A •• I Jp' TO:Planning Conunission FROM;Jeanne Mabusth DATE;July 15, 1981 SUBJECT; #638 David Stearns, 2171 Shadywood Road Subdivision Zoning District - LR-lC Area - approximately 1% acres Application - Subdivision - 2 lots - Work Session Mr. Stearns proposes a two lot plat of his homestead P ^ on the southwest corner of Shadywood and Togo Road. Lot , the newly created lot, meets all of the lot standar s zoning district. The surveyor has ,, 35’ front yard setback for it should be only 30 . This will afford an even larger building envelope than designated on the plan. The existing house on Lot 2 is 29’ from the mutual lot line. pSad^to^serve'^lot it'^^Th^public'^woJks director will review the plat to see if the road dedication along Togo Road is adequate. The park dedication fee will be $440.00. A public hearing for the plat will be scheduled for Monday, August 3, 1981. ' 1 '•sp CITY OP ORONO SUBDIVISION application FOI^ i— APPLICANT Name ■ .St JUL-9 Lil________ citY Of date rec'd by _ZX___.fee rec'd/X /.r^ _ Telephone i *’ Mailing ^ C k A f Xl/ IH/t > SAddress ,.^ / / / >-t —llil-------L£il^--------i-------« »V^VJi w S» ^ * f ^ J. - PROPERTY Name f)/hn/9 S>j <*‘^r^S. OWNERS Telephone ~ ^ -• Mailing _ _ ^ , w /? /) /^ Address / 7 / ^hft J^ tc c'oi n<L- (Attach list of more than one) PROPERTY LOCATION Street Address / 7/ Legal Description / ^7-^ ^0- -kju.Jt’' (PID) EXISTING LAND USE Niimber of Tax Parcels Development Size ... Lat Present Use (check)v/ Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total» all parcels Residential; no. of units /_ Other (specify) Present Zoning Dist. Z. ^ — / PROPOSAL lot line rearrangement only (no new building sites) subdivision for new building sites number of building sites;existing units new units total units , proposed gross density minimum lot size; proposed use; (check) y units per acres square feet dry buildable land residential __ other (specify) mtmtmiim m&tfmtal NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE APPLICATION must^e^Si^o^irdays prior to Planning Con^issian meeting) 1 2 Application completed Preliminary Plat information on a certificate of survey Certified Property Owner's list of owners wtt\iin 150’ - from Hennepin Co. Dept, of Finance A-603 Govern- ment Center Stamped, legal sized envelopes (tflO) pre-uddressed to each of the names on the above list. 5. Application fee per current fee schedule; y sketch plan only 2 lot prelim, plat 3+ lot prelim, plat ~ (sketch plan included) Additional improvement rcvi.-w fees per fee scltediile $50.00 150.00 f-. n 200.00 + $10/lot / > D.\TE DATE 7 - e/ 7 APPLICANT.S SIGNATURE OWNER’’S SIGNATURE ' t/ Vdate / Y ’ ——■ ■ - - - - Applicant ^°''j.^°j^,';X‘"ciJrAi°"t^cyrPlannlnrcS8S^ aXuXtion and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by oidinancc. date recc'd _1 " V by i A fee rec' •V 7/^7-7 »:7 >t. ///a- V s ;7 ^ „e qzuJLLIl / Land t Land tal, all parcels ial; no. of units _/ pecify) __ _ ___ _ _ _ Iding sites) inits acres et dry buildable land el ecify) _ _ _ ___ _ __ meeting) r current fee schedule! 1 only m. plat tm. plat in Included) improvement 1 per fee ^ C* .*% , I ' e«." r' • f 3 a o ^ t*.» >f> I*-' » / -t* iJf o .V: a I 3 7 ‘^Lof 8 2. / (I ^ /S' I ' « »ll'/ fJo i • «• ■JMU liitrjy TO:Planning Commission FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth DATE:July 16, 1981 SUBJECT: #637 Lorraine Nordblom, 2535 Shadywood Road Commercial Site Plan Zoning District - B-5 - Limited Neighborhood Business District Lot Area - 37,500 sf required 20,000 sf Lot width - 150.4' required 100' Location - Lots 1 & 2 of the Leach Addition List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Building Permit Application Leach Plat Building Elevations Access Easement Letter - Hennepin County Highway Department (2-9-78) Site Plan Nordblom & Associates propose the construction of a two story office building 48'8" x 86' on the lets 1 & 2 of the