HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-1980 Planning Packett
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, AUGUST *r,'''^1980
COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.H.
CALL TO ORDER
1. Call to Order/Roll
ACTION ITEMS
2. #545 Bruce Hepp, 2605 West Lafayette Road - SUBDIVISION
3. #576 Robert Mortenson, 3280 Watertown Road - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
4. #578 Charles Carl, 3685 North Shore Drive - VARIANCE
WORK SESSION
5. #568 Daryle Uphoff, 2497/99 & 2501/03 Kelly Avenue - SUBDIVISION
6. #579 Fred Harvey, 3580 Wayzata Boulevard - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPROVA':^ or MINUTES
7. Minutes of August 4, 1980
INFORMATION ITEMS
8. Reschedule September 8, 1980 Planning Ccmimission Meeting
•i “/■ - rJfovJ
Pi
- *s.
I AuilU'S'f’ /f-, /ffia
^ MOO 0 4000 Q MOD- 0 !><» .£
City of Orono, Minnesota 1-iTssr-fe- A s-
"o' ♦ .
TO:Planning Conunission and Council
Atern KqJ
FROM:Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator
DATE:August 13, 1980
SUBJECT: #545 Bruce Hepp, 2605 West Lafayette Road - SUBDIVISION
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 -
Exhibit 2 -
Exhibit 3 -
Exhibit 4 ~
Exhibit 5 -
Exhibit 6 -
Exhibit 7 -
Survey (2 lot plat)
Site Plam for Lot 2
Proposed house and floor plcm
Suggested Site Plan
Lowe Memo (dated May 8, 1980)
Minutes of May 5, 1980
Plat Map
REVIEW OF APPLICATION
Subdivision: 2 lot plat
Zoning District: LR-IB
- total area 2.8 acres
Mr. Hepp proposes a 2 lot plat of combined Lot 9 and part of Lot 10,^
Shore Hills Subdivision (review the plat map enclosed). At the -Public
Information Meeting, several neighbors in attendance opposed the
subdivision noting standards in the restrictive covenants for their
subdivision were not being satisfied. The neighbors were advised by
the Commission that the City does not enforce private restrictive
covenants. It is the Council's responsibility to assure the stemdards
of the City's ordinances are being met. Planning Commission advised
the neighbors that further written comments would be appreciated and
reviewed by the staff and Planning Commission at the appropriate meeting
night.
The Planning Commission did have reservations concerning the suitable
building area for the newly created lot. The two private driveways
intersecting the subject property affect the only building site for
Lot 2. Plcuming Commission as)ced that the following information be
furnisned by the developer before any action could be talcen by the
Commission:
1. Designate existing structures and their setbacks from all newly
created lot lines.
2. Access easements - note width of each driveway.
3.A site plan for Lot 2 for a proposed house of comparable size
designating setback from lot lines and pond area.
4. Area of each lot exclusive of driveway easements.
• ;
August 13, 1980
1545 Bruce Hepp
2605 West Lafayette Road
SUBDIVISION
Page 2
K
The information has been reviewed by staff and enclosed for your
review. The surveyor has realigned the lot line and the area for
Lot 2 is exclv ?ive of driveway easements. The location o2 the
proposed house is much too close to the private driveway easement
but remember the code does not specify a setback for the principal
structure from a private driveway. The same size house could be
relocated to meet the 75' setback from the pond and a reasonable
setback of 5'-10* from the driveway (see Exhibit 2). Note that
the actual site pl^m of suggested house is considerably under the
63' X 90* area submitted in application. The actual structure could
easily meet a 10* setback.
Staff invites the Planning Commission to comment on the enclosed
memo to the City from Thomas Lowe. The Zoning Administrator submits
the following for your review:
Section 39.010
Once again, during the subdivision review process we deal only with
standards set forth in the Orono ordinances. The LR-IB District for
example requires 140* lot width, 1 acre in area, setbacks for the
proposed structures, etc. If a given subd:vision meets all of those
standards, this body would be hard pressed to recommend denial.
Section 39.140, Paragraph 3
In recent years Council approved the following two lot lakeshore plats:
Chapman Addition, Breustedt Plat, Reardon Plat and at your last meeting
the Wm. Mernik Plat. In these subdivisions a horizontal split was
approved based on the finding that an access corridor for the lakeshore
lot could have been created for required public road access. Council
preferred a private driveway easement and a single curb cut making use
of an existing driveway. In the Mernik plat a 30* tract abutts the
public road and rather than create a long platted access corridor,
the City again allowed the existing driveway to serve both lots.
In the Hepp case, the property abutts 40* of public road -14* of
that frontage serves the Hannah driveway and 26* remains to serve
existing house emd proposed new house. Does Planning Commission feel
the subject property qualifies under those same standards of review.
Further Council has not strictly applied the standard that all lots
shall adjoin a private road as in the Farm at Long Lake and th«j
Greentree plats. Lots in these plats were served by private driveway
easements off private roads.
J
August 13, 1980
1545 Bruce Hepp
2605 West Lafayette Road
SUBDIVISION
Page 3
Section 32,340 and Subparagraph (a)
If a variance is required, the applicant is obliged to submit proof
of hardship. It has been the City's policy to deny subdivision
applications that require variances from the platting standards.
The applicant must sulmiit a hardship - as yet he has not been asked
to address the question of hardship.
Options opened to the Planning Commission:
To recommend preliminary approval of the subdivision based on the
finding that the subdivision meets all of the necessary platting
standards and subject to the following conditions:
1.
2.
Lakeshore lot (1) will be riparian.
The inland lot (2) will be non-riparian, and without dockage
or lake access rights.
3.Dedication of drainage and utility easements along all.property
lines - staff to determine if the drainageway along the southern
property line should be expanded from the usual 10*. Conservation
and Flowage Easement to be required if there is a need to designate
auid protect the drainageway.
4.Creation of all private driveway and utility easements necessary
to provide access from the public right of way to lakeward Lot 1.
5.
6.
Payment of park fee for Lot 1 of $400.00.
Future house must be set a minimum of 10' from private driveway
easement.
To recommend denial of the subdivision based on the finding that the
subdivision does not meet all of the required platting standards and
that sufficient hardship has not been demonstrated by the applicant.
•Jb'trh
for Piriro F, Mono
in TtOts 9 nnd 1C, ohoro Hills
Hnnnooln Ccunty, Minnosota
0>
\
Surrovor’a Stctenont:.
I hereby certify that
this la a true and cor*
rect akeich of Lot 9
and pert of Lot 10,
Shore Hi Up, for tho ,
sole purpose of locat* \ *•/
Ine the bulldlnga knd
ahorellne.