Leach Addition plat. The Leach Addition plat required that access to the residential lot 3 be via a 24' driveway easement along the north boundary of Lot 1. The applicant is the current owner of Lot 3. This easement has been designated on the site plan but note the plantings and parking stalls designated within the easement area. I have enclosed the original copy of the access easement for your review. Note there are no physical improvements limitations within the easement area. Staff would recommend against the placement of plantings, curbing or parking stalls within the easement. The Hennepin County Highway Department is in the process of reviewing the access location and the location of the access for driveway easement. The City Engineer will also respond to the access issue. General Comments - Plan June 30, 1981 The drainage easement along the south property line of lots 2 and 3 should be 15' wide. The site plan shows only a 10* wide easement. The north and south edges of the parking lot must be extended 20' to accommodate backing out motion of stalls 1, 23, 22 and 41. The proposed 41 parking stalls meet the parking standards of 38.150 = net area 7,930 sf (10% of gross area 8010) office buildings require 200 sf of area to 1 stall. required parking stalls - 40 proposed parking stalls - 41 Lorraine Nordblom Page 2 Landscape plan notes sugar maples planted along Shadywood Road This should be changed to low lying shrubs that can be main­ tained at 2' to 3' height. A loading berth, 12' x 25* must be designated on the plan. The trash pick up area or dumpster should also be designated. Applicant should submit a signage plan for the office building Recommended Planning Commission Action - to table the application pending receipt of reports from City Engineer on drainage plan and his. suggestion for reconciling question of driveway easement location with that of proposed access location. Hennepin County will respond to the same issue and also review the proposed access. t mm. Lin' OF i: ;»; NCI I • IT A: r 1.1 CAT 1 ON /7 i h*oppiN(. ymj^iuin:L±!-yi^^ rrr,c-ni• lo be b In with f*ill»Mng rn wli Appl Jc*t l«*n: 1) Btillt^ing r*irll Appllcetlon - lo br filled out & 2) M«*-V*nlcal rit»f>lr Application A Calculation filled out 3) F-n4t);v C^l **ol at I ont - filled out 4) furnish Septic Report 4 D'*'Iki' 5) furnish a Cercifiratc of Suivi-y 6) furnish Jk sets of Construction Flans: a) 1 set for CItv to beep «»n file b) 1 set for builder to u.^e on site Construction Plans should Include: a) First floor plan b) fooling 6 foundation plan c) Flevations (of all sides) d) Wall sections 4 cross sections t») Details - stairs and any special connections THE ABv»V’E INfOKMATloS KJST BE SUEHlTTfO Rf fORE PIAH KtTIEW IS DONE Worh beyoMd or without n reqtilred inspection will be subject to a renali .cirv vs^r-.Lv HOlLOrvC "lEWilT ' NC. DATE /w *.*NG 0)SINiCT f ai 7cwa ' • ■ • VAA DAT! wJSPLftlOATI tO* AAia A :)Th * oiaiH ♦ - . ►-S!: If ’aAiK.s 1 a j«aT a s»OI AiAa “T ?uof ^A^.f niTiAaOS ACCESS ■ -~- Ntw iVtStlNC AT, i NC'F Al^hOV DATf C*rr CO-n T> ST ATI AA fA£IM»Wt . t V to Q-y ^ ^ ^ . Si or* XL-I blOG ^1 S’sn Ml n**» vii'a ei NAlt V sank Ml SAC. CMA«CI tot At out OWNER (Name) (Addreis) /t<*/. • ^ A,'a/ IPhone) A/ 't i“‘ /J ^ f I « r_______<—A C / ^A (>' ^ ARCHITECT/ENGINEER - Must Cenify Multi Family. Commercial & Industrial Construction Flaps CERT NO A.i'-'r/■■>£. y.f (Firm) (Addrcsi) (Phone) < • ^ llm » ^ t ^ *_________________________________________________________________________________________________ BUILDER (Firm) /=, r c (Address) ^<. ■ t. r^/’/L S. (Phone) TYPE OF WORK Addition Remodel Renovate CONST TYPE BLOG SIZE L r .H.; r RESIDENTIAL DWf LL UNITS GAR STALLS ATT OET. NON RESIO OCC CLASS STORIES ; STORIES B BORMS/FLR SEPTIC APP DATE DOCK PROPOSED USE COUNCIL APP DATE EST CONST valuation ’ •• “ / REMARKS: iNSPiCIlON HCQUIHEO * CIO t*«H* f AAMJei WAiiSOAIlO •t0m» *1 •ua« tc VOMI U« A At ow«ib •NrictAiN aiLL ai jiCT IOPC»*w*T '«kC* 'i*w *^<e I •*$* . t 0 m ^ ^0 K • •• nrORK BtOUIBiNG SlPAPATt PtNMiTS MtCnAN<Ai __________ Ml il _ ■ , , WPliC.