Gordon ri. Coffin ' Rsf. *Ko. 606
->«5 u. V
\
\
I
\
I
Land Survo.'/or and Planner
Long Lake, tiinneaota
Scale: 1" = 80'
Date ; 3-29-76
7-Z3-80
tV.p’tcIl
Tor Pr’iro F.
in I.otff 9 and 1C, Jhoro Hills
Ih^nnooin Ccxmty, HinunriOta
X'<» fo-t'tj
'Sit* fi*^Y
1
« :
Survoyor'8 Str.tomont:
I hereby certify that ~
this la a true and cor
rect eketch of Lot 9 ' P^c>
and part of Lot lU, n^uo'vi '•
Shore Hi Up, for tho
sole purpose of locat-
ing the buildings and
shoreline.
Gordon H. Cofff*n Heg;'Ko. 606
Land Surveyor and Planner
Long Lake, }Unnesoia
Scale: - 80*
Date : 3-29-76
7’i3 'Sc
— 1
4\
y Ir :
t TO I
»
W
I
I
i5^-:;.^T.55r-5?«'^1 ^ •
it
1^:
P
V, 'tCi p4» ► _ .-.
\ ,
r*
r
^Traditional English Tudor
•' TM« Impotlng «Kt«rtor, wWi parapet wan*, cop^ oarag* roof. adi«d
Ihnbar, atono, atucco and brieli. concoait somo bitoroating daatgri
*’ foaturao. Tharo’a a covarod aaiiranca arcada and an opM drtt^
V through that ihowa paaaangara to ontar or laava arlthin tha conllnas
» eftha houaa araa, for prNacy. Tha floor plan aaparataa tha alaaping,
'] aaraica and Mng araaa. Tha living room faaturaa a high cathadral
9 caMng and halcony. Thara ara 3,100 aquara faat of apaca axcludlng
V garaga, courta and porchaa. For plana of thla homo, or a catalog of
#545
f\
ii^
r
i
r.lftrb
for Piriro F. .“ono
in T,ot.s 9 nnd V', Jhorn Hills
n«!nnooin Ccunty, Minnosota
Sunre/or'8 Stctemont:
I hereby certliy that"
this la a true and co><>
met eketch of Lot 9 ’ P^£>
and part of Lot 10,
Shore Hllla, for tho
sole purpose of local- \*»r
Ing the buildings and
shorellno.
Cordon H. Coffin Rer; “Ko. 6oti
Irfind Survej’or and Planner
Long Lake, rdnneaota
Scale; 1" = 60*
Date ; 3-29-76
y-zi-ao
.1
f f •
'i
I.
I!
♦f
•s »*.<
lymanLumbef Company
e
300 MORSE AVENUE • MAILING ADDRESS: P. O BOX 40 • EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 • TELEPHONE 612-474-5991
THOMAS P. LOWE
Prn*dent
R. L. OfPAUW
Vice President
May 8, 1980
TO: THE PLANNING COmiSSION AND COUNCIL
RE: BRUCE HEPP SUBDIVISION
Lot 9, Shore Hills
I have had a chance to review the zoning and platting ordinances of the City
of Orono and request that the planning cotimission and council consider the
following points in regard to the proposed subdivision of Lot 9.
1. SECTION 39.010
This section refers to piecemeal planning of a subdivision. It is obvious
that some thought to planning had been done on the original plat. Why
now should the planning commission or council change what a prior council
and developer had agreed was good planning? Mr. Hepp is under no hardship
nor suffers any impairment in his ownership of the present lot.
For the planning commission or council to approve the proposed subdivision
would appear to engage in piecemeal zoning which clearly is not the intent
of the platting ordinance.
2. SECTION 39.140 PARAGRAPH 3
"Each lot shall adjoin a public street". This is a performance standard
required by the village. If this standard cannot be met, the subdivider
must ask for a variance. Under Section 32.310 the council may grant a
variance "where there are practical difficulties or particular hardships".
It is hard to see where Mr. Hepp is suffering a hardship or particular
difficulty in subdividing this lot.
3. SECTION 32.340
Before granting a variance the city council shall find under Sub Section E:
"that the granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience
to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship
or difficulty". Clearly Mr. Hepp is not entitled to relief from the sub
division requirements since he is suffering no hardship and cannot
demonstrate a difficulty with the existing lot.
L.
t.• y
!i
*.*!'
I
• i
.1t
-
*
'. ♦
»#
* ♦• •t
I
' *1
? ’ll
The Planning Conmlsslon and Council City of Orono
Kay 8. 1980
Page 2
4. SECTION 32.340 SUBPARAGRAPH A
"The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question
are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property".
Clearly Mr. Hepp's proposal viould be not in keeping with the intent
of this section.
It seems to me that the residents on West Lafayette Road have the right to
rely on the platting and zoning ordinances of the village and, further, they
have the right to rely on what was originally platted and planned for by
the original developer, council and planning convnission when the plat was
put of record.
Mr. Hepp can demonstrate no hardship or difficulty in the enjoyment of the
use of his present property, therefore his application should be denied.
Sincerely,
/^C-'Vv-X
Thomas P. Lowe
J • Lc
TPL:dm
c.c. Russell Baumgardner
William G. Phillips
.!
L
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 5, 1980
The Planning Conunission met on the above date.
Present were the following members: Chairman
Hammerel, Frahm, Jabbour, Hannah and Wilson.
Mabusth represented the City staff.
ATTENDANCE
7:30 P.M.
Hammerel announced the Public Meeting. Mr. and
Mrs. Hepp were present. Mabusth stated she had
the Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of
Mailing. The following residents were present
to address the subdivision application:
BRUCE HEPP
2605 W. Lafayette Rd
Public Info. Meeting
7:30 - 8:25 P.M.
(#545)
1
Tom Lowe, 2630 W. Lafayette Road
Helen Lyman, 2635 W. Lafayette Road
Russ Baumgardner, 2601 W. Lafayette Road
John Hannah, 2607 W. Lafayette Road
A petition was presented to the Planning Commission
by Thomas Lowe with the names of six residents
opposed to the Hepp subdivision. Mr. Hepp presented
a petition signed by four residents in support of
this application. Mr. Lowe and Mr. Hepp designated
on a plat map the location of the lots where each
of the signers reside. It was noted by Mr. Lowe
that of the four_neighbors on the Hepp petition,
not one could see the proposed subdivision lot.
Adams arrived 7:45 P.M.
Mr. Hepp responded to the seven opposing points
cited in the Lowe letter. In summary, Hepp noted
he would not be creating a new riparian lot. As
for the question of 40* frontage on Lafayette Road
serving three residences, he noted Lots A, B and C,
just to the south of the subject area, are served by
approximately 40' of that same cul-de-sac. Lowe
responded by stating that the referenced lots are
served by one driveway where the proposed subdivision
would permit three homes served by two driveways.
Mr. Lowe restated his concern for precedent setting
in the neighborhood and the impending loss of the
integrity of the existing neighborhood.
Hannah, Baumgardner and Lowe agreed they would
disapprove of a subdivision granting both lots
riparian rights and increasing the usage on a bay
that has been deemed environmentally sensitive.
Mr. Hannah stated he was not again: _ the proposed
plat as long as the one lot did not receive
riparian access.
mi m -i
minutes of a planning COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON **AY 5, 1980 - PAGE lA ^
u
B R V C E r. H E P p
excEi*»oR. ®®®®'
Kay 4, 1980
I do not object to Eruce Hepp’s application for a
proposed t«o lot residential subdivision of the
property located at 2605 West l^fayette Road.
Name
IUAU>
Lot #
/ (p
y
itr
* •
MINUTES OF A PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 5, 1980 - PAGE IB
Lyman lumber Company
the professional fiuitilerlsf >f *ne pnnc»»»u'
^ supplif tenter
300 MORSE avenue • MAIUNG address . R* ^ BO
40 • EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331
• telephone 612-47 5991
R. L. OfPAUW
Vicf Pfei'tf4'’l
THOMAS P. lOWE
PreiiOcni
I • •
■
April 28, 1980
TO: The City of Orono Platming Cdranission and Council
RE: BRUCE HEPP PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 9 » 10
SHORE HILLS
The undersigned are opposed to the proposed subdivision of lots
for the following reasons.me TUI lufTI**:! • ^--------- ^ K
Eot 9 has 40 ’ of frontage »",i»^»^,“?harttee';iigU
HSefliSunrSsrng^rs rnt^on a lo. lot.
1 understand that Hr. Hepp's proposal seriMSirg®"''!'™'''*"'"’
lft'u;e%o''I?^oruSerhrreTo\ra«ached to the proposed subdivision.
uiie at one time or another, had or
Almost all ofthe lots in Shore Hills. t single family
ha ” not, a deed restrict on intent of the
dwelling be built »" • ^‘‘se low were, that the area would remain
Srv'owd'w^argt lots with only one house per lot.devoteo eo ---- .
The Hepp property hat only »e s«er and wate^ ^ntVit’would hSve
ti^Sersttti rnrwrr’Jrarrmer date for more .r sections.
” ..._______' rl-iT TnnAlproviucu ----- ^•4 • T
'ptru^t“tnTr«sureruiro ”;‘tii\r"ttw^
pupuioviwM r---------- .
■if this subdivision were granted it "?“l?e“Je%?«e'n?i;\tro?“three
division on other lots subdivided into additional lots.
{flhe Council were to a low SddUional lot subdivision
^”9Tb^sr.:^*^iies granted to Hr. Hepp.
in Liic ^
fesrirreron “t«-
He ask that the Council and Planning Commission deny this app ica ion.
Stneerely ,
j
Thomas P. Lowe
i
-r r>«
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 5, 1980 - PAGE 1C
L
RE: BRUCE HEPP PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 9 & 10
SHORE HILLS
Russell Baumgardnept^wner ot Lot /J , Shore Hills
John Hanna, owner of Lot , Shore Hills
Helen Lyman owner of Lots , Shore Hills
E. S. Dyqert, owner of Lot
' »
, Shore Hills
William 6. Phillips, owner of Lot ••
•
, Shore Hills
Thomas P. Lowe, owner of Lot , Shore Hills
J
MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON >1Ay 5, 1980 - PAGE ID
RE: BRUCE HEPP PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 9 & 10
SHORE HILLS
Russell Baumgardner, ov/ner of Lot , Shore Hills
$«
John Hanna, owner of Lot , Shore Hills
Helen Lymao owner of Lots i :z 1 ^
U ‘ '1 • 6
, Shore Hills
E. S. Dyqert, owner of Lot , Shore Hills
LAd£R>>E_:A .
\ A- ^
, Shore Hills
Thomas P. Lowe, owner of Lot |T , Shore Hills
#
a.
9
* !
h
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 5» 1980 - PAGE 2
Lowe and Baumgardner reflected on the original
restrictive covenants that controlled the area
and the limited density desired.
Hammerel asked Mr. Hepp to review the background
of the "Hannah driveway". He explained that the
easement was created before he was the owner of
the property and that*the 14' easement was created
to allow access for a landlocked parcel created
in a lot line realignment.
<^RUCE HEPP
2605 W. Lafayette Rd
SUBDIVISION
Public Info. Meeting
(#545) Cont.
Hammerel moved to table the application subject to
the applicant submitting a preliminary plan designating
the following:
1.Designate existing structure and setback from
lot lines for both lots.
2.
3.
Access easements - note width of each driveway.
A proposed house site (house to be of comparable
size of others in neighborhood) showing setbacks
from lot lines.
4. Area of each, lot and of each driveway.
Motion secondedTby Jabbour. Vote: Ayes (6)» Nays (0).
Motion passed unanimously.
Dr. & Mrs. Seifert, Roger Freeberg (applicant's
architect), and Curtis Pearson (applicant’s
attorney) were present. Also in attendance
were Woody Taylor, 1880 Shadywood Road, and
Ewald Gustafson, 1890 Shadywood Road.
Mabusth reviewed the application and the
condition agreed upon by commission members
at their last meeting that the lakeshore cabin
would have to be removed before they could
recommend approval of the hardcover variance.
Mr. Pearson represented the applicant and
reviewed the Seifert's position briefly summarized
as follows:
MILTON SEIFERT
UB56 Shadywood Road
VARIANCE
(#548)
1.Proposed project will improve the existing
hardcover condition - reduction from 41% to 32%.
2.Proposed project will improve aesthetics
question of the property and as a result
benefit the neighborhood.
% i •««» ^ • .
i.
TO:
FROM;
Planning Commission and Council
Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator
#576
DATE:August 13, 1980
SUBJECT;#576 Robert & Joanne Mortenson, 3280 Watertown Road
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The applicants have submitted a revised site plan showing the full
extent of the greenhouse operation. The greenhouse will measure
105* X 48* with a future service and office area measuring 30* X 35*
The turnaround area is sufficient to serve the U.P.S. or U.S. Mail
trucks that will service the operation. Overflow parking demands
can be satisfied by the grassed area specified on site plan.
I have enclosed the section of the Comprehensive Plan that deals
with approved non-residential development in the rural areas of
Orono. A review of the land use section of the Comprehensive Plan
may be beneficial when considering this application.
Chief Kilbo's response concerning traffic hazards in subject area:
Kilbo states no matter what limits are set on the commercial activities
on the site, there will be an increase in vehicular traffic and
recommends the access be relocated. An eastern location would allow
a few more seconds for a car to react coming from the west, but the
downgrade of Watertown at that location still creates hazardous
conditions in bad weather. He prefers an access on western edge based on
the improvement bf sight distance and level grade. The new location
would still be visible at the High Lane intersection. Kilbo is not
aware of any accidents along Watertown in that section except for
those involved at High Lane caused by not observing the stop sign.
There have been accidents further west on Watertown on the western
edge of subject curve in a downgrade situation.