______- - M M A__- M4HIA _ ... . ... a • iH»«t — The undersigned hertby rrakes application for a building penalt for tht cdcrk described, agrees to do all work in airict accordance with the ordinancH of the City of Oreno and rullnga of tha Statt Building Coda lUvlsiorl, and declares/thac all facta and repreaeniationa stated Dal t / c wni Stated hdreijS'tru^and cotrect. -Si# •it M r e .r UllUIUJUL.. EXHIBIT A !i!i! !r:i! kMli ! 'i11 »• I • I. 1 ‘Ss II Ul IPili ! ^ I! r .‘II • t I • I i : !i!iV i ,! 1 I I I .1 i ‘ a •? IfV M'|£&Pk nr wm . -^ a WIi,‘'iXUiiV.- !' I t ^ i 'f ; X i & tm %L^ EXHIBIT 1- - “1 U - £ ? ------------------------------------ IT 'I M •v3 hn i: <1 w , .if - , EXHIBIT 4^ EASEMENT 57- This Easement Is effective as of the day of 1978. and la m;de and executed by Thomas C. Leach and Deanna M. Leach, husband and wife, (hereinafter "Grantors. ) WITNESSETH: Whereas, Grantors are the owners of certain real property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally de­ scribed as: iS*?hl'pLr?h^reof°Sl;klenS\n"f«S4irSe^^ County. Whereas, Grantors have agreed as a condition to obtaining final plat approval from the City of Orono that appurtenant easement of ingress and egress over and across Lot 1 to the benefit of Lot 3: Now, therefore, Grantors hereby grant and convey a perma­ nent easement for roadway and utility purposes over, under and across the northerly 24 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Leach Addition measured parallel to the northerly property line of Lot 1, Block 1, Leach Addition. This casement is for the benefit of and appurtenant to that certain real property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as; Lot 3, Block I, Leach Addition. The easement described herein shall run with the land, and shall be for the benefit and use of the owners of Lot 3. Block 1, Leach Addition, their heirs and assigns. GRANTORS: - 1 HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT 320 Washington Av. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 935-3381 February 9, 1978 exhibit * r i • • . • r*. ^ I* i:i.. r- ;,K i ViU .'.-.-F. c? C-C 'O Mr. Henry F. Muhich Zoning Administrator P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Muhich RE:eSAH 19 - West Side 100 feet north of Lydiard Ave. Section 20, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 622 Review and Recommendations Thank you for submitting this plat for our review. We reviewed the proposed plat and have the following coiments: 1.Dedicate, for roadway purposes, an additional 19 way for a total of 40 feet from and along the centerline of C5AH 19. 2.The proposed access location for Lots 1 and 3 is J” approved entrance permit is required before struction. Permit forms are available from our Traffic Division. 3.An entrance permit will also be required for any future from Division for access approval. 4.All other proposed construction or alterations ^thin of way must receive County Engineer struction. This includes, but is notity construction (requires utility permits), trail development, a landscaping. HENNEPIN COUNTY on equal opportunity employer km n 5. The developer must restore all areas within County right of way disturbed during construction. Please direct any response or questions on the above conaents to Douglas Mattson at this office. Sincerely y. Hi. /James M. Wold* P.E. Chief. Planning and Programming JMW: DBM: bg 1 TO:Planning Conunission & Council FROM:Alan P. Olson DATE:July 9, 1981 SUBJECT: Earth-sheltered housing I understand that recent applications before the Planning Conunission raised certain questions about earth-sheltered homes in general and how such designs are related to our zoning and building codes. Earth sheltering is not a new idea