The new access will be subject to review by the Public Works Coordinator.
Staff recommendation: To approve a conditional use permit for limited
commercial greenhouse operation at 3280 Watertown Road based on the
following findings:
1. Sufficient area of 6.7 acres.
2. Expanded hobby use - not full-time employment.
3. Compatible use for rural residential Orono in keeping with the
intent of the Comprehensive Plan emd the Zoning Code.
4. No additional burden on existing septic system with greenhouse use.
and subject to the following conditions:
1. All improvements involving greenhouse operation limited to site
plan submitted with #576 conditional use permit application
dated July 28, 1980.
k -
8 J
#576 I
#576 Robert 6 Joanne Mortenson
3280 Watertown Road
Conditional Use Permit
Page 2
a) greenhouse 105' X 48’
b) service and office area 30* X 35'
C, relocateWorks Coordinator s review
d) off-street parkina area (3 parkin, spaces)
_ a
f
i!
19 fi f in area per surface
;ifesn&
t 1 isfced on the enclosed propertyStaff has renotlfied the neighbors liste
owners lists
^ mm^mm •
re I Conditional Use Permit
3280 Watertown Road
#576gust 8. 1980
We have raised orchid plants for “ S2“ha«" sSS?/*"^|nSnSuSrat"^raf lS:a??LrrS/vr J
from our current neighbors concerning this activity.
We would like to construct a growing fdcility as J®^j:5®?rtiicy^*
Attachments. We would ALh^'JlA?! wJ SSild also
which will include several iA thrSrlncipal motivationinitiate a mail order sales program which is the
fScr«s.‘iS“ehlSie Sruok deliveries have been
ure or U.S. Mail type trucks and are very infrequent.
we propose ^^e immediate 48^ft.^greJnhouw'aSri^^O^x 35
However we seek approval for a 105 r -rowina activities. There may
u-so^^^M M :Si«:tTf •'’‘”»g?oiisj“a?;..“%sr.«^7o;§ d3»^
fen or “oU?%rai;?r ^fenrrraSSrrrnSrrr;rrs rrseS for breedln,
and are not for sale.
We have chosen th^ is**a low^profile^structure having a
any high intensity or continuous lighting.
we beleiv. that the »J»ltg»Ji““roir4!“5r?ecSnilSw“ill
rS"lS4n«n? In design. We would Intend to take
advantage of these improvements in future construction.
“• ’'“Sjn^rntienr” we“ai?regular business hours jould not be the best
?AoSe iSJ®SSoiSe Aot to Aake an appointment.
Wholesale vs. retaili We have sold to several retailMinr r^i-norinnrtrortrr »rf?ic
problems.
w^ei'
I)
Products Orchids ar« our primary interest. The only other
plants which we have carried for sale are bromeliads* some
unusual tropical fernst and a few other exotic plants which
are compatible with orchids. We have not sold more than 50
of these combined genera in over two years. We would continue
to offer unusual plants but we do not intend to engage in a
common green plant business.
We beleive this site is well suited for this use. There is ample
off street parking available and a turn around is located near the
house allowing forward entry to Watertown Road by traffic leaving
the premises. If more parking were ne«'<’c'^ in an unusual situation,
adequate overflow parking on lawn also available. The turn
around has a diameter of 51i Feet.
A small sign will be placed at the driveway entrance. The sign
would be appropriate to the setting. The material would be wood with
earth tone stains.
We beleive that this special use is compatible with a residential
area based on our own experience and observation of similar operations
throughout the United States. We respectfully request that you grant
a special use permit for this purpose.
'L
If A —
'TP'^iL, lAJ ^ROPERTY OWNERS LIST - 0/^<^'N O
m
lOVCKNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS^ MN 05487
LIST 9ltAsnn-H
I CeWTIFY THAT TMC FACTS ACFACSCHTeO OK THIS
CCNTIFICATE ARC AH ACCURATE AHO TRUE RERRE-
SCNTATIOH Of IHfORHATlOH AS IT AFRCARt THIS
OATE OH THE RECORDS OF THE HEHHERIH COUNTY
FIHAHCC Division. TO THE BEST OF NY ANOWLCOSC
AHO SEUCF
HCNHCRIH CO. FIHAHCC qiVISION
FEE OWNER
fi. srm
H, J. P/)0)£U~
::^HN {/). koPF
fj)fnn) P.
GRfitm
TAX PAYER/
MAILING ADDRESS
UMmsI ___________
/!
.^4fer
^SffPiL Lrh6/a¥fiPAW X^I7~
S77 '
gUBJg''PRnPEIZT'f
6
r
t*
^1. t T-a J
LAND USE JUNE, 1980
0R(»10 EXPECTS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN BOTH THE URBAN AND THE RURAL PORTIONS
OF THE CITY. The urban area is expected to have new residential development
on the existing vacant lots and undeveloped parcels similar to the forms of
development projected for the eloser-in suburbs. Economic development will
likely be limited to neighborhood services in the existing Navarre Area and
fuller utilization of the industrial potential near Long Lake. Overall
urban density will remain relatively low because of the ecological
considerations of proximity to Lake Minnetonka.
The rural area is expected to have continued residential development at a
steady pace. Non-residential development'will likely be limited to quasi-
aqricultural uses such as greenhouses, truck farms and open space recreAxion.
Nith the large percentage of wetlands, steepslopesand public openspace,
the gross developed density is expected to be about 1 unit per 7 acres
with the net developed density not less than 1 unit per 2 acres of dry-
buildable land, this being determined on a detailed review of Individual
site conditions.
RECENT CHANGES IN NATIONAL PRIORITIES, POPULATION TRENDS, METROPOLITAN
PLANS AND METROPOLITAN FACILITIES REINFORCE THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
OBJECTIVES OF ORONO. The 1950*s and 1960*s were years of great expansion
and reliance upon the powers of science and industry to solve all problems.
Population graphs showed growth projections running off the paper. Suburbs
boomed while core cities were fighting for their very survival.
The 1970*s brought a new environmental awareness and an understanding that
nature, not science was the key to our planet's survival. New.social
concerns revived thej cities and showed how characterless the suburbs had
become. Inflation and population stabilization brought unlimited expansion
to a halt as roads, schools and all public services began scrambling for
maintenance dollars while over-built facilities quickly became terrible
taxpayer burdens. The cost of energy is dramatically refocusing everyone's
attention on conservation and careful planning of any new facility.
The results of these changes on the Twin Cities region and on Orono are
significant. Orono's ultimate population projections have been dropping
from estimates of 37,000 made in 1970, to 23,000 in 1972, to 14,000 in
1974, to the Metropolitan Council's most recent figure' of 11,000 made in
1979. This figure is very close to our existing population of 7,300, and
is still probably high considering the new energy problems and our recent
growth trends, and would be easily obtainable within our existing zoning
densities.
cm or owmo - roruLMTioM moncriONS
FOFULATION rOMCASTS NOUSCNOLO rORCCASTS
YIAR 1970 19i0»1990 3000 SATURATION 1970 1990*1990 3000 SATURATION
Urban Arna 4140 4250 5130 5900 7200 1400 1450 1740 2000 2400
Rural Area 2437 1040 3220 1440 1900 744 990 1040 1190 1247
rOTAL CITY 4797 7390 0140 9540 11000 2144 2410 3790 1190 1447
•ifto EmtimMtm, to hm v«rifi«d by census in pwoqwmmm
Sourcni 1970 Cnnsusi 1900 City Rncordsi 1990-Saturntion*
City nnd Mntropolitnn Council Froloctions 1-31*71
•h'8
-aY r'-*v
RBAN AND THE RURAL PORTIONS
/e new residentiel development
reels similar to the forms of
B. Economic development will
the existing Navarre Area and
near Long Lake. Overall
Be of the ecological
esidential development at a
likely be limited to ctuasi-
arms and open—ao^ace rec^eax^on
lopes and public open space«
about 1 unit per 7 acres
unit per 2 acres of dry-
ailed review of individual
tON TRENDS« METROPOLITAN
E PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
re years of great expansion
lustry to solve all problems,
nning off the paper. Suburbs
ir very survival.
s and an understanding that
survival. New social
acterless the suburbs had
brought unlimited expansion
ices began scrambling for
quickly became terrible
ically refocusing everyone's
of any new facility.
\m region end on Orono are
actions have been dropping
lOO in 1972, to 14,000 in
it figure' of 11,000 made in
,ng population of 7,300, and
>rgy problems and our recent
within our existing zoning
NOUSENOLO rORCCASTS
f70 IftO*1990 3000 SATUItATION
400 I4S0 1740 3000 3400
740 900 1040 1100 1347
144 3430 3700 3100 3447
on*
LAND USE PLANNING
ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF ORONO
r.O. Bom M. Cryttml B«y. Mlnnwocm 5S323 473-7357
KTtUCTlCMS* M«m»« iirtt r#«d tht ottacKed Inforoailoo Sheet. C^lcta Iteoa * "
dl^^lbe not*bi\ne5ted.
list of EXHIBITS =
PeacrlDtlon
APPLICANT r.m. 6^^^*—5^2^——
MelllnB Addr... 3CpgS
Initial ApDlicaticii
■uat iMiuda:
I ^ Appllcatloo form
M AppUeanC la oo* «mmar, Ifplala —
CJkeUrt#! P.
^ Property Oanera List
^ Certlllcata of Sorva^
l/' Fee Becalpt #
Data MMlved
Date Property Acquired ^ 17 ^-----°tT.er parcels of land|
Flume
AGENT ---------------
Staff InPoreotioa
A Plat Map
5 Inventory
B ^ Staff
Other InfoioatloB
/7^
Flro
IWlllaB Addraaa
NOTICES Should ha aant «o; .JSL. Applicant
PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT
7 ___
B Ir^MM f
10 ^
Oimcr
PRESENT USE
Vacant land Vacant Bulldln«<a) -------- Oceupl.d BulldlngC)
describe request est^ted constouction <»st
__ aatahllah naa uaa _ contlnua or ampand^omlatlnB «-• _ build nau add oo ^ rano
Describe request li. detail: JN* * VU,r>^«X-
9. VARIANCE(S) REQUIRED t« d. the r.,u..t.d uorti:
JC S«tV«ck i ^rtmt
^fiTvn
^<wci*72a.
Lot Width IUrdcopv«r
Side
XO. Bescrlbe ~
^^l^fec^UE^RoSIlP or PRACTICAL DIFFKmTY -ui-. *-strict ctifore«u«*»t of Rooioft
Qhby
12. Describe EFFECT OF PROPOSED WORK .. l. .-"»u
yU AtCalT*1/7/fI gy_____
yy|6/ci> Tvbtp^ ^
The APPLICANT and th^ P^Projf
the wruiCAin hereby ajr... to P^^ .........................*’‘11the APPLlCAXr herccy agreee «. f**"
reoutred or e«|ueeted by the lonlnB AAnlnl.trator, ag^e.
t^pay all feaa and/or taiuaiMl aapeneea .
of 1*1. applleation. and certlfle* th.t the
•upplled 1. to.e end eorr.et to the beat of hi. kno-ledge.
^nd further aoti»pl«e« reasonabla entry onto the pre^rty
by City eteff. eoneultante, agenta, co^laalon oeonera,
•nd Council ncahrra lor purposes of Investlg*«i<»« •"
verification of this rMUSsf::pj?..d*?r. “e :::r::r.o .^e b..* d hi. kno-l.dg.: v.nfU.Uon of thl. ey V
^6
HC 1233 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST - PHf^vl O
6epartmcnt of finance
A-60S GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487
LIST Size
^RON 0-^==^
AHACCUyeJ^O TRitf
I CCNTIPV THAT
CCRTIfICATE AHE
SENTATION OP IMPONMATIO||;:^IT AP^Ci'^Rt
DATE ON THE RECORDS OP THE HENNEPIN CO
PINANCE DIVISION, TO THE REST OP MT
AND RELIEP.
HENNEPIN CO. PINANCE
OATE
FEE OWNER TAX PAYER/
MAILING ADDRESS
SKl^HeEC-3^76
GumiSLrr
m. HmjG> f^iuJ/hP) ^^7^ N^mf<:kAan>e u
H 5guff.7^£cr •RRORagT"!
e^!(-rt 3
WS
Plat of Survej'
Gena S. Jloae
of lets 6‘lc 7( CTTBtal Feacb -
and part of Lot 2, Crystal Day Viaw
Hennepin County, Kinnaeota
#578
^<»cTu^
P^totU,.C.CC€S
I haraty cerH^ that thf^jJ^T^truo and correct raprosantation of a sxirray
of the boundarlaa ofS^^a 6 and^^Crystal Baach; all of Lot _2, Block 1, Crystal
Stay View, Uennapin County^^Unnaeota,Vxcapt that part of aald U>t 2 aahreced In
Lot 7 of rrystal Beach, andol^^a location of all bnildirfge. If opy» thereon, and
all '^aihla ancroachments. If an^^^'ftom or on said land.
Vdjccfttn YWA
Scale! 1* = 30*
Ihte « ft-21-73
o t Iron narkor
Cordon H Coffin Reg. Me. 6064
land Surveyor and Planner
Long Lake, !*lmesota
-r-k ' -rt. j ^J
y
<■■%■
® ^5
CITY OF ORONO
land use planning
ZONING VARIANCE INVENTORY
exhibit 5
VARIANCES REQUIREP
density Mfimiuw Xt’JUIKgP i>CTU»l.
jt/ 7f<y ^ , 3iiL_s£»-
j. S'* ^col-—. —------------Lot IflAUl . / ^ i % -------------------r*-
l«SETBACKS_ »iK.HUM REQuiijg S15Z2HC
pworosCD vxwixHcr.