but it has come into the spotlight in the last few years as a method of reducing heat gain/loss and therefore reducing energy consumption. There are many examples in the Twin Cities area. Some are highly successful. Some have serious problems with struc­ ture, moisture, code requirements or "quality of life". Like anything else, the result is dependent upon the ex­ pertise of the designer and builder. Also, as with any new fashion, there are many self-proclaimed experts who do not fully understand all the problems. Too often earth- sheltering is poorly done. These notable failures then give the whole concept an underserved black eye. The uniform building code does not specifically address earth sheltered housing because it doesn't have to. Standard code provisions fully cover all aspects of earth sheltered designs. Well done earth sheltered housing can be built fully in conformance with all code requirements. Principle code provisions that directly affect earth sheltered housing include the following: 1) Heavier wall and roof structural requirements 2) Careful adhearance to waterproofing requirements 3) Careful design to meet light and ventilation requirements for all habitable rooms. 4) Design with exit windows or direct exit doors from sleeping rooms. 5) Mechanical equipment for humidity control Our zoning code, as with most others in the country, does not address earth sheltered homes but does prohibit occupancy of cellars or basements (31.360). These provisions were originally intended to stop the post WWII practice of moving into "oasement houses" built as true basements with the idea of putting the first floor on later. Of course the first floor often never was built. Current building codes pro­ hibit such occupancy now without the need for this section in a zoning code. , t Ip, i:.' t . .•V' . 4 Earth Sheltered Homes Page 2 Correctly designed earth-sheltered housing conforming to the building code is not definable as a basement or cellar and therefore can be built and occupied in Orono just any other housing without consideration of a "variance" from 31.360. The only other zoning code provisions involved would be 34.202 hardcover. Is an underground home hardcover or not? To answer this question one must look to two items: intent of the ordinance, and design of the home. Hardcover regulations are provided to limit the amount of direct storm-water runoff into creeks, ditches, wetlands or lakes. By limiting the velocity and quantity of direct runoff, water quality improves. Sedimentation and erosion is lessened. Nutrients are absorbed by vegetation instead of making their way into the lakes. The key is provision of vegetation and percolation area over a certain, somewhat arbitrary, percentage of each lot. Some earth sheltered housing has earth banked against the walls with more or less standard roof construction. The roof in such cases is obviously hardcover. Other designs cover all or part of the roof with earth and vegetation, usually grass. In order to have such grass grow without unusual cars, and in order to provide the desired insulation qualities, this type of structure normally has between 18" and 36" of soil placed over a concrete roof. The slope is usually flat or slightly pitched to drain and to allow normal mowing. It would be my opinion that such a natural grass-covered roof should not be considered to be hardcover because there is no direct runoff and there is vegetative assimilation of nutrients just as in any normal lawn. Even with the concrete understructure, rain falling on such a sod roof would be absorbed by the growing grass. Any excess runoff would not be surface runoff but would percolate thru the soil to the roof, then drain to the edge of the building and on down into the ground. Discounted should be unsodded areas such as skylights, monitors, entry towers or retaining wall type roof edges. Also, many underground homes have