^nng SCCTIQI
|M«r
to »i«g.
Lftli«shor«
if«tipv»a«
75 Ft-
!LL ajL
at rt..
I hardcover
j„^ O > 7* rt.. «
o - »» »^- ®*
iiAk* 75 - 750 r«.. as*
ludi. 350 - 500 rt. 30*
t«k« 500 - lOOO rt. 35*
LOT A«A
•rli---------
PtmUTTCB
hxadcovu
__
CXISTLKC
|tXIO>COVEX
FROPOSCO /
Jt F.
54^3^4
A ts6 .^66 ------------
ccoc^scQiS!
>i.gn
34.701
34.101
34.101
34.101
I OTHER SECTIONS yQoai«^
iMliain* 0.i*»«* !•««•> ------------
0
I r.ski«o (Hij».) ■
PtlSTPtC
£SS_S£E£I21.
LAND
DIVISICM:J/plot
unplottoO € loll
J.nu.T7
Torockkm. wi—- .r...
_____ .IMP .lop.. ------- ®p"* •* .
0OCIIAM7 .If.ckln* •PP33
lot ala./ak«pa>
Biypatc.l. par .ppllcatio.
vacant _VL *»«___. vac»..» - occvplaO . — aaa. cm jM. .ppllcatlon
•cparato owr*«r«7ilp
_ M,b yrounO _____ 1«»«1 9*o<^ -------- rollln* kill"
0 ■ ' " ------------
____»<oodaa .raa.
I^unuaual lot .hap. unuaual toutldlng location
^ Bvt4*H okAlaKliDrliood d«v«lo»»ontictinf appll^kSont
'ahapat conalatant
UriLlTUSi ei*y •.ia'a~tto9 einionaino
••ptir •y«t«o-------p»wi«
■URl lOl -K-.------------------------
lj»co^l»t«nt vlOi noigHborhood d«v«lopi«nt
county/»t»t*
connoetod: City wRtor
privRto
cmlfif
U^NP USE
Si^joct l0t is -----
existing 1-SND use
pxorosAi. sffscts
^co«fo™ln, naa
2^;»U.clpal _____ accaaaor, koll-in, or .a.
conditions! os#non>oonf» <<«i^ sss
STRUCTURES
existing SOItOlNGS
a. not cooply «l«* ronlnp parformanea atandarda
pa,t..««.— - - - - -
p«m»JO.»m. ------>5tUal» I®, k-liain, or -a.
'**1- Vm Sp*«1«^ wilatin* leoat laa. th«. 50* TIN}
■Ilatino kalldln* FAI* »*k«*7 VkU* »ir«) --------- •------------------
.UI •" --batandarO yard dloan.io.
TOTAL !
a/ji------------- «.»n
»4.aM
frQ ^M.aoa
34.202 _
M.Ml
EXHIBIT 6
•age 1
t\JlO
Hennepin Cty. DOT
Hinn. Stetn DOT
Minn. DNK
MCWD
LHCD
.^trt eta
Page 2
LAND USE PLANNING
STAFF COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
SUGGESTED FINDINGS
4.
4.
in Which ..ia i»f>a 1. ioc.t«a» w
conaition. .ppiyio,«~‘oa'::““‘-c::r:rin'^riii:t,ict i«
iiMdieitly *urrounding property out oo .fh y -if
Which ••ia !• loc»t«d.
✓ rrzTrziv.iz“"r~...w., -p.-.».
or 9«n«r*l %#elf*r«: 0»
_ ,r.ntin, oi th. .......................... -y i»p.ir th. puhiic h..ith. ..Ccy. confoct. or
j/i v.ri.nc. -m not h. contr.ry to th. int.nt oi th. Con,pr.h.n.iv.
_ v.ri.nc. .0-,- h. co„tr.ry to th. int.nt o, th. Co«pr.h.n.iv. iona «..
" Z^otZrZi,,^ -i« not ner.ly ..rv. .. . conv.ni.nc. to th. .PpUent. hut i. n.c....ry
SL::.tr.t.a h.ra.h»p. or atific-Ui..: Oh
,i t h.. a«»n.tr.t.a no r.co,ni..a h.ra.hlp or difficulty .nd th.r.for. th. ^.ntln,
I^it^i^ia 1-r.ly ..rv. .. . cor.v«,i.nc to .uch .pplic«t.
i. not n.c..».ry lor th. pr...rv.tion .nd .njoyi»nt of
■^1
i whoa,
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. 9* V*' 11*-
4.
s.
mm
l^.t f
■• « -*r.i------
t i
* !
I * I ••^.1^ I ••
— — - 1-------__________________________________________.
■IS^fc
f
- \
•L U1L Ip
1
i
1
j____Li:.
1 *'
•T 0.
%
- I..A
i i
1 *» 4^
*----------------------r-==3
•
• ' . * *fc / 1
•• •
f •
i •
• *
. .'
1 ■* 1
• 1 • ,
• ft# .
* ;
- • •i •
»
1
•
1 • • m
...
• . r
*f.
■1 L-J...VJ
II * 5 =■. . :J /\ = :
• :-^iii •
I
TO;
FROM;
DATE;
Planning Commission and Council
Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator#568
August 14, 1980
SUBJECT ;«568 Daryle Uphoff, 2497/99 and 2501/03 Kelly Avenue
SUBDIVISION
WORK SESSION - SUBDIVISION/P.R.D
list OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 - Review (Sketch Plan Memo dated June 20, 1980)
Exhibit 2 - Applicant's 4 lot plat
Exhibit 3 - Applicant's letter
Exhibit 4 - RLS-1428
Exhibit 5 - Navarre Cove Plat
Exhibit 6 - Staff's sketch of PRD application
HISTORY OF LAND USE APPLICATIONS FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY
2^975 - Subdivision ~ 4 lot residential RLS 1428 subject property
Lot 1 totaled 3>s acres (see Exhibit 4)
1977 - PRD Application - allowed six residential units on 3% acre lot
- in LR-IB District under duplex credit section
of Ordinance.
1979 - Subdivision/PRD - 3 lot plat (Navarre Cove) each duplex allotted
1 acre - PRD for each individual lot (see
. Exhibit 5).
1979 - Sketch PleUi (Subdivision/PRD) for Lot 3, Navarre Cove - zero
lot line - owner occupied units
not completed.
1980 - Current Subdivision/PRD - application for Lot 1 and Lot 2
Navarre Cove - zero lot line - owner
occupied units - Staff advised applicant
to proceed with formal subdivision
application.
August 14, 1980
#568 Oaryle Uphoff
2497/99 & 2501/03 Kelly Avenue
SUBDIVISION
Page 2
7 r.
T # • • • ^
I
* -,fc• » ^
• »
The Zoning Administrator was asked to review the claim that a PRD
Subdivision would retain the integrity of the Code. Please review
the following section of the Ordinance No. 34.029:
34.029. Duplex Credit. One duplex may be located on
a single lot as a conditional use upon application
therefor provided that public sanitary sewer service
is available, and the lot is adjacent to a commercial
or industrial district, and the duplex is constructed
within 200 feet of the commercial or industrial dis->
trict. A duplex is defined as a two-family unit reri-
dential building.
The two duplexes are located within 200* of the commercial district.
Property is located within the LR-IB zoning district requiring 1 acre
minimum lots. LOt 1, Navarre Cove, has 62,000 s.f. and Lot 2, Navarre
Cove, has 47,000 s.f. A PRD application in which a zero lot line will
create four owner-independent-residential units maintaining the required
open space area credited to each duplex will maintain the integrity of
the Code.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
#568Planning Conunission and Council
Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator
June 20, 1980
#568 Daryle L. Uphoff, 2497/99 & 2501/03 Kelly Avenue
SUBDIVISION
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
Subdivision: 4 lot plat
Zoning District: LR-lB Required - 1 acre minimum
Proposed - 1/2 acre minimiun
The applicant proposes a four lot plat of Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1.
Navarre Cove. The purpose of the subdivision is to create owner
occupied units. In dividing the lots in half to create the homestead
parcels, the applicant also creates substandard lots. Each lot would
contain a 1/2 acre as opposed to the required 1 acre. I reviewed the
City s concern with this type of division and suggested a PRD concept -
line through duplex structure retaining 10' patio area within
retaining c^on open area. In this type of proposal,
the integrity of the zoning district is maintained and the need for an
area variance is eliminated. Uphoff advises that mortgaae companies-
consider lending mortgage money to proposed buyers of units
” lots of such minimal area (see Uphoff letter of June 13, 1980).
Please review the proposed plat. The following options are presented
for Planning Commission consideration: ^
1.
2.
3.
Rezone to LR-lC (1/2 acre minimum) - maintain integrity of the
code “ no variance required with the subdivision.
0
Retain LR-IB zoning - approve plat as submitted - grant variance
for lot area based on lending institution position on minimal lots
^2.0 argipent of the existing duplex stFuStures siijnTng
zero lot line ovmership will be strong enough to fight off future
developers seeking similar concessions.
r~
•• • • mV. i * 0 »\
•.. • -• •• • . . .c. . •^1:*y
dUkJt
NAVARRE
^ ^ /O! Q
COVE it o o o
SCALE M rctT ‘ **—'CORDON N. COFFIN
LAWO ftU«tVtTO«S • CMCIMCCAS
tOMC lam . MMMCiOrA
I'J
•'I
1
</«
.i
ir
PFo*PAVCb SkeX>iu IS <0 w
<r
Di
^.yLu(-3
•"■• ;"n?i
nr:
i i' 1
v*->
June 13* 1980
CITV;. Ofv
oo
Jean Mabusth
Orono City Hall
Post Office Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Dear Jean:
Enclosed is a sketch plan of the proposed subdivision of
Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1, Navarre Cove. As you will recall. Lot 3,
on which the old duplex is located, has been sold. I would like to
subdivide Lots 1 and 2.
As I have indicated to you earlier, I would like to subdivide
Lots 1 and 2 as indicated by the red dotted lines on the attached
survey. Lot 1 is presently 1-1/2 acres; Lot 2 is 1 acre. In brief,
I £un requesting that the lots be divided in half. As you know, the
buildings are constructed so that they may be easily divided.
The reason.that I am requesting that the lots be subdivided is
that we desire to have each unit owner-occupied. You indicated at
one time your preference for zero lot-lining the property in order
that the units could be separately owned but that the area surrounding
the units be common grounds. Although I have no objection to that
procedure, I cun informed by various mortgage companies and savings
and loans institutions in this area that they would not consider
lending mortgage money to proposed buyers of units which were zero
lot-lined on any project of such small magnitude. They would, of
course, provide mortgage .oney if the proposed purchaser was also
buying the lot on which ct o building was located.
I would appreciate it if you would review the proposed sketch
plan with the Planning Commission and/or the City Council prior to
the filing of our formal subdivision application. I would like to
stress that the principal reason, indeed the only reason, for
requesting the subdivision of lots as shown on the survey that I
have attached rather that zero lot-lining is the very practical one
of obtaining mortgages for prospective purchasers.
*
II
Jean Mabusth
Jtine 13, 1980
Page Two
Should you have any questions about this proposal, please
feel free to contact Jim Lindsay, Dan Lindsay or myself.
I have enclosed our check in the amount of $50 payable to
the City of Orono.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
G
Daryle L. Uphoff
DLU:erg
Enclosure
s proposalr please
or myself.
of $50 payable to
covttif moa» *h> **
I I
#310
“ titlly fio-*
y.
\
U#.#We*
,f » .»• ••
,ji k J-
► ^ '
#5 $8
/m '{
#
/
\
L—
.,. # .#•*•• • V;
4y.
y
PROPOsea SUBDIVISION fon^
DAN!£L T. LINDSAY \
w lots IS’lS.BL.e.LANSOON PANIC
"Sw •»■•
-VI >v *>*•- . .r. -CwOfO.^9
............ .t. --«^ „ ,,,, >..•.. o-.
, - tl. .••• • .,,.... H ' «*'• i "••’ ” •■ “' • • ■
- . . I> J! .• .• ® •.•/ I
• ••
COBOOHr
SCALC ’ *" ' *NO
DAT£ • t
OATUtt: NS AH S£A L£V£L
IdHO 3«^v/»v» ' nAHM€A
LOMA l^se. V^ ^rSOTA
i:^4Uct
t310
^/4</
D’(>p«r«^ ^
*7^#^-7^ *
1 " #4* My
>Sik4
M A
CS3Bi<y
#5 $8
^ \
... .,n^-::
* ... j £^l-re- -• •
ir • •■'» • ^ .• -
->o: ou ,'. r- W
r^- • ••
• •
Lmjry
,:;vonir'ccun.v, lirn.r-^-
1 ^.‘ - -f
I; * i-"..
soooo
#448
» «V U
T7.
'jr\ >1
/
• d
-io/,\ v,
4£,!>oot9^\
\y$i
V «\
\\.
V •!
-A .^y,/>po*»f
• •
. • •
.if
.*
<1 • •• '
I\ ‘y
Koo K?y
\
;4« K ■N
tc*i
Oocks
5£ s
1 ^
:Lo/r*
% ^
\'
\
i:.!tvjJ
/,
* *
»t ' •
ti‘8fc'€ *1
7
alii
}i.//■/>■
a.40«- I ^
Kjbr-i y.
y
L 'i' >
.0
}y Tr <• f
' • tj.
:‘.'rT.v pi
,urv>,.. •l;.2£
.v:‘. w.’