extra patios and special exit areaways which must be indi­ cated on plans and which must be included in hardcover reviews. Earth-sheltering could thus be viewed as a design option to be considered in feasibility/hardship review of all hard­ cover variance situations just like other mitigating design options such as ponding areas or drainage rerouting. The object is not prohibiting land use but designing such use to minimize direct storm water runoff pollution. It should also be remembered that 31.830 prohibits "structures" within the floodplain protection areas. Even a 100% sod- covered underground home is a structure by definition so would be prohibited within 75 ft of lakes or 26 ft of wetlands. Earth Sheltered Homes Paqe 2 Correctly designed earth-sheltered housing conforming to the building code is not definable as a basement or cellar and therefore can be built and occupied in Orono just like any other housing without consideration of a "variance" from 31.360. The only other zoning code provisions involved would be 34.202 hardcover. Is an underground home hardcover or not? To answer this question one must look to two items; intent of the ordinance, and design of the home. Hardcover regulations are provided to limit the amount of direct storm-water runoff into creeks, ditches, wetlands or lakes. By limiting the velocity and quantity of direct runoff, water quality improves. Sedimentation and erosion is lessened. Nutrients are absorbed by vegetation instead of making their way into the lakes. The key is provision of vegetation and percolation area over a certain, somewhat arbitrary, percentage of each lot. Some earth sheltered housing has earth banked against the walls with more or less standard roof construction. The roof in such cases is obviously hardcover. Other designs cover all or part of the roof with earth and vegetation, usually grass. In order to have such grass grow without unusual cara, and in order to provide the desired insulation qualities, this type of structure normally has between 18" and 36" of soil placed over a concrete roof. The slope is usually flat or slightly pitched to drain and to allow normal mowing. It would be my opinion that such a natural grass-covered roof should not be considered to be hardcover because there is no direct runoff and there is vegetative assimilation of nutrients just as in any normal lawn. Even with the concrete understructure, rain falling on such a sod roof would be absorbed by the growing grass. Any excess runoff would not be surface runoff but would percolate thru the soil to the roof, then drain to the edge of the building and on down into the ground. Discounted should be unsodded areas such as skylights, monitors, entry towers or retaining wall type roof edges. Also, many underground homes have extra patios and special exit areaways which must be indi­ cated on plans and which must be included in hardcover reviews. Earth-sheltering could thus be viewed as a design option to be considered in feasibility/hardship review of all hard­ cover variance situations just like other mitigating design options such as ponding areas or drainage rerouting. The object is not prohibiting land use but designing such use to minimize direct storm water runoff pollution. It should also be remembered that 31.830 prohibits "structures" within the floodplain protection areas. Even a 100% sod- covered underground home is a structure by definition so would be prohibited within 75 ft of lakes or 26 ft of wetlands. V T — ».«■» 2. V -----*#•••» , • •.»<«. **-*v i ».TJff-J..' •>. % V *. - - ■X’*'* '•' •- '>• ’ !»«,* lx j <-•*** J<!K^«« ** i***- ! / # Lot ^ k».i» f • / / / P F f ^ ^ jg- ».<• «i^«b K.* »M» -i 1* »aXM>« ♦» ‘ -J- I >■' '' /,' I; *n..m **• 1-t £r ^! ^ V-t, ,- ; / '■ I // ■' i ’ ,r ;/ .-<1 ‘ ‘'fi I K' i UT i « .* , • • • (♦----• ---- t / . ■ ‘^1 I kM' «a • * 41* tiv*«i»s« :i,:; ‘’/ST '■% *. iM 1 termini ‘•/JMSt-