:C. I
: :
*La1 ^ •
.:>U >.<:'.r.i
Ici*.
,..\ i:wxe y.^
T*—r.To:
c;vii f
ft r.:.j. rc
• Bench »laTtc:or CO, Vr..
.,0,1.: 1” ' I"-'
Lr.te :
• *•%•••'rt/CT* 21»‘^
Lon. •^•- .
#44:8
-
r
\^' -hAi\4
1
///
;^£, ril*:'-- '‘-c i.>-tr"
.ell.. ♦
:U ,
^ . rl ,
• - . . ' u' «
. flush with iTO'f-^f
sit^ of Lnr.e=3*» ‘‘'■*“**
191-^
r
^ri.-r. ••• ' ;;i. * . rl-r.r.er
^ :.%4 - -
* 1. ‘^'ir.r*
ir.
t^r, a At/>>r
r^. ro:‘ei Sul'Ci'’::
'o-- K'’'!1 v rtvenue l-ir/lcx.'-:
OT r .1-• *•,’ , ,. ^«,i ♦, -••* *•'
A •«.. '*1 c t ^*reu ‘
• U. CcunM.
I Aitchun/ ^
#44^
fieute^Y
fCw
•"i -
-- «5
- “ *S . ,
n • •V
%
8
' 4'
% %a®#.;
r
:\
!>' 1
✓ll/«K /</
• < . i»’
\
\
'.1%
‘-•.V
<•'s..\* •
V
* t
I ^
\
I >• ,» I
L r^<^i i-‘t
1» ,Af VeMiMTtW
J-
?2CC
pocki
S<3’
1/T' Vi* *'•"'■•
t ■• •■ ■; . • ’• •
• • • • • w
. i- :
V>:
••■•./ * • ..*■
, ' > ' ' '.••/• ■'*• *'^
./ t ^>'1^ I
N 8fc* T/ij '
fiitruA
c-cr- . - h ‘
,.rr. ‘pi>' ' •
r. '5.
^ •
\
y\i'\ t®,, ^ /
^‘'*cV //
i/lPc,lor. ■•‘.Jk' -'^
C-»t ‘‘.V ’
lt(?r.cte K.ttT'<5
-:l-.l'. c, •• ‘-•rr.-ui.. -------- - .., .i...4.--.
Ho.-L,- .vc:.;.. '
V..
_ - . . • • •;..• VI. ..^ > — ’••■ •" ‘ *» r i 1- • u#*. V I* •
, . Hush wiUi iTPur.::, at
Li^Yntlc? -
2.V r inc'
.-r3-7e
^r- r. :.. . ...
^ .i— ‘ - “
• « • ' Irr. : o -^ * •
#44
L
k/
. f
W+C/ ur
V fc 4f V«ihoir«e/
is
«'k
i r
'rt 'uf^o )>/
> //Jf
. ..v-.:**i »/Ir^-r.
: ;i i.wTc .
-h vit:; ♦T3-^^- V» a*-
of LiWirisf*
- :ilr
c r -
' , . Vrr. : -
.r- f* •••
#5 ’?^
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission and Council
Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator
August 14» 1900
i579 Fred S. Harvev. 3580 Wayzata Boulevard
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
review of APPLICATI^
^ - 34 032 Farms (Crop) provided area
conditional Use Permit Z'r:l lores
Accessory Uses
34.047 Roadside Stands - One roadside^stan^ ““mUM
for sale only farm ^ exceed 200 s.f. m
Sft !r?sn“tttrat least 30 feet bacK from
the public right of way.
Tt ^ibe Cirsren!' Ihe . f P^Xd^^hifrelr
“tgf^hrrSuefartSe Highway _ 12 l“*ti°^i„^and“ofa«rapproxim.tely
gnio^fomTirKibeen designated on:the site pia
is via the private driveway.
Additional information necessary for complete review:Additionax
1. Does someone live in the t««snce_^OT the Pt°P«^„^ ,„^ufy
SSSefrcesloirSS se^ctiony
- Te^s ?^Sro “rrrairofTrod^" S- L
another site?
S^^Urospir ’tSrn?? '■sriSs?TavfI tlT^oT<Xn\lT.
.^^^^SSo^Snnesota
Land Use Applicy^^^
Mdtess ^
M m ^ ^ mr M i
Ijegal Desc
applicant
Mailing
Address
xp=7?xm.
V 1 *^«
ry
' XT' /2VV^^/yf^'
fLICATION
Review $50
e"*Subdivision
$150 + $10/Lot
$50
Rezoning $250
- - vacation $10p (Minimum)
Date Rec d—/"S.- - - --
By ^1 <y - ^- - - - - -- ■
Present Use
zonln, crainance Section KeUtin, to Revest .
specify ordinance Requirements
Explain your ^ ^
T. 7 -*- n A_ /> ■
li.L
7^
VARIANCE required - extent
Tr\¥. Area __ _ _1^4—
Rear
Specify hardshx]
Other, explj
>erty
subdivisio n Tippl .cation isidential in - -
No. of I^ts
- »»■*■ --- ■■•-—■'' -..........“
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
, r ^eTuWttr lo“ayf“
(Must DC S _ _,^4esr4 Prooertv O-nc
Application completed
S“i«ca:rof Lrvey of property
SHch location and setbacks of
SnHroction plans, if applicable
6.
Hennepin Co. Dept, of Finance
A-603 Government Center i4kM\\
stamped, legal
pre-addressed to each of the names
on the above list ^
liters IOJT c^c.Hf^e^Q JT
#5*7®
/ "s 30o'ftf’P(ioY.,
r.■^. r.
A
p 'Try'ir,' / v ^ •^'
L% jrhsm \} ±fy. j:
MAPLE PLAIN. MINNESOTA 55391 • 479-3186
BUUC ▼ DIAMOND
APPRAISALS
Ms. Jean Mabusth
Orono Zoning Administrator
Dear Ms. Mabusth,
August 13, 1980
This letter is to request a meeting with the Orono Planning
Commission in order to present our plans for property located
on Highway 12 - previously owned by Phyllis Wheately Foundation.
The basic plan is to establish an apple orchard and produce
farm on the location, and market the produce from the barn on
the property in addition to a customer-pick concept on the
farm.
Until the orchard is producing, we would bring the apples to
our barn from our Fireside I Orchard in Kilkenny, Minnesota.
The apples would be marketed in the late summer and fall of
each year.
The basic concept would be a pick-your-own or sort-your-own
apple and garden produce marketing program providing low - -
cost produce~to Twin City area residents. He would maintain
attractive grounds catering to familys who want to do some
of the work*<o help lower their food costs.
We want to start this fall with a sort-your-own market and '
provide pick-your-own as soon as the trees bear fruit.
•
We hope this gives you enough information to schedule a meeting
with the planning commission. If you need more information please
call Fred Harvey at A79-2AA8.
Sincerely, /
Fireside II